Talk:Highland Clearances/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Economic "improvements"

Relating the section 'Economic "improvements"' to the article 'introduction', asks more questions of the article than each of these sections provide information about.

It begins with a brief summary of "improvements" instead of Clearances, per se. Though it suggests that the "improvements" simply relates to a change from more variable 'farming' to sheep raising.

In a subsequent section is a quote from Elizabeth Gordon, 19th Countess of Sutherland, that "he is seized as much as I am with the rage of improvements, and we both turn our attention with the greatest of energy to turnips".

Previous to this a standalone statement that Clearances had been 'making room for more profitable uses such as sheep, deer forests or tourism.'

The article 'introduction', providing a summary, has this statement: 'It resulted from enclosures of common lands and a change from farming to sheep raising, an agricultural revolution largely carried out by hereditary aristocratic landowners.'

Something is amiss. Would anyone like to talk about changing something to reflect these facts? Baglessingazump (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The key point being that the summary states an equation: Clearances = enclosures + sheep. Whereas, Clearances = enclosures with % sheep is what the article states. Baglessingazump (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

There is more than this wrong with the introduction. In a somewhat random order:

Common lands were not enclosed in creating the sheep walks that necessitated the eviction of long standing tenant farmers. The process was related to the enclosure of common lands (as happened across the rest of Britain), but it was not a process of enclosure. (The sheep were hefted.)

The emigration of cleared tenants to the coast is nonsense, since emigration means moving to another country. In many cases people were only moved 10 or 15 miles.

"Largely carried out by hereditary aristocratic landowners" is an over-simplification that is untrue. Some estates were cleared after the hereditary owners went bankrupt and sold to others (who came in and effected the clearance), or had a bankruptcy administrator impose a policy of clearance on them. There are even examples of opponents to the clearances carrying out evictions of their own tenants.

"particularly notorious as a result of the brutality" seems somewhat POV. Admittedly, there are plenty of sources that say this, but there are so many sources on this subject, you could probably find one that said just about anything you wanted. It is a trite phrase which, in this context, has rather lost its meaning and is probably not an accurate representation of the whole story. Certainly, some very unpleasant things happened during the clearances, but it is hard to assess what percentage of evictions included any violence or rough handling. There is even good evidence of violence by those about to be cleared against factors, law officers and prospective tenants.

"sheep raising" is a sort of farming, so "a change from farming to sheep raising" is nonsense. Additionally, in some areas, cleared tenants had worked in the kelp industry - I am sure someone might argue the point, but I don't think that is farming.

A lot of re-writing is needed here - it's probably a case of "one step at a time".

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think all those points relevant points for new sections on the talk page. In relation to the point in question in this section, what would be the first step to take? Baglessingazump (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, the whole article needs a complete rewrite. I am currently finishing a big reading project so that I can rewrite the section currently titled "Second Phase of the Clearances" - which is actually about the Sutherland Clearances (which, according to Michael Lynch, would actually be in the first phase of the clearances - so the section title needs to change).

If one were starting this article from scratch, it would be easiest to write the main body of it first, and then come back and write the introduction last. With the current situation, I would still be disinclined to do much revision of the the first para until more of the rest of the article has been improved. Obviously, that does not prevent anyone else from making any improvements.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Obliging me with some comments in relation to rewording the lead within the talk page would be great, if at all possible. Baglessingazump (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have some suggestions in relation to removing the tangle in the lead defining the Highland Clearances too.

Though I hope to make the talk page as easy to navigate as I hope the article could be. As such adding a section to talk about each would be less straining to read.

For instance, as I think the hyperlinks to articles such as 'enclosures', 'forced displacement' etc... provide the best basis to define the Highland Clearances, though these hyperlinks need to relate to the subject more, such that it is easy to comprehend what links, with what separates, 'enclosures' to 'forced displacement'. At the moment the definition lacks a simple wording that brings all the relevant hyperlinks into one sentence. Baglessingazump (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage ThoughtIdRetired to try some bold edits to the article. Your ideas seem very useful. Baglessingazump, I'm not quite clear what you have in mind, but perhaps it would be helpful to let ThoughtIdRetired start the discussion process, in case his ideas will solve some of your issues? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be ideal, though ThoughtIdRetired has already said he wishes to read before rewriting the Sutherland Clearances section. Unless the Sutherland Clearances, with it's turnips, deer forests, tourism, is taken from the article completely?

My priority is summary of the key elements in the article, because at present the first paragraph in the lead has three separate clauses in the proposition defining the Highland Clearances.

