Talk:Anti-Hungarian sentiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Hungarophobia)
Jump to: navigation, search

Previous AfDs[edit]

This article appears to be a substantially different version of the ones at Anti-Hungarian sentiment which were previously deleted. (This recreation appears to be sanctioned by the closing admin's comments in the most recent AfD: "An article of this nature must be backed up by substantial third-party literature that addresses the discrimination as a whole. Anyone is welcome to attempt to create a new article with these guidelines in mind".) I have therefore changed the redirect target of Anti-Hungarian sentiment to this article. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issues[edit]

The article in its present form has some NPOV issues which need correction. Statements such as "The governments of Slovakia and the Czech Republic have not issued an official apology statement to the relocation survivors up to this day" do not reflect a neutral point of view as they imply that the writer believes the governments should issue an apology. Such claims should be reworded and expanded with details on whether any third party is actually asking for an apology (and if so, who). Also, many of the groups accused of anti-Hungarian sentiment deny that such sentiment is institutionalized, or deny that it exists at all, or dispute the facts or interpretation of various incidents described in this article. These opposing views should be mentioned in the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the Czech government has already issued a sort of apology. However, I am not sure if Hungarians were mentioned in it. [1] Fakirbakir (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Recently, the Serbian government also deprecated the massacre of Hungarian civilians in the aftermath of World War II [2]. I think that it is a positive gesture which should probably be mentioned here, too. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This article , as newly created has A LOT of issues. Many problematic statements without ANY sources and the POV is not very neutral either.Adrian (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the entry above, the article has been almost completely rewritten. Previous NPOV objections no longer apply, so I am removing the {{POV}} template which has been present on the article since April 2014. If someone believes the article is still WP:POV then they should readd the template, taking care to use the |talk=section-name param pointing to this talk section, or a new one, with your justification. Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Further sources[edit]

The book Hungary and the Hungarians (Matthias Corvinus Publishers, 2012, ed. S. J. Magyaródy, ISBN 1-882785-23-1) is an edited volume of articles, most of which document or discuss purported anti-Hungarian sentiment and discrimination. The book has a clear nationalistic (bordering on irredentist) agenda, but it is certainly the most comprehensive overview of the topic which I've found, and helps establish its notability for our puproses. It can probably be used as a reliable source for nationalist views on anti-Hungarian sentiment, and (where its claims are corroborated with other, less avowedly polemic sources) for factual descriptions of specific historical incidents. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


The result of the third nomination was simply a misunderstanding. The article of "Hungarians in Slovakia" is only associated with "Hungarophobia" and does not cover the whole subject. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a moot point now that the article has been recreated (though under a different title). Speaking of which, could you please fix the double redirect problems you created through your recent move of this page? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Done. Actually I do agree with the recreation. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Now I am asking admin help, because the 3rd result will be a constant problem. How can we fix it? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
How can it be a constant problem? There are no remaining redirects from this topic to Hungarians in Slovakia. In the event that the present article is nominated for deletion, you can discuss possible redirect targets in that deletion discussion. There's no point in doing so now. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that nobody will understand that why this article exists. If you see the talk page there is a "redirection" result.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It should be obvious to anyone who reads the most recent deletion discussion, as the {{Old AfD multi}} template instructs people to do. But just in case I've added a version of my explanation at Talk:Anti-Hungarian sentiment to the top of this page. If you are satisfied with this then I suggest you remove your {{Admin help}} template. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I have removed it.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A lot of problems! Unreliable ref used many times[edit]

This source, used several times (^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Hilda von Klausenburg: Magyarellenes atrocitások Erdélyben és Romániában: 1784-1956) was declared unreliable here [3]. Adrian (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's published by the same publisher as Hungary and the Hungarians I mentioned in a section above. (In fact, both books share some of the same material on "Romanian Atrocities", sourced to "Hungarian National Archives, Foreign Ministry regarding Romania, XIX-J-1-j".) As with this other book, I agree that we probably can't rely upon it in isolation as a source of historical facts, though it's possibly usable as a source of nationalist viewpoints. It is also a good starting point for identifying further, more reliable sources, since the book is meticulously referenced. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
But mass deletion is not the solution. First we should attempt to find reliable sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
But mass addition of POV , problematic and usourced material is the solution? This is a new article, best to keep it right from the beginning. If you find any relevant data to this article with sources there is no problem, you can add then without any problems.Adrian (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I have checked the text. Indeed, there are/were POV issues. This article should focus only on the concept of Hungarophobia. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the article indeed needs improvement and keeping the NPOV principle of WP is especially important for such a sensitive topic. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No of Ighiu victims[edit]

