Talk:2005 Quran desecration controversy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:27, 22 June 2005 editCommodore Sloat (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users13,928 edits →Pundits punted ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:10, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk \| contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,076 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2]
(295 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	]
			{{controversial}}
	]
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	]
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Islam\|importance=Low}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
			\|counter = 4
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:2005 Quran desecration controversy/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
			}}

	== Ed ~~and~~ ~~Brandon~~ ==		== External links modified ==
	Hate to do your work for you Ed, but please take this dispute between the two of you to your own talk pages.

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:Oh, I don't mind. I woulda done it myself, only Brandon seems to take umbrage at my page moves, text moves, refactorings, etc. Sometimes the food taste better when a different waiter puts the food on your plate. Thanks, Kizzle. ] ] 21:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	::No prob :) --] 22:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050709021535/http://www.newyorker.com:80/online/content/articles/050711on_onlineonly01 to http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/050711on_onlineonly01

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
	== Wikepedia Desacration of 2005 ==

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=true}}
	How easily virtues becom vices. This article is exhibit A for why any entry with ''controversy'' in title is more likely to continue the controversy than explain it. There's not even the slightest attempt at arriving at consensus in either the article or the discussion.
	In my opinion this article, as well as the one about desecration of the koran by prisoners, deserve to be folded into the Camp Xray article.

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 08:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
	:Sounds like you have some creative input as to the direction of this article... you might want to be a bit more specific in what passages are "bad" (concensus is not a term generally used for the content of an article, but rather the process of editing the article). --] 16:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
	::My probem is not with any one "passage" of this article, but with the article as a whole. I was very clear about what I thougth should be done with it. I feel the only reason it exists in this form is because its fans wish to have a smaller more like-minded audience to contend with. The spin-off of that sort of thing is further crap like ]. IMO, this kind of stuff should be reserved for the Yahoo message boards. As far as consensus in the article goes, I see your point. However, when every sentence in the article begins with "many people claim that..." or "some argue that..." or "it is alleged that.." it indicates to me that nobody can think of anything to say that can be in anyway defended as a fact. In other words, a good article should try to present some generally agreed upon facts.

