Talk:Amethyst Initiative

Sourcing

I moved this section here for better sourcing...although the criticisms may be valid, they need to sourced to a WP:RS article; drawing those conclusions in this article constitutes WP:OR.

"===Scientific rebuttal against MADD=== MADD's press release against the Amythest Group misrepresents the research which is cited in the press release: For example, what MADD's press release claims is "scientific research from more than 50 high-quality studies ALL (emphasis added) found that the 21 law saves lives[1]"; and the "[1]" cites the meta-study by Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002, however, the 2002 research by Wagenaar & Toomey, clearly states that in every category, only from 33% to 58% of the studies -- not nearly "all" of the studies, as claimed by MADD -- show a saving-of-lives or reduction in other societal problems. MADD has far from a strong scientific consensus and often the consensus even goes against MADD's position (See politicized science and notes on "scientific consensus" therein).

Also, a 2-to-1 majority of studies that Wagenaar & Toomey reviewed actually show that raising the drinking age has no effect on consumption. MADD chose to ignore this, i.e. "cherry picking the data" from Waganaar & Toomey, 2002., despite trusting the researchers enough to cite them)."

Much of the article is sourced to press releases, both pro and con, but as this issue unfolds, there will be better sourcing available. This was the only section that I felt needed to have better sourcing to be included in the main space. If the article is now really out of balance, are there other edits that need to be moved here until there is better sourcing per objective sources? Flowanda | Talk 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved this statement here as well since it's not supported by any info or independent sourcing at MADD wiki article: "however, MADD itself has been shown to repeatedly take a position or release scientific research which conflicts with independent scientists (see Wikipedia's Mothers Against Drunk Driving article for citations)." Flowanda | Talk 18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Many issues

1. "[the quotes] section needs to be rewritten to discuss purpose" (Flowanda noted in revisions page, 17:20, 21 August 2008) I agreed [except maybe discuss more than Amethyst's purpose], and hopefully the "views and goals" section addresses their purposes (plural) organized by keeping related info together, so that readers have a coherent narative, without it becoming a string of random quotes about the purposes -- and other quotes. The one thing I removed is the McCardell quote, because "views and goals" covers it in more of a fluid, prose style of writing.

2. But I agreed that 69.22.206.66 shouldn't remove your WashPost ref due to ?too much? ;-) from critical groups. I'm sure in time more criticism will come...and more rebuttals. I'm sure more quotes will be data-mined too...

3. Not sure if each quote in the quote section needs its own = = = SUBTITLE = = = (except I have no spaces between each equal-sign, in the actual article) but I left the subtitle in, it for now. There's only one quote; I'm sure this will also expand.

4. My ref tags could probably use some work. ;-) It's 3 AM.

5. I added some delightfully well-verified rebuttals from Choose Responsibility that "are conclusions that need to quoted here, not created here" just as Flowanda said at the top of this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_which_advances_a_position and to conform to the WP section on synthesis, and more (see the itemized list of 3 reasons, immediate below this paragraph). . . .#5, continued: The only part of the WP I can see the original reference to Wagenaar violating is synthesis (see italicized text below for analysis of parts of the WP:OR besides SYNTH), so -- per the Smith/Jones example given in Wikipedia's "synthesis" description -- I restated the the "Wagenaar" information for the following reasons: A.) "That much is fine" to quote the Smith/Jones example in WP:OR (i.e. fine to quote "A and B" -- MADD and Wagenaar -- but "therefore C" is NOT fine...unless Amethyst/CR or other notable sources make that "therefore C"), B.) To keep "A and B" deleted would be a violation of the WP's principle that "WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN SOURCES, THEIR VIEWS SHOULD BE CLEARLY ATTRIBUTED IN THE TEXT" One source [MADD] disagrees with the other source [Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002]. The exact quote from Wagenaar which conflicts with the quote of MADD is now quoted, but only in the footnotes...since Wagenaar tends to go on some tangents that are too lengthy to place in the article. N.B.: Though MADD is not an academic source, "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications" . . . Speaking of being so very "mainstream": MADD's untrue -- IMHO, being a scientist myself and having reviewed this case -- accusation was just recently carried in many newspapers; a rebuttal to this issue therefore deserves to be noted just as prominently. It is unbalanced toward MADD's criticisms instead of other groups, but unless Amethyst/CR rebuts anyone else as thoroughly [and keep in mind that this entry will probably develop, as it is a current-event], we can't just "make up news" and shouldn't "ignore" news relevant to the debate, so long as it's verifiable per WP:V.) C.) "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page [I did this for Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002 since they digress into minutia often, but directly quoted MADD instead of putting that into my "own words"], with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.") I removed any unattributable analysis, only quoted one org (MADD) and paraphrased the scientists; the reader can daw their own conclusions. (unlike the text that Flowanda placed above...which I agree causes it to become "synthesis" (even though the only "unattributable" analysis is deductive logic which is as simple as: prop#1: "Bill claims that Mary said 'X is supported by the majority of scientists' in the article dated Y"; prop#2: "Here is Mary's statement, she said the opposite, that 'X is supported by the minority of scientists' in the article she dated Y"; Conclusion: Bill has misrepresented what Mary said in article Y.)