There is a contradiction with (link removed)

"On October 29, the 200 Hungarians of Magyarigen (Ighiu) were killed" Hh2013 (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and you are right. The original source [4] also talks about 200 victims. I don't know where the 176 families come from, but it must be changed. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In Romania[edit]

I see this data was added, with sources:

In Romania, the Ceaușescu regime was obsessed with history of Transylvania and suffering from Magyarophobia.[23] Even the clearly Hungarian historical persons went through Romanianization in these years.[23].

Can you present the page where this date is located? Also there are some strong words like "obsessed" and I want to check it with the reference. Also this part Even the clearly Hungarian historical persons went through Romanianization in these years.[23]. - I don`t understand this statement. What did you wanted to say? Adrian (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Another statement with source, but problematic? not in the source?

Transylvanian nationalists of Romanian background, citing Nicolae Ceaușescu as their favorite ideology figure, often propagate views that could be interpreted as antisemitic and anti-Hungarian in general.[4][need quotation to verify][dubious – discuss]

Can you present the page from the source here too? Adrian (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

History section[edit]

Also I see a problematic statement, possible POV.

In the 18th century, after the end of the Rákóczi's War of Independence, mass of newcomers (mainly Germans, Serbs and Romanians) came to the southern parts of Kingdom of Hungary. This organized resettlement was planned by the Habsburgs, intended against the ethnic Hungarians,[6][7]

Can you present where in the source it states this data? Where in the source it states that mass of newcomers (mainly Germans, Serbs and Romanians) came to the southern parts of Kingdom of Hungary? Thanks. Adrian (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence has no source (yet) because it is an obvious information. See Demographics of Hungary. It is just the "prelude". 800 new german villages were established in the 18th century at the southern parts of the country, ethnic Hungarians were not allowed to return until the 1740s (see:Banat of Temeswar), Habsburg administration obviously preferred other ethnicities instead of Hungarians. But if you want I am going to provide sources about it. The citation for the second sentence is coming soon. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think that is a little POV because it starts the whole problem "who came when" and that kind of stuff...and this should be an article about Anti-Hungarianism, not about when and who settled. Please provide a source for it or delete it. This is a very sensitive article, for every statement please provide reliable sources. Adrian (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, adequate sources should be provided. On the other hand, I think that it is well-known that the Habsburgs regarded the Hungarians as "politically unreliable" [5] and thus, their "reconstruction" policy was to settle, where possible, non-Hungarians in areas devastated during the Turkish wars, e.g., [6]. Please, note that it is not exactly a "who came first" type of question, since this claim does not imply that previously only Hungarians lived in those territories which were devastated (obviously, others lived there, as well). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
PS: A possible source for the first sentence: [7]. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree, but when there is one sentence about this only saying " mass of newcomers (mainly Germans, Serbs and Romanians) came to the southern parts of Kingdom of Hungary" you get the impresion that Germans and etc came there for the first time. From this, I get this impression. I believe other readers might as well. If unsourced it should be deleted. Not everyone knows about the areas devastated by the Turkish wars.Adrian (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The section absolutely does not mention such important roots of Anti-Hungarian sentiments like magyarization, interwar revisionism, policies applied on the occupied territories during WWII, etc. I don't like to discuss neutrality of sentences like "skilfull manipulation" of "Habsburg ruler and his advisers". However, the current section really cannot explain these sentiments and it cannot be accepted as a neutral or balanced. Ditinili (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced quote[edit]

I removed the text: "Transylvanian nationalists of Romanian background, citing Nicolae Ceaușescu as their favorite ideology figure, often propagate views that could be interpreted as antisemitic and anti-Hungarian in general" because:

  • The given source [8] does not seem to contain something like this
  • The present tense that is used is problematic. The book was written in 1989, 14 years ago, so it certainly does not refer to the current time