			== External links modified ==
	:::So far, the most specific you have been about changing this article is that it "deserve to be folded into the Camp Xray article." If you disagree with the entire article, than surely it shouldn't be hard to start with a few specific passages and mention specifically what needs to be changed. All major changes in life start with a few small steps. --] 21:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::::I don't see what's so vague about folding the article into Camp XRay. If rec'd it for deletion, should I have to edit it as well? This article should simply give the who what when about the allegations and their substantiation. It's important information regarding the whole detention issue. Perhaps an account should go in the Newseek entry as well. However, this bulk of this entry is made up of citations from various "pundits" about who fault was it that there were riots in pakistan, etc. I mean look at his passage:
	:::::James Jaffer, an attorney working for the ACLU, was quoted by the New York Times as stating that errors in the Newsweek story had been used to discredit other investigative efforts conducted by his organization and other groups "that were not based on anonymous sources, but government documents, reports written by FBI agents."
	::::Jeez, this is all jsut speculation couched in quoting others. It's a bad enough practice in journalism (and part of the reason Newsweek got into this mess) but it has no place here. Like I said it only happens because the author can't personally vouch for a particular claim, but they desparately want to make it. So they just make the "neutral" observation that so-and-so beats his wife. I mean nobody can deny that that guy said John Kerry shot himself for a purple heart, right?
	::::But again, my main objection to this article is that its (unintuitive) status as a separate entry outside of the main Camp Xray article, is itself merely an attempt for the author(s) to exercise their own strong biases about current events. ] 00:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	:::::Sorry, but that is ridiculous, Axamoto. This issue has been in the mass media all over the world, has been addressed by serious reporters as well as pundits and government spokespersons of all political stripes. This has nothing to do with anyone's "bias"; it is a real issue that has clearly established significance. Folding it into the Xray article is preposterous. First, the reports of Quran desecration are not just from Gitmo but also from US prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq. Second, the issues are different here. This is not just about gitmo but more generally about the way the US has chosen to fight the war on terror, and the public perception in the Muslim world about whether or not this is a "war against Islam." These are significant issues in their own right, beyond the issue of human rights and gitmo. Finally, your quote above disproves your own point. The quote specifically cites reports that were "'''not''' based on anonymous sources" and in fact confirmed by US government agencies. You cannot demand that an encyclopedia entry on a significant topic be deleted just because it raises issues uncomfortable for your own political perspective. --] 03:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	::::::I feel either you don't get my point, or we have fundamentally different ideas about what should be in an encyclopedia, or both. The fact that something appears in mass media does not suffice to make it worhty of an entry. Should we have an entry on "Jay Leno's Appearance at the Michael Jackson Trial"? It's sad to say that this event got almost as much coverage as the one at issue here.
	::::::Your admission that this article is really "about" something else is damning. As they say, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. How the US has fought the war on terror is (in the moral/political sense, which is what I assume you mean) is not a subject for encyclopedia entry, and the use of wikipedia to further some polemic against the war on terror is what offends me about this entry.
	::::::As far as my own political perspective goes, it's the exact opposite of what you seem to assume it is. Personally, I tend to be (a little) more disgusted by this kind of bs from people whose political values I share than from those on the other side. Also I feel a little odd arguing these points with someone who believes that an article they've never even read should be deleted.13:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)]
	:::::::What the hell are you talking about? In what way is this article a polemic about the gwot? My point is that this event is about an important moment in the gwot, not that it is some kind of political platform. As for deleting the other article, I did read the article, and I think it should be deleted because it was created to make a point, which is against Misplaced Pages policy. I know that because I was part of the discussion on this page that led a user to create the article. If you think this issue is of the same significance as something Jay Leno did, you need your head examined. And you better re-read the article here if you think it is some kind of anti-American rant.--] 17:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	:What article about desecration by prisoners? If such an article exists it should probably be deleted. --] 17:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929135650/http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/search/searchdetail.php?r=2694&q=++KORAN++TOILET\| to http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/search/searchdetail.php?r=2694&q=+%2BKORAN+%2BTOILET\|

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
	:: ] by Ed Poor. -- ] 19:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=true}}
	:::Axamoto, just out of curiosity, how long have you been a Wikipedian? And why the hesitation about signing your post (or, for that matter, creating your userpage)? Your comments will have more credibility here if you actually sign them with a valid username. ] 19:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	::::Are you familiar with the expression ]? I really don't see what my name or profile have to do with any of this. As for signing my post, I wasn't really aware I needed to. Suppose I were to give you my home phone number, would that satisfy your "curiosity" to the point where you might want to defend this lousy article? Please tell me why this matters to you so much. Use my talk page if you want.