OTHER WP:OR ISSUES (except synthesis) seemed to already be copasetic in what Flowanda posted above (but tell me if I'm missing something XD ), such as: "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." This is the weblink to the research by Wagenaar & Tooley, 2002. It is: 1. reliable (because a .gov link can be expected to credibly republish verbatim what Wagenaar & Tooley say, as opposed to some unknown person's personal webpage), 2. third-party (not my own website, for example, nor anonymous nor fringe), 3. and published/public.

It also was within the first paragraph of the link to Wagenaar's research, and something any Wikipedia reader can VERIFY. It also did not go "beyond what is expressed in the sources" (as I said above, simple "deductive logic"). What was written is also not an "opinion," it is a fact verifiable in the public, published source (Wagenaar). ~-- Jeff dieIngenieur

References

More sourcing

I moved content about Choose Responsibility to that article because the info was about that organization, not Amethyst Initiative.

I removed content related to the above discussion of statistics and studies because it's a Wikipedia editor making those connections and conclusions, not a source included in reporting by mainstream, third-party, objective publications meeting WP:RS. The MADD quotes are sourced to its press releases and need to be edited and better sourced, but its criticisms have been widely reported in the press. I have started adding links to articles that include information about this issue that can be used for sourcing, but I have not found any information supporting the content I have removed.

The debate about this issue needs to occur completely outside this article and talk page; the article should merely reflect what is being reported on this specific initiative. Flowanda | Talk 17:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: edits from me on 8/23 (and "more sourcing")

1. I added http://blog.chooseresponsibility.org/cr-news/cr-announces-amethyst-initiative because your citation after "The Amethyst Initiative is part of Choose Responsibility..." did not lend support to the statement I just quoted. (however the quoted term is true, of course.)

2. I can respect most of your other revisions and will move that content to /wiki/Choose_Responsibility, but note that:

in the part under "criticisms" changes have been made to conform to WP:OR. Also, new content was added that conforms to WP:OR. If you disagree with what I wrote yesterday -- immediately above your "more sourcing" (#5 in my itemized list) -- then please suggest the REASONS you disagree, and modifications instead of deleting...

3. Abstinence is most certainly related to this topic/group; Amethyst (not CR, Choose responsibility) uses the word itself in the Wikipedia article, but this time I linked to Wikipedia's "abstinence" page from within the Amethyst Initiative article, not at the end. Legal drinking age is also related and I shall preserve this.

Jeff dieIngenieur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.22.33 (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that until sections about the organization's history and purpose are better detailed, the criticism section will continue to be debated and out of proportion to the rest of the article. The articles I added to the external links section included descriptions and quotes from organizers, but I'm sure there are and will be more articles as this debate unfolds.

But to be clear -- this is a provocative subject and promoted to create debate, so there's no reason to quote press releases or website pages either side when there is plenty of independent reporting to use as sourcing. Flowanda | Talk 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one unfortunate thing is there is scant info on Amethyst Initiative, CR states a lot more, but I can see why quotes of them belong on the /wiki/Choose_Responsibility page; they're a closely-related group, but slightly different. And I agree with what I think you're saying: I don't see why that should force the Criticism section to be reduced.

One area where I -- and WP:Verify -- disagrees with you is on giving journalists preference; they are deprecated in WP:Verify relative to scientific citations (and basically all other sources listed in WP:verify), and both MADD's press-release and ChooseResponsibility.org cite scientists; newspapers/mags are also secondary sources compared to MADD and chooseresponsibility.org. (Of course I'm not saying newspapers should be omitted, just not given preference.)