Of course that a rephrased version of this statament can be re-added, if the precise page is provided (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, is it 2003 already? How time flies… —Psychonaut (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
LOL. you are right, it is 24 years. My arithmetic is not the best this morning (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Dozsa (Gheorghe Doja) is described everywhere as a secui (=Szekely) [9] I don't think anyone ever presented him as an ethnic Romanian (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, the source is about the treatments of Hungarian historical persons in Communist Romania. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Above there are linked some Romanian Communist books and all of them tell that Dozsa was a Szekely, they don't hide the truth. I think the opposite happened. Some Hungarian authors made an effort of de-Romananianization of John Hunyadi, by claiming he was Cuman instead of Vlach, defying historical sources. I invite User:Biruitorul, User:Eurocentral, User:Iadrian yu and User:Codrinb to express their opinions about the phrase Even the Hungarian historical persons (such as John Hunyadi or György Dózsa)[29] went through Romanianization in these years that I find at least dubious. The only thing that was Romanianized was their names, but this kind of adaptation occurs in any language.
A similar edit was made at John Hunyadi article. I don't understand what this this phrase refers to. Most authors (even the non-Romanians) affirm that Hunyadi was an ethnic Vlach/Romanian.
PS. I am not trying to influence the consensus by inviting Romanian editors to the discussion, if you consider it useful you are free to invite any Hungarian editors that you think would help to clarify the issue. (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

About Dozsa in the Romanian communist hitoriography: [10]. What does the Romanianization of Dozsa exactly consists of? Cause I wasn't able to find any source where he is described as an ethnic Romanian. (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"...Hungarian diplomats also complained that the Romanians were "appropriating" their national heroes. One of the bitterest conflicts came with the 1970 celebration of the anniversary of Gheorghe Doja, the sixteenth century peasant rebel. Known in Hungary as Gyorgy Dozsa, he had long been portrayed by Hungarian communists as their spiritual predecessor in the struggle for national and social liberation. Hungarian embassy officials were therefore horrified when Romanian government claimed that he was Romanian....." (Robert Knight, Ethnicity, Nationalism and the European Cold War, p. 109) - comment by User:Fakirbakir
I agree about the appropriation of Dozsa by Romanians (for instance a number of streets in several cities of Romania were named Gheorghe Doja - even in my town from Wallachia that is totally unrelated to Dozsa), but I am very skeptical about his illustration as an etnic Romanian. Look at this books from the 1970s (from the period you are talking about above) where the authors clearly state that he was a Szekely: [11][[12] (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And about Hunyadi: was also Pope Pius II a Hungarophobe when he wrote that "Hunyadi did not increase so much the glory of the Hungarians, but especially the glory of the Romanians among whom he was born"? (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy was an Irish descendant. But, nobody cares about it, he is not part of Irish history. He belongs to American history. Hunyadi's father came to Kingdom of Hungary from Wallachia but this fact does not really count because the Hunyadi family became a Hungarian noble family (ethnicity did not matter in that time, there were nobles and peasants). Hunyadi was of Romanian stock. That is all. Communist Romanian historiography was badly nationalistic and tried to appropriate Hungarian historical persons (e.g. Transylvanian voivodes..). It also attempted to remove the non-Romanian elements from history of Transylvania. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I propose then the revision of the text you added here into "John Hunyadi, a hero of Hungary, was subordinated to the ideology of National Communism and transmuted into a hero of Romania." which eliminates any confusion. (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Bilingual signs in Slovakia[edit]

Here is the source why I deleted a sentence at section of Slovakia. The Slovak government has just voted against the bilingual signs at the railway stations.[13] Fakirbakir (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Albanophobia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI: this discussion was closed on June 22. The issue of the title of the Hungarophobia article should be taken up separately. Mathglot (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Title rename[edit]

Whatever one's feelings about the concept, the article should be renamed Anti-Hungarian sentiment or perhaps better Anti-Hungarianism based on the fact that the gloss "Hungarophobia" hardly exists in the wild, and is virtually unknown in reliable sources.

The title of an article needs to reflect a concept (word or expression) as it is used in reliable sources. The term "Hungarophobia" is notably absent from them, and to keep this as the article title based on the preferences of WP editors is pure, unsupported, original research.

In support of this, I did a test: I performed some double-quoted searches in Google for the following terms I have never seen before to see what the search result count would be, and I also checked whether WP has an article for them, and whether it's a redirect or the main article title. Note how the result counts below compare to the 464 hits for "Hungarophobia" (of which 57 are copies of WP so about 400 non-WP mirror hits for "Hungarophobia"). Any search terms which have corresponding WP articles are indicated:

  • americaphobia 4940
  • australiaphobia 2160
  • bulgarophobia 521
  • canadaphobia 27,100 : Redir to Anti-Canadianism
  • croatophobia 323
  • dubaiphobia 200
  • egyptophobia 335
  • israelophobia 2170 : Redir to Anti-Zionism
  • saudiphobia 1480
  • turkophobia 2750 : Redir to Anti-Turkism

As shown, only three of them have articles on WP, and in each case the search term is a redirect to an article Anti-<something>, and those three have from 5 to 55 times as many occurences online as "Hungarophobia" does. This article, in fact, may be the only <country-name>-ophobia article on Wikipedia. In addition, there are 1,010 hits for "anti-hungarianism" (and 197 without the hyphen, so 1200 total). These facts tend to strongly support a title change. Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This hasn't garnered any debate in the last nine months, so widening the net. Even your dont-care vote would be valuable, to balance those who feel strongly one way or the other. Tl;dr: 'Hungarophobia' barely exists in the wild, whereas 'Anti-hungarian sentiment' and 'Anti-hungarianism' both have small, but measurable attestations in reliable sources, so the article should be renamed.
Pinging contributors to the Talk:Albanophobia discussion (@Jenks24, Prinzgezinde, Gulangyu, The Four Deuces, Resnjari, AjaxSmack, SnowFire, and Red Slash:) as well as non-IP user, non-trivial, non-bot edits in the last three years at Hungarophobia (@Staszek Lem, Fakirbakir, Rosszkornyifog, Ehrenkater, Iadrian yu, Hh2013, and Koertefa:): eager to hear your thoughts.
Note: this is strictly about the proposed rename of the Hungarophobia article, and there is no intent here to push for a false consistency with other article titles. My argument in favor of a move to Anti-Hungarian sentiment is that this is supported by the evidence (see above) and by WP guidelines about reliable sources and verifiability. A consensus to rename this article would in no way establish any kind of precedent about the proposed move of any other article. They each would have to go through the same requirements of evidence and reliable sources, and the results might be completely different. Mathglot (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What other forms of anti-nationalism are called is not relevant. We seek the common name of this subject. By that logic, the title should be "anti-Hungarian sentiment" per this ngram. Gulangyu (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Mathglot, at this point in time i would say also to do a google books and google scholar search. In the Albanophobia article i said that Ngram sometimes does not pick up sometimes certain terms. In the end the policy (WP:GOOG) does cite that google books and google scholar are results most to be taken into account due to them being overwhelming scholarly sources. Have a search of those. Hope that helps. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:GOOG is just an essay and it doesn't say anything like what you claiming. "Hungarophobia" gets 74 hits on Gbooks, but yields only three pages of results (i.e. 30 books). So more than half the hits are "ghosts." This is a common problem and it is something that Ngram was created to address. The ghosting problem is even more serious when the search term contains multiple words. Google search can't compare a single word search term like "Hungarophobia" to a multiple word search term like "anti-Hungarian sentiment" -- that's apples and oranges. Gulangyu (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, so its an essay that lays out the Wikipedia guidelines to sort things like this. It still refers to google books and google scholar as being the main two in referring to these types of matters. I still see nothing that puts Ngram above google books or scholar. I made my point about Ngram having its issues. Anyway for here, those wanting to keep or change need to make the case. At this point in time i am just an observer.Best. Resnjari (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I vote in favour of renaming the article, as suggested. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • So the Hungarophobia example didn't shake your faith in hit count numbers? I'll try again. "anti-Hungarian sentiment" gives me 902 hits on GBooks. But the final result is on the fifth page.[14] That makes 41 books. Not only that, but the listings on the fourth and fifth pages are irrelevant. To recap, the ghosting ratio was 74:30 in the Hungarophobia example. As you can see from this example, multi-word search terms are far more seriously ghosted than single word searches. There is no predictable relationship between the hit count and the number of results the search engine actually found. Hit counts are incidental to the function of a search engine. Ngram was created specifically to address known problems with them. Gulangyu (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • hehe. You got me convinced this time. Google books works a charm. Always the scholarship as last resort to confirm beyond doubt. Ok, my vote is Support proposed change of article title. I am still for the position that all of these types of articles though should be taken on a case by case basis for name changes. Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


I am iterating my support for the RM closure at Talk:Albanophobia that title changes should be on a case-by-case basis and not on the basis of consistency not support in sources. Any specific moves supported by others are fine with me. —  AjaxSmack  14:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Good responses all; I'm lurking and watching. While I'm here, a minor comment re Ngrams: you may not have noticed that my 27 June post had ngrams linked in it, but thanks for the suggestion, as we agree. By the way, Ngrams have their own issues and you can get a different picture by altering the start date, by changing smoothing to 0, or by setting case-insensitive, depending what you're trying to show.

So far at least, everyone seems to agree that each case should be considered separately, and that's a good thing. Keep the good feedback coming! Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Karady's and Ban's books are reliable sources too. They use the term "Hungarophobia". They are both historians. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
They're reliable, perhaps, as far as facts are concerned, but not as an arbiter of proper usage in English.
  • Sociologist Victor Karády writes in Hungarian and French; his books appearing in English are translated.
  • András Bán wrote in Hungarian; his books in English are translated. (Someone else with the same name has a Hungarian Wikipedia article, but the historian (b. 1962, d. 2001) does not.)
Neither one of them has an English Wikipedia article, and neither one of them is a reliable source about usage of rare words in English. A translator trying to respect an author's intent, may use a cognate when available to remain close to the author's original word but that is not the same thing as a historian writing original material in English. (And as it happens, the same translator translated both books.) The words Hungarian-speaking Bán and Karády use in their Hungarian works may bring some weight to a similar discussion about how an article on Hungarian Wikipedia should be entitled, but it has no bearing here. On English Wikipedia, we follow the usage of the consensus of English sources.
The consensus seems to be in favor of the rename. If there is nothing new to add, I'll bring this to a conclusion after a decent interval. Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks to admin RickinBaltimore for helping with the move. The talk page move will follow shortly. Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And the talk page move is now complete as well, thanks to admin User:Huon. Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


  1. Slovak National Party has a new leader and rather moderate rhetoric. Nowadays, it's a member of the governing coalition together with Most-Híd (widely supported by the Hungarian minority and led by ex-leader of the Party of Hungarian Coalition Béla Bugár). It seems that they consistently do better (or other) work than playing nationalistic games. (See this, just for fun)
  2. Hedviga Malinová does NOT say that she was beaten because she "phoned" in Hungarian. She (allegedly) does not remember. She said that she does not remember also during the first police questioning (scanned protocol, p. 7) Ditinili (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


I have moved the old "Talk:Anti-Hungarian sentiment" to Talk:Anti-Hungarian sentiment/Archive 2 to make way for a move from Talk:Hungarophobia. Huon (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraph, and Terminology section[edit]

Because of the multiplicity of designations in English for the article topic, I wonder if we shouldn't have a new section called Terminology at the top, right after the summary, to discuss some, or all of these terms?

The first sentence is currently unwieldy, with four, bolded 'also-known-as' equivalents, before it even gets around to the verb and saying what the term actually means. What if we have the first sentence simply define what the term means, and then follow up after that with another sentence, with all the "aka's"? Then, in the Terminology section, we can go into more detail about the usage of each term, their origin, some examples, or whatever seems appropriate. Nothing huge, but since there seems to be so many equivalents, we should say something about it.

Also, I'd like to drop the second sentence in the lede as unnecessary, or redundant. We all know what xenophobia is, is it really necessary to describe it with a whole, comma-series list of items like that? Or, if there actually are some reliable sources that link anti-Hungarian sentiment specifically (as opposed to all xenophobia in general) to the items in that list, then we should keep that sentence, but then we need to reference those sources.

Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Hungarian sentiment. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)