These clauses burden the article with a confusion that begs the question, what amongst forced displacement, enclosures, glens defines the Highland Clearances? Separating the clauses is this problem's source.

The summary ought to relate these key hyperlinks that form the summary (with hyperlinks being an online encyclopaedia's best asset in simplification: it's Occam's razor) plus relate the currently three separate clauses, wherein these hyperlinks currently have a home, to make a definition readily comprehensible.

At the moment forced displacement's clause places emphasis onto a definition that relates simply to the broad notion 'Clearances', removing a large population from the land at once.

The second clause places emphasis with enclosures, though as the article plus ThoughtIdRetired has said, the Highland Clearances relation to sheep enclosures is less tangible than it firsts seems.

The third clause places emphasis with glens, as if what makes the Highland Clearances is that a specific land type makes the Highland Clearances, thee Highland Clearances. If that is the case the Highland Clearances simply equates to Clearances of 'high lands'.

All of this subsequently relates to a jumble, with a very many clauses in the 2nd paragraph with all these clauses really aiming to suggest one thing, that the Highland Clearances relate to the pre-Highland Clearance ethnolinguistic Scottish-Gaelic culture.

This is my own personal simplification relating to the questions I was raising beyond reverts to my own bold edits within the current talk page from many months prior (that Richard Keatinge may recall) that, to be honest, went down like a lead balloon (pardon the lead pun).Baglessingazump (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Most pertinently, the jumble in the second paragraph's multiple clauses can really summarise as the Scottish-Gael's rapid assimilation to Lowland Scots law, plus British aristocractic society.Baglessingazump (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing simplified about the garbled ramble above but, reading through it, an inevitability that you are going to return to your WP:OR campaign of a few months ago, which you do. There was no support for your position then, when it was comprehensible. Please drop it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah... hello old friend. It's a miracle that one word in my 'garbled ramble above' could be read at all. What about 'hello old friend', is that comprehensible?Baglessingazump (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Unlike all your suggestions for changes to the article, comprehensible it is. To be honest I was hoping to suggest, as tactfully as possible, that you might like to adjourn until you can produce some simple ideas for changes to the article, briefly and succinctly expressed in the form "change (passage) to (new passage), supported by comprehensible arguments based on Wikipedia policy. While I suspect that I might find you an entertaining witty sparkling empathetic dinner companion, and I have no problem with your actual words, their higher-level organization gives me a headache. I presume you had some underlying coherent story in mind when you wrote the above, but I'm damned if I can work out what it is. Sorry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The point is, damn me if I do, damn if I don't. I would very happily make changes to the article. I would very quickly have a revert against me absent any explanation. Fair play. That's the system, Richard Keatinge and Mutt Lunker wish to play. "Hate the game, not the player" etc... Though it's factual statements met with a wall. Because to me the truth is the truth. To my companions who revert I am the anti-christ Wikipedian. Fair play. Tally ho, ol' sport. Baglessingazump (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No, nobody is damning you, hating you or even doubting your good faith. However, neither are we playing a game. There is no right to continue making unintentionally unhelpful edits to articles or to expect other editors to engage with you on talk pages when you have demonstrated repeatedly an inability to express yourself coherently. This does not make you a bad person. We have tried to be tactful (trace back the threads above) and Richard has been more successful than I in maintaining this but if you wish to continue in the same vein it would be unfair not to be frank with you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

My bold edits set a requirement. That requirement is reasons. The revert was wild. Repeatedly, it has been said, "something is incomprehensible", yet even a child can work out how to communicate with someone who has a language that lacks any relation to the language they talk. Point at it, repeat it's name in English, repeat it's name in the language they talk. I had more than one element in the article in separate sections brought beneath one solitary reason that was akin to pointing at something to let out a scream. Baglessingazump (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Diff of all my changes as of 21:47, 15 October 2015 as proof.

How possibly the reverts could be specific whilst reverting 4 separate sections without breaking the 3RR is the question.

I could reply to all of those, though the fact is, the haste to revert is less secure to Wikipedians than haste to edit.

At present though I am attempting to simplify the summary; the reason to reject my simplification needs more than "[t]here is nothing simplified about the garbled ramble above."Baglessingazump (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It needs more than "...but I'm damned if I can work out what it is" too. Baglessingazump (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Baglessingazump, your comments above focus on criticising the existing text, rather than providing a specific replacement for it. Camerojo (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I was asking for comments in relation to the fact that comparing more than one case description, within the Highland Clearances article itself, to the summary in the lead about Highland Clearances, yields square pegs going into round holes.