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 09:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Sure, I know what an ] is, Axamoto -- and I hope you don't think I was guilty of this logical fallacy. I wasn't trying to attack anything you said by passing judgment on you as a person, just sharing a note that might help people from mistaking you for some other anonymous user (and thereby make more sense of your suggestions over time). I'm still not sure why you think the article is "lousy," but if you have specific ideas you'd like to share about how to improve it, it will be easier to tell who's talking if you sign your posts. ] 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	::::::Yusuf, given the fact that you are currently in mediation on a page related to this topic, it might be a gesture of good faith to avoid edits here for a while. ] ] 00:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:::::Absolutely, Ed. Check the timestamps and you'll see I have been honoring our agreement. ] 02:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	*Well this is certainly an odd gripe (or should we say "troll"). Are we even looking at the same article? You claim that the article is full of "some allege" or "some people claim" statements. Uh, actually no it isn't. Read it again if you don't believe me. You say that the bulk of the information comes from citations of pundits. Uh, actually no, except for two columnists (Ivins and mcarthy) it's not. The article quotes a couple of US generals, the White House, the Pentagon, the Red Cross etc. In contrast to the Jay Leno at Jackson's Trial story you talk about, 17 people died, a billion+ Muslims around the world were enraged, every news outlet in the world carried the story, a US Army general made an official report and the White House felt compelled to comment. If WP can have articles about characters that appear in individual Simpsons episodes, I see no reason why this article can't stand on its own. --] 14:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	::Uh, AND Anthony Romero and James Jaffer of ACLU, cited making observation that are pure opinion. But who's counting? Also, I don't see how the inclusion of only 2 columnists is somehow acceptable. But while I do see that I overstated the extent to which this entry relied on opinion, I feel it's still substantially infected with it, and I don't think that's accidental. I think it reflects the fact that the intention of most of the authors is to use this as part of either an indictment of how the US has conducted the war on terror or as a platform to vent their anger over the incidents. There are plenty of other places on the internet to do those things. I just don't think wikipedia is one of them.15:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)] 15:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716085546/http://iqna.ir/NewsBodyDesc_en.asp?lang=en&ProdID=21308 to http://iqna.ir/NewsBodyDesc_en.asp?lang=en&ProdID=21308
	:::I see. So you're saying that senior executives of the American Civil Liberties Union (which is itself investigating Guantanamo) are just some random pundits and don't belong in an article about, er, the abuse of civil liberties by Americans at Guantanamo? I do agree with you about the comments from columnists though. The article would be better without both of those quotes and I'm going to remove them. But aside from that, I actually don't see how the article does anything more than report the accepted facts on a subject of clearly widespread interest. Whether it's an indictment of how the US has conducted the war on terror is an interesting question which I think we can leave to the reader to decide. --] 15:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx\|Sourcecheck}}).
	::::Agree we should remove the two columnists. ] 15:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=failed}}
	== NPOV tag ==
	Are there any points in the article which remain in dispute? If there is, please explain what it is so that it can be fixed. If not, the NPOV tag should be removed. --] 14:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	:I will remove it; I believe this has been settled.--] 00:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 05:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
	== timeline ==

			== External links modified ==
	Who introduced this "timeline" structure and why? It is, IMO, not a great stylistic device, because it considerably weakens the narrative. -- ] \| ] 16:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	:I totally agree. At the very least the "earlier reports" section should be demoted to the end and recast as External Links. Part of the problem is that there has been a lot of bickering about certain details which I think has taken attention away from addressing the overall structure of the article. --] 17:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	::I disagree. I think the "earlier reports" section is important to establishing context for the controversy, which, though it blew up after Newsweek, had roots in reports that go back a couple of years. --] 17:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for restoring the photo -- its removal was entirely unintentional. I was wondering why the top of the article looked so bare... -- ] \| ] 18:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	== Ed has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship ==

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes on this page. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion . ] 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050627080533/http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/OpinionNF.asp?ArticleID=165181 to http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/OpinionNF.asp?ArticleID=165181
	:Strangest damn thing I ever saw. I voted for you, but I don't see how it will help resolve any disputes. --] 17:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050520002507/http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/22026/ to http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/22026/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::You've got plenty of company. It certainly looks weird to a lot of people, probably a majority, but I thought it was a gentlemanly move on his part... seems unlikely to pass, but that's beside the point. Thanks again Ed for proposing this.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	::I do want to go on record here as saying that a) Ed made this nomination on his own, without either of us discussing it, b) it took me totally by surprise, and c) I was needlessly confrontational with him on this page and elsewhere, which escalated the dispute in an unproductive way. ] 17:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 13:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
	==Scope, again==

			== External links modified ==
	:This article concerns allegations of ] by ] personnel at the ] prison camp.

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	I thought we agreed that the article '''also''' should cover allegations of ] by the detainees. The initial sentence contradicts that agreement.

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	We might indiacte, though, that most of the fuss has been about US personnel and their handling of the Koran, the power imbalance, the alleged anti-Muslim attitudes of the gov't, etc. But unless this article is '''intended to prove that the US more guilty of Koran desecration''' than the "captured enemy combatants", then to be consistent with the title the scope must be expanded to include all acts of Koran abuse at gitmo.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830182445/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/62102DB1-210D-4FC9-9846-C06FABF4C700.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/62102DB1-210D-4FC9-9846-C06FABF4C700.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117035438/http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2005/May/12-273892.html?chanlid=washfile to http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2005/May/12-273892.html?chanlid=washfile

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	Or we could go back to having two articles
	#] - a nice, big long one
	#] - a relatively short one

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	You can have either one, but you can't exclude a POV merely because you don't like it. ] ] 13:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
	:As has been pointed out to you a zillion times, the article does and always did cover allegations of detainees abusing their Korans. It amazes me that you keep pretending that somehow this has been excluded from the article. Would you mind doing us all a favour and actually read the article? I've changed the opening line to be more open-ended, not that it makes much difference, but since it appears to be the only part of the article you actually bother to look at maybe it will make you happy. --] 13:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 16:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
	: <s>Nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, ... Ed, you're so lovable.</s> -- ] 14:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
	::Let's talk about the article - not about each other. ] ] 19:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

	==Pundits punted==
	I've removed both of the quotes from columnists (one left and one right wing) because, as axamoto points out above, having columnists spoon-feed their spin weakens the article. Interpretation of events should ideally be up to the reader based on the best presentation of the facts. It also gives a very US-centric slant to the article especially since there is no commentary from the Islamic world. --] 15:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

	:I think there should be some commentary from the Islamic world here. Including the opinions of others quoted is not wrong or NPOV, as long as Misplaced Pages isn't overtly endorsing the opinion. --] 20:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

	==NPOV disput==

	Intro paragraph says:

	:This article concerns allegations of Qur'an desecration at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp. The matter came to international attention in April 2005 when Newsweek published an article suggesting that an unreleased U.S. government report had confirmed these incidents. The revelations sparked anti-U.S. demonstrations throughout the Islamic world, some of which turned violent. Although the magazine subsequently retracted the story, subsequent U.S. military investigations confirmed at least five cases of Qur'an desecration by US personnel at the base, and the affair turned the spotlight on earlier media reports of such actions.

	#There is more than one "matter"
	#The "incidents" referred to by the Newsweek story was only the US flushing claim
	#''Revelations'' implies that the US flushing claim is true - even though the article clearly shows further down that Newsweek retracted.
	#Demonstrations were already planned - Newsweek didn't spark them (but may have fueled them)
	#We need to clarify the point at which the demos turned violent. Who egged them on?
	#Mishandling is not the same as desecration, according to Misplaced Pages ] article, last time I checked.
	#Pentagon '''did not confirm''' US desecration - that's a conclusion drawn by Bush administration opponents: Pentagon confirmed "mishandling". Whether such mishandling constitutes "desecration" is a POV (i.e., somebody's conclusion)
	#Intro leaves out '''confirmed report''' that Koran flushing attributed to US personnel was actually performed by detainees.

	So the NPOV tag should stay. ] ] 19:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:10, 10 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2005 Quran desecration controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2005 Quran desecration controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050709021535/http://www.newyorker.com:80/online/content/articles/050711on_onlineonly01 to http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/050711on_onlineonly01

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929135650/http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/search/searchdetail.php?r=2694&q=++KORAN++TOILET%7C to http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/search/searchdetail.php?r=2694&q=+%2BKORAN+%2BTOILET%7C

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716085546/http://iqna.ir/NewsBodyDesc_en.asp?lang=en&ProdID=21308 to http://iqna.ir/NewsBodyDesc_en.asp?lang=en&ProdID=21308

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2005 Quran desecration controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories: