Document talk:Field Manual 30-31b

It's most likely genuine. The deep state routinely declares leaked documents for forgeries, most recently the Integrity Initiative leaks. Also a number of other interesting documents. Terje (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree. What would be a good value to set as a "|constitutes" I wonder, so we can collect them all on one page. Something like "document of disputed authorship/veracity", but rather more succinct. It would be good to see all the purported forgeries on one page to give context, similarly to "Missing documents". -- Robin (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Are there other documents like this on Wikispooks? I can't think of any from the top of my head.

Terje (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Disputed documents

Well of course we have the Integrity Initiative leaks, which as you reminded me were alleged to be forged, I don't think with much vehemence (but this is probably worth a page, say Integrity Initiative/Leak/Authenticity, not least since you worked so hard to document them all). Another document that springs to mind is Document:The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Is there any uncertainty about the inauthenticity of the Zinoviev Letter? Our article doesn't acknowledge that. Nothing else springs to mind, but there may be one or two. -- Robin (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a document the CIA claimed was a forgery in Document:Iraq 1990-91. And likely in Kanzlerakte. There is a - real - forgery in Forged 2022 Rand report.

The easiest solution would be "ON_constitutes=" (not yet implemented for documents) and redirect them to the forgery page.

Terje (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I like that idea. It's simple and effective. I'll add it to Template:Document. -- Robin (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)