Talk:Right-wing socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

As said before, I wrote this article which I now see as dumb, with no coherent topic, DELETE IT, move relevant topics into their own articles[edit]

The intro speaks for itself, I made a stupid, STUPID, mistake in creating this worthless article. Now do I have to be blamed for all eternity for creating it, when I, the author of this crap, am IMPLORING you to delete it because it was a mistake.--R-41 (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish we could. Unfortunately, as noted above, a second AFD failed due to the usual "no-consensus" cop-out, thanks to a couple of drive-by "Keep, seems interesting"-type contributions and some more spirited defence from the page's no1 fan, User:Collect. Those of us who realise it's a bit of a dog's breakfast – in conception as well as execution – can't really agree on how to disentangle and refocus it; plus, since we dislike it, we're not that keen on investing time and energy in doing that (and Collect will veto any change anyway). Fancy taking it on yourself?! N-HH talk/edits 12:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not perfect but it is interesting and is better than there being no article on Right-Wing Socialism. LeapUK (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

As I noted over three years ago, there are plenty of "seems interesting" approvals to be had. Whether there's a coherent encyclopedic topic here – potentially, let alone in its current form – is a slightly different point of course. Every political dictionary or work of political science I've ever seen, and even this article itself given the disparate themes it covers, suggests not, but what is that set against the random passing views of anonymous WP accounts? N-HH talk/edits 20:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Split tag[edit]

Fine N-HH. If you want to split the article then please split it. Op47 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see discussion above as to why, as ever, things are not quite as simple as that. Drive-by untagging can be as unconstructive and unhelpful as drive-by tagging, let alone when compared to tags that are there for good reason and after much debate. Plenty of people want to split the article, including its creator – who was the person who added the tag in the first place btw, not me – but there is disagreement as to how, plus an unreasonable watching veto on pretty much any changes to anything. And as a general rule people who add tags, or who support their retention, are under no strict obligation to do the solving. Flagging a problem and highlighting an ongoing talk page discussion is a legitimate part of the solution to any problem. The rules are not "do everything immediately as one individual editor or do nothing". N-HH talk/edits 00:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

George Orwell[edit]

Needs to be a discussion of the fact that George Orwell used the term "Right-wing Socialist in 'Spilling the Spanish Beans' in the New English Weekly 29 July and 2 September 1937. So he predates de Soto on the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladymisskt (talkcontribs) 06:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Split article and form disambiguation page[edit]

No consensus, which defaults to oppose per WP:STATUSQUO, Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus,  !vote count very close, no clear policy arguments requiring split or requiring not splitting. Two AFDs both coming up no consensus with the most recent one just before this RFC. This RFC was also not advertised, which would have significantly helped to bring in some outside views. If this needs to be turned into a pure disambig, rather than an overview of related concepts, then a stronger consensus will need to be developed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article be split up and reduced to a disambiguation page? Op47 (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


Please do not put discussion in this section, but rather use the Threaded discussion section below.

  • Agree Disambiguate. TFD (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree WP is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. Articles should not be about words, but about concepts. If one word has different meanings, there should be a disambiguation. --RJFF (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree Too many topics smashed together into one article. APerson (talk!) 20:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, see below. Robofish (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree Many of these are disparate concepts with distinct meanings and intent and trying to describe them all in a single article is just confusing. BlueSalix (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree Per endless discussion above, please put this article out of its misery. A random mash-up of occasions, contexts and concepts in respect of which a random convergence of words happens to occur in each case does not make a coherent encyclopedia entry. Instead it should disambiguate and direct people to the specific and discrete concepts involved. N-HH (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and note that those who opined at the AfD should really have been notified of this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Some reasoning or justification would perhaps be helpful, especially when others have made the effort. Feel free to set that out below. I'm not sure btw what obligation there is to notify previous contributors on this issue across various forums, whether any of their contributions made sense at the time or otherwise. N-HH (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The reasoning is the same as given at the AfD. Noting that this article as recently as February was 29K long, and was reduced by 25K by one seeking deletion. The topic is clearly notable, and was used as a term in the New York Times [1], [2] in Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship by Huerta de Soto - 2010, [3] African Socialism by Rosberg and Friedland, etc. Notable topic, even if those seeking deletion removed 90% of the original content, the remaining content is proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Re-added on-point and sourced section on conservative socialism", noting this is not related to "fascism" in any event. Collect (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC) I trust iterating stuff pleases you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Shelley Christian, writing in the NYT in 1990, said that Peron "installed a sort of right-wing socialism in Argentina.... It combined generous Government welfare programs and a large economic role for the state with religious conservatism and respect for private property.[1] I.I. Potekhin, writing in 1990, used the description "right-wing" to distinguish the socialism of the Socialist Party of France from Communism. (p. 108)[2] De Soto used the term "right-wing socialism" to describe mainstream conservatives, to distinguish them from left-wing socialists, such as the Socialist Party of France, or Peronism (p. 79).[3] Each writer is referring to something different. TFD (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
And what about the thousand and one+ different "definitions" for "right wing" in the first place? Many articles refer to different concepts for related topics, and this article ought be no different. Unless, of course, you can provide me with the elusive "one size fits all" definition of "right wing"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I recommended deleting that article and nominated "Centre-right" for deletion and do not vote to keep this article just to make a point. However, at least those are actual terms that can be found in dictionaries. TFD (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, this discussion should be taking place in the section below, but if you still don't understand that, for all its diffuseness as an umbrella term and for all the debate about what it might exactly mean and how it might precisely be applied, the discrete term "right wing" is nevertheless understood, for all its flaws, as a standard description in political taxonomy, as TFD suggests, whereas the randomly composite phrase we have here is not – as a matter of basic syntax and broader English language comprehension rather than of political definition – there is nothing much more that can be done to help you. N-HH (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - There's lots of disparate threads here. I was reading only today about the spread of National Bolshevism; there are lots of different right-wing movements that are socialist in name, heritage, or even function - even if we generally agree that most socialism is not right-wing, and most right-wingers not socialist. Let's point people to the specific articles rather than create a false synthesis. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this article would fall into the category of Wikipedia:Summary style articles. Therefore we should avoid unnecessary splits per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Also, the subject of this RFC "should this article be reduced to a disambiguation page" is tantamount to deletion and should be at an AfD, since AfDs often result in pages made into redirects to disambig pages. --Nug (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose What appears to be a runaround from the AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Disambiguate. Too much of a hodgepodge of disparate concepts to be a coherent article. WP:NAD.--JayJasper (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Nug. WP:AVOIDSPLIT Capitalismojo (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the guidance of WP:CONCEPTDAB, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page. ... A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual.". Warden (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
But it isn't. That's precisely the point. N-HH (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually he is correct and you are getting tendentious in attacking everyone who happens to disagree with your position -- De gustibus non est disputandum is a good rule to follow, as your challenges to everyone else are