I see no trouble with criticizing Amethyst -- the first time I wrote, I encouraged it actually, couldn't believe someone tried to say the "criticisms" section had "too many" quotes, with only 2 quotes critical of Amethyst -- but as the central theme of the group is indeed "debate" I think both sides' rebuttals of each other deserve mention. And that both sides be heard. But I think the part "In addition to the many scientists..." should be a candidate for deletion (despite that I was the one trying to re-incorporate it): It just very wordy to make only one point (comparative to the succinct ways that I showed Choose Responsibility, itself, has addressed the scientific concerns of MADD). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.22.33 (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

8/26

1. Perhaps 69.181.199.59 can tell us why MADD's press release (where MADD states that other groups join MADD) is "seriously misleading"? Until then, Scientizzle put it back in, and I've left it in.

2a. Scientizzle's reorganization was good but added the uncited statement -- I'm not the one who marked it "uncited," BTW -- that "Choose Responsibility argues that in the 2002...". The problem is that Wagenaar & Toomey are the only ones quoted in this article who contradict MADD, CR does not.
2b. For that reason, and because of Scientizzle's critique on the "revision history" page -- that the responses to MADD have grown too long, which agrees with my own critique, noted higher up on this page -- I've deleted Wagenaar & Toomey, because Waagenar/Toomey is the only part that required a long explanation (WP "undue weight")...and no one was able to make the section on Wagenaar more succinct within the last few days, as I was hoping.
2c. Yet another reason: I actually toyed with making a "Response" section last week, but to date, Amethyst's responses seem short enough not merit a whole subsection for "responses"...now that the wordy explanation, used to describe the significance of Wagenaar's/Toomey's work, is removed. The article seems to be more salient when Amethyst's response to each group is included in one paragraph that covers a whole issue, then another issue, then another... instead of when I or Scientizzle (both times) tried to form a "Responses" section (and then what if MADD responds, will we have a "Responses to the responses" section? Because then, the reader would need to jump around, from paragraph to paragraph, trying to keep up with one issue that MADD or another group brought up.)
2d. EDIT: ADDED LATER Also, since Amethyst and MADD are criticizing each other's scientific reliability (what Scientizzle seem to be calling a 'pissing match'), why try to obscure that from readers? Just report the reality. It informs the reader that this is a contentious issue. Also, to quote Wikipedia's WP: "WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN SOURCES, THEIR VIEWS SHOULD BE CLEARLY ATTRIBUTED IN THE TEXT". One source [MADD] disagrees with the other source [Amethyst], and the sources themselves say they disagree with each other.

3. I did MANY minor edits earlier but saw Scientizzle making major cite edits, so I stopped to avoid the confusion of 2 people editing. minor revisions such as:

Where the article says they want to "rethink the drinking age," Scientizzle removed the only cite that actually uses the phrase "rethink the drinking age". Removed the webpage that didn't support "...is part of Choose Responsibility" (see my notes from 8/23. Another cite that DOES support that part of the article is already there). The presidents never state they are speaking for all university presidents (changed semantics to reflect this). The spokesman's position is a spurious opinion (since he cites no sociological evidence to support his group's position...but I left it in as it's a notable group & he has a right to that opinion). CR itself calls Amethyst its "project" so I made that more precise. I also put MADD's paragraph back above the GHSA, as they are the more prolific group and it serves no purpose now that I removed the Wagenaar/Toomey.

EDIT ADDED LATER: Feel free to let me know if you think my next revision is more 'fluid' and 'salient' from the perspective of someone who never read the article (I ran it by someone who never read it; they like the removal of the 'response' section). I kept a bit of what you wrote after my first "however".

Jeff dieIngenieur

I left a message on your IP talk page--if you got an account it might help facilitate communication.

I added the single {{citation needed}} tag because the MADD claim should be directly attributable. If there's anything out there that shows this claim directly, it can solve the issue.

RE: "rethink the drinking age" -- I can fix this...I was trying to address redundancy in the citations but went just a bit too far there.

I'm going to try to rework the criticism response section a little more to make it clearer. — Scientizzle 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: "pissing match" at this point in the article's history, the criticism section was, roughly

...MADD says the presidents are lazy and dumb^[ref] but CR uses science to back up its claims.^{[ref][ref][ref][ref][ref]} In particular, MADD can't even seem to read Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002. The presidents just want to have a debate...and those MADD jerks are trying to ruin everything...

etc., etc. (my childish Cliff's notes, if you will :) ). Now it reads more appropriately, I feel--presenting the claims without "trying the case" as it formerly appeared to. — Scientizzle 21:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle, It said nothing of the sort, those are ad hominems whereas the article sticks to "just the facts" (see the list of 3 items, below). It's not my fault nor anyone else's if you feel the facts (presented to-date on Wikipedia) favor Amethyst: because any editor is free to present contrary facts...if they exist. If more facts exist, I for one am not offended by the truth when it favors MADD. (For example, on this Talk page, I've challenged two other editors who were anti-MADD.) But when the facts don't favor MADD, I am equally willing to point out those facts. Sheesh.

B.T.W., MADD is the first who tried to say "...but we use SCIENCE and Amethyst DOES NOT"...sorry if they're getting called-out on the inaccuracy of that claim, even more sorry if you or anyone is actually offended by these facts.

1. Do you deny that this is a fact? "Choose Responsibility has used science to support The Amethyst Initiative's views and goals". If you deny that this is a fact, I've always invited people to correct me if they can show WHY I am factually wrong.

2. Do you deny that this is a fact? "Also, published research is now cited by Choose Responsibility to directly refute three of MADD's past claims, even as MADD charges that it is The Amethyst Initiative who is 'misrepresenting science'."

3. Do you deny this is a fact? "In addition to the many scientists whom Choose Responsibility cites, "Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002" are the researchers cited by MADD, when MADD says..." (well I won't re-state all of it. :-)

Conclusion: That's all the "criticisms" section consisted of. (EDIT: modified later to have a sense of humour aboout myself) Do the FACTS not support my rather pointed observation "...even as MADD charges that it is The Amethyst Initiative who is 'misrepresenting science'"? heehee...It was harsh, but it was true.

[edit conflict] I am not offended by any claims made here or in the article (...I'm rather a fan of measured, rational responses to hyperbole). But what's really important here is that each side's claims are accurately and clearly presented, and cited directly. In this way, a claim-counterclaim format can be neutrally presented in accordance to neutral point-of-view policy. My tongue-in-cheek characterization above was merely referring to the (linked) state of the article prior to my suite of changes; there was a decidedly aggressive tone to accompany a surfeit of counter-claims to the single sentence that encompassed MADD's stance. That's why I changed so much.

I did, however, revert your most recent edit, with the exception of the removal of the "response" sub-header. I think replacing, for example,

Choose Responsibility argues that scientific evidence supports the Amethyst Initiative's views and goals and refutes some of MADD's past claims.

with

However, Choose Responsibility cites scientific evidence that supports the Amethyst Initiative's views and goals. Also, published research is now cited by Choose Responsibility to directly refute three of MADD's past claims.

removed neutral qualifiers like "argues"--the claim that "scientific evidence supports" the AI is an opinion, and should be treated as such. — Scientizzle 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To respond to 1, 2 & 3 directly:

1. "Choose Responsibility has used science to support The Amethyst Initiative's views and goals". This is factual, but poorly written. Better: "Choose Responsibility argues that scientific evidence supports the Amethyst Initiative's views and goals." This is unambiguous, and provides the assertion that CR is confident that the net weight of scientific evidence supports their POV. "has used science" is a terribly weak verb clause.

2. "Also, published research is now cited by Choose Responsibility to directly refute three of MADD's past claims, even as MADD charges that it is The Amethyst Initiative who is 'misrepresenting science'." Not a fact. It's a combination of factual claims and opinions, shaped in a way to present a non-neutral conclusion. Better: "MADD charges that AI supporters are 'misrepresenting science'. CR cites research that they argue refutes MADD's claims." This is neutrally presented and offers all of the same factual information.

3. "In addition to the many scientists whom Choose Responsibility cites, "Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002" are the researchers cited by MADD, when MADD says..." I hesitate to draw full conclusions about an academic publication from only its abstract. I removed the W&T pub because it was clouding the issue: both sides are citing this as "support" for their claims, right? Well, our best course is probably to let them discuss their interpretations outside of Wikipedia. Furthermore, and I doubt you're aware since you seem pretty new to Wikipedia, there's a long-standing avoidance of using primary sources (like journal articles) when there are ample secondary sources available (like news reports or journal reviews) from which to draw claims. This helps to avoid original research, which is against policy. — Scientizzle 22:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle, I agree 100%: "what's really important here is that each side's claims are accurately and clearly presented, and cited directly." and "a claim-counterclaim format..."

"a decidedly aggressive tone to accompany a surfeit of counter-claims to the single sentence that encompassed MADD's stance." Me, aggressively point out contrasting statements? ;-) I think it was good to tone it down to where it is now...i.e. after my latest edit (I haven't edited-back-in anything you pointed out in your last reply to this page).

See, now here is all that I wanted you to answer; I wasn't sure why you changed the content that I originally provided, and that was the only reason I changed it back:

1a. "...removed neutral qualifiers like 'argues' ...'scientific evidence [that] supports' the AI is an opinion".": Yes, I only meant to infer that Amethyst believes this research supports their position, but also to note that AI cites evidence even whilst MADD claims AI does not, so I agree with you. There's an inconsistency that I hope you don't mind if I fix though:

1b. I've stated why I added a "neutral qualifier" -- similar to your change to "argues" -- on the GHSA (police) spokesman statement (because the spokesman only states his opinion, he doesn't even cite verifiable reasons to support his belief) that the AI's plan would affect "high school principals," yet you kept un-doing those edits. What's good for the goose...otherwise you're not showing NPOV.

There is another inconsistency that I hope you don't mind I addressed: The GHSA-then-AI was all in one paragraph, in contrast to MADD-then-AI being 2 separate paragraphs.

2. And in the GHSA (police) paragraph for example, what do you have against the word "however"? (I've been meaning to ask...lol. Was hoping you'd just say.) It's just a conjunction...or is there some secret meaning of "however" that implies a bias, that I'm missing? ;-) "However" merely implies, to me, that the reader should bear in mind that the coming sentence is related to the last sentence...and the simple fact is that in these 2 Wikipedia paragraphs, the first sentence is related to the second. I just think "however" makes it faster/easier to read. --Jeff dieIngenieur

I restored my comment above that I think you accidentally deleted. (No big deal--just for posterity.) I have no problem with the "however" you added, though I think it a bit extraneous. The general organization of the sentences in the criticism section might be improved--and anyone should be welcome to try--but it think it reads pretty clearly now. Cheers, — Scientizzle 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Sourcing, repeat

The Choose Responsibility, Amethyst Initiative and MADD websites do not meet WP:RS or WP:V no matter if the studies or statistics they quote in their press releases or statements do. The NYT, AP, WAPO, WSJ, Chicago Tribune, AJC do meet WP:RS, and there are plenty of articles in the external links section (and available via a Google news search--1,700 and counting) that can be used for writing and sourcing this article.
Article writing is not about "fairness" or depicting both "sides"--Wikipedia is not about "truth" or "reality", but about verfication, no matter how lopsided the result may be. Based on verification, the article does not include a good basic description of the program, who/what's involved and why, detail the universities that have come out against the idea or are still thinking about it, or accurately reflect the extensive criticism the subject has received from university officials, authors of at least two studies (including the very one being argued over), and a number of newspaper editorials.
MADD is a very vocal, influential opponent, but the ongoing edits and discussion about this one opponent are out of proportion and often unrelated to this particular article. Flowanda | Talk 04:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Flowanda, I disagree that the MADD, Choose Responsibility, & Amethyst Initiative don't meet WP:RS/WP:V. As primary sources published by these parties, they can be considered reliable & appropriate sources for the respective claims of these organizations. They shouldn't be used for anything beyond stating "X organization states Y claim", but they're perfectly fine for most everything for which they're currently used. I do agree with your larger point that there is an abundace of untapped secondary sources available and that future edits should seek to increase the ratio of cited information from these sources over the primary sources. Certainly there is room for expansion regarding the concers you bring up, and satellite details such as the two signatories that withdrew from the petition; a greater variety of supportive & critical statements can be included. (For my part, the above sections were more about getting everyone "on the same page" regarding the generalized form, Wikipedia policy and editing processes...this moved timely updates and improvements aside for the practical concerns about WP:NPOV.) Cheers, — Scientizzle 17:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Signatories

I added this section because I felt that it needed to be seen to know where these signatures were coming from. Thank you for fixing the formatting. I'm new to editing Wikipedia entries, so I wasn't sure how to format it, but your changes made a great improvement. Anything else that can be improved or added? — mynameis1210 23:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely we can wiki-link those people who have their own wiki article. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amethyst Initiative. 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/20090107101240/http://www.madd.org/Article-Archive/2008/August/Article---Amethyst-Initiative-Underage-Drinking-Re.aspx to http://www.madd.org/Article-Archive/2008/August/Article---Amethyst-Initiative-Underage-Drinking-Re.aspx

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amethyst Initiative. 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/20080821225406/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jWXhmLxHPcv8q_iFiN7nLt7RP8CgD92L2IIO0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jWXhmLxHPcv8q_iFiN7nLt7RP8CgD92L2IIO0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830075522/http://media.www.technicianonline.com:80/media/storage/paper848/news/2008/08/22/News/Unc-System.Waiting.To.Decide.On.Amethyst.Initiative-3401457.shtml to http://media.www.technicianonline.com/media/storage/paper848/news/2008/08/22/News/Unc-System.Waiting.To.Decide.On.Amethyst.Initiative-3401457.shtml

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

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) 16:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)