The lead ought to summarise. Case descriptions ought to fit the summary.

Though only asking for comments, the accusation has been that I have said nothing comprehensible, though I gave examples only from within the article comparing against words plus structures within the article.

One person is asking me to write something fresh, whilst one person, replying to a call for comments, is accusing me of WP:OR! Baglessingazump (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Somehow though a specific replacement did fit in at some point, 'Most pertinently, the jumble in the second paragraph's multiple clauses can really summarise as the Scottish-Gael's rapid assimilation to Lowland Scots law, plus British aristocractic society.Baglessingazump (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)'

Let's tackle what I have said, though it snuck in, before tackling what I might write in the future first. Baglessingazump (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid that I also struggle to understand your general comments. It would be a lot simpler if you would follow Richard's suggestion of making a clear proposal to "change (passage) to (new passage)". If you are not prepared to do that, I don't believe further discussion will get us anywhere. Camerojo (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Definition in introduction

The following definition appears in the opening paragraph :
"A Highland Clearance has been defined as "an enforced simultaneous eviction of all families living in a given area such as an entire glen"."
It is used, in the quoted source, solely for the purposes of the paper in which it appears (which is about clearances in the North East Highlands). Beyond the fact that the offered definition is possibly an example of tautology (surely all evictions are enforced, otherwise they are not evictions) and that some regions had related evictions that happened in different years - so calling into question "simultaneous", I think that a single-sentence definition is not really appropriate for a complex subject.

As an alternative definition I suggest something like:

The Highland Clearances were a series of individual events during the 18th and 19th centuries in which tenants in the Scottish Highlands were evicted ("cleared") from a region or locality. Whilst there were common features to many clearances, there were also notable differences: in the causes, whether provision was made for evicted tenants, the level of opposition and the response to it, and the scale of each event. The people cleared varied, both in occupation and their status in society. Many of those evicted were farmers in the inland straths and glens, who raised cattle and grew arable crops under the runrig system. Others included crofters (small scale farmers), cottars (tenants who had no land), squatters who had no right to be on the land, workers in the kelp industry as it fell into decline, and the small number of clergymen, schoolteachers and others who no longer had a population to serve.

As an element in the structure of the article, the intent is to alert the reader to the risk of assuming that all clearances were the same. Clearly, the article must then go on to discuss the points raised.

Deficiencies in the definition include that it implies that removal of rights to land necessitated evicting people from their homes. There are instances when summer grazing rights were removed (so a tenancy ceased), but those who farmed that land still had other holdings (including their house and barns, etc.). Without this grazing, the viability of their farms was impaired. It's probably too complex a point to include in the introduction.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems good. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with your text but I like the existing definition - which I believe I have seen quoted in other reputable sources. Apart from the possible tautology, I see nothing wrong with it. The "simultaneous" is important for the simple reason that multiple evictions at different times in the same region are commonly referred to as separate clearances. Camerojo (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The only other reputable source that I have detected with the same definition is Richards quoting the same original source. He does not seem to offer it as a definitive definition. Elsewhere in the preface of the same book, Richards states "...the definition of 'clearance' is debateable...." - which might explain why he has avoided one in most of his work. If you google the definition currently in the article, you mostly find plagiarism of some or all of Wikipedia article (I spotted one that acknowledged Wikipedia). I would be interested to know if modern writers like James Hunter offer any concise definition - I have not found one (I note, however, that Hunter appears to have refereed the Watson and Allan paper). T.M. Devine avoids any defintion of "clearance" in "The Scottish Nation - 1700 -2007". David Craig (on the Crofters Trail) does not, as far as I can tell, use a definition (quite difficult to prove an absence!!). And I note that Prebble does not seem to define the term either.
The problem for the Wikipedia editor is that it is usual to have some sort of definition/explanation at the beginning of an article, but the only one that we have found in sources has deficiencies. (I would add that using "families" in the definition possibly goes against WP:NPOV as it generates an emotional response and is not always accurate, since those evicted were not necessarily family units, despite that being the commonest situation.) Hence I think that it is better to come up with a narrative rather than a brief definition.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was probably Richards who quoted it, but I could not find the reference. Thanks. It may not be perfect but I think that it is pretty good. Perfect is the enemy of good. It gets the reader started and, reading on, they will learn more. The intro does not claim that it is the ultimate definition - just that "it has been defined" that way - which is true and by a reputable source and quoted by at least one other reputable source. I think that your narrative is valuable and belongs somewhere in the article - but not to the exclusion of that quote. Camerojo (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be helpful to include here the entire paragraph in which the Watson & Allan definition appears:
The term 'the clearances' is often emotive, and rational discussion is difficult because the term is understood differently by different people. In this paper, a clearance is defined as an enforced simultaneous eviction of all families living in a given area such as an entire glen. A series of individual evictions carried out at different times could empty an area of people eventually, but we have come across no evidence of this in upper Deeside or nearby. Areas could also become empty by net, non-enforced emigration over many years, with or without pressure from landowners to leave, but it would be confusing to refer to this as a clearance.
So the originators of this definition have tailored it to the events in a specific part of the Highlands, where it presumably has a good fit with what happened on the ground. I don't think it applies elsewhere. For instance, both in Strathnaver in 1814 and in the Strath of Kildonan in 1819, only some of the residents were evicted from the locality (the job was completed in different years) - so the "...eviction of all families living in a given area such as an entire glen" does not seem to hit the target. I also have a problem with the word "simultaneous", since Richards, at least, talks about Loch wanting to "complete the clearance", in discussing the multi-year process of clearing the Strath of Kildonan over 1818, 1819 and 1820. Hence what Richards refers to as one clearance would be 3 under the Watson & Allen definition. (And, to be fair, they warn that the term is understood differently by different people.)
So, to recap, I have given reasons to object to the definition in respect of the following words: "enforced", "simultaneous", "all", "families", and "entire glen". There is not a lot left.

Even if we relied on the "...it has been defined..." to justify inclusion of the quote somewhere in the article, I do not think the introduction is the right place for that - because space is at a premium in the intro.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The brevity of the definition is its strength and why it belongs in the intro. Clearly it is a challenge provide a concise definition of a term referring to "a complex series of events occurring over a period of more than a hundred years". However this respected and quoted source has provided one. Let the reader see it and make up their own mind on its strengths and weaknesses. I see no reason to delete it and I think I have said all I have to say on the matter. Perhaps others might like to express an opinion but I am done. Camerojo (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's good to have a concise definition, but even Watson and Allen don't suggest that their definition given is comprehensive and complete. It's simply a useful subset for their purposes. A more complete and accurate definition / narrative would definitely be better - if it can be kept reasonably brief. As a first cut, for your consideration, I present:

"The classic "clearance" is a simultaneous eviction of all families living in a given area such as an entire glen. A series of smaller evictions carried out at different times could also empty an area of people eventually, and this article includes such evictions. Non-enforced emigration over a period of years, with or without pressure from landowners to leave, is not included." Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this is good. It is still brief and, although it does not address all of the criticisms of ThoughtIdRetired, it does make it clear that the quote is not being presented as a precise definition and encourages the reader to read on for a more complete understanding. Camerojo (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been suggested to me that Richards' book: A History of the Highland Clearances vol 1 addresses the question of defining the subject. I am working on obtaining a copy - I don't know if any of the opinions expressed above are based on this possible source.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've now taken a look at A History of the Highland Clearances vol 1, and this confirms the complexity of any attempt at a definition: the relevant passages occupy most of 2 pages. I note in particular "..It was not self-evident that the word clearance should be reserved for the ejection of entire communities of large numbers of people at a single time, or whether it could be also applied to individual cases of eviction (or even to the termination of a tenancy agreement)."
I should perhaps add that it was Eric Richards who directed me to his 1982 work for a discussion on definition, as a result of correspondence where I had mentioned his use of the Watson and Allan definition.
The problem is that the "popular" view of the clearances goes to the high-profile larger scale events, often with a particularly anguished outcome for those cleared. The termination of a single tenancy, in the view of the person affected, must surely be the same process as if it were applied to a hundred tenants on the same day. To think otherwise does a historical disservice to those who lost their home and livelihood as a single event. The concept of the "classic clearance" falls, I think, into the trap of populist (as opposed to historical) depictions of the actual events that occurred.
Hence I struggle to find anything better than the original offering in the second paragraph of this talk page section. I, however, lack an independent view on this for obvious reasons.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Opening sentence

"... was the forced displacement during the 18th and 19th centuries of a significant number of people from traditional land tenancies in the Scottish Highlands, where they had practised small-scale agriculture."

(1) The link to forced displacement gives a definition that does not match the whole range of circumstances that apply to the Highland Clearances. I am particularly concerned by "...The International Organization for Migration defines forced migration as any person who migrates to "escape persecution, conflict, repression, natural and human-made disasters, ecological degradation, or other situations that endanger their lives, freedom or livelihood"."

It seems to me that it would be much safer for the article to start by talking about "evictions" rather than forced displacement - certainly in the opening sentence and without any further discussion or explanation.

(2) "...traditional land tenancies..". What does the word "traditional" mean in this context? Many of those evicted had written leases. Certainly, Scottish land tenancy law had (and still has) some astoundingly poor protection for the tenant, but this is not "traditional" law. The use of this word is confusing at best, and is inaccurate in many situations.

(3) "...Small-scale agriculture...". (a) Many of the farmers who were evicted were actually large scale cattle farmers (as measured by the standards of the day - the comparison is made by Richards with equivalent farms in England, and the status of those English farmers). As written, the opening sentence perpetuates the myth that the only people evicted in the clearances were the lowest stratum of society, That is not the historical case: all strata of society were evicted in many clearances. Furthermore, not everyone evicted was involved in agriculture. Beyond the relatively numerous kelp workers, there were also the school teachers and rectors who also lost their homes and livelihoods as the populations they served disappeared. (b) The link is less than helpful, as it discusses small scale agriculture in a modern rather than a historical context.

I suggest changing to the following:
The Highland Clearances (Scottish Gaelic: Fuadach nan Gàidheal, the "eviction of the Gael") was the eviction during the 18th and 19th centuries of a significant number of tenants in the Scottish Highlands.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

A problem word

This article uses the word "brutal" or "brutality" in 4 places. These usages may or may not originate from the cited sources. Some of those sources are quoting contemporaneous accounts.
The problem for the article is that the word "brutal" has slightly shifted in meaning since the time of the clearances. If, for instance, you saw a modern newspaper headline that mentioned "police brutality" you would be unsurprised if this was about either a shooting or serious physical violence against someone in inappropriate circumstances. However, when "brutal" was used some while ago, it often meant "heartless", "unsympathetic", or probably most often "inhuman" or "in the nature of animals". The word is, of course, derived from the word "brute" which meant an animal (other than human). So, when Daniel Defoe referred to "brutality", he meant "behaviour to be expected of an animal (as opposed to a human)".

It is unfortunate that use of this word now suggests actual physical violence. Whilst there undoubtedly was rough handling in many cases when tenants had to be physically evicted during the clearances, and isolated incident(s?) of mass gratuitous violence (I have the Greenyards event of 1854 in mind), I think it is very important that the article does not imply that serious violence was the norm for clearances - because the facts are very much otherwise. (If you wish to consider an example of something that did involve brutality (in the modern sense of the word) take a look at Memorial Day massacre of 1937.) Yes, evictions were, generally, heartlessly applied - even when there was no resistance and tenants had gone by the appointed day. But ambiguous language conceals that fact. Avoidance of "brutal" or "brutality" would allow undoubted cases of violent behaviour to be talked about much more clearly, without the confusion of a word whose meaning has shifted over the years.

One could also suggest that use of "brutal" or "brutality" in the article is WP:POV. I am not sure if this is fair, given that it is used freely in many sources.

I suggest that some rewriting is required to deal with this problemThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

A note relative to an archived talk page.

Richards, in Debating the Highland Clearances, pg 6, states:
"Most of this history [of the Clearances] has been written since 1880 and in sheer scale it is probably now larger than the original documentation of the Clearances."
This would be relevant for inclusion in a section on the historiography of the Clearances.
It also demonstrates the problem for editors of this article, in that you could probably find a source that says pretty much anything you want on this subject. Therefore source selection becomes of enormous importance. I note that one of the cited references in this article is actually a song by a politically active singer-songwriter - I find it bizarre that this has remained unchallenged for some time. (I will get to edit that in a while, if no-one gets there before me. There are even good authoritative sources to support the text!)

On another subject, but pg 7 of the same reference, where we find:
"The word 'clearance' was a latecomer to the story and not much used until the mid-nineteenth century"
Some discussion follows this, then moving on into the issue of what is meant by 'the Highland Clearances', but (significantly, I feel) avoiding giving any simple definition.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Highland Clearances. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131114101546/http://www.celtic-colours.com/our-living-celtic-culture/ to http://www.celtic-colours.com/our-living-celtic-culture/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005170202/http://www.blackshouse.demon.co.uk/knockan.htm to http://www.blackshouse.demon.co.uk/knockan.htm

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) 08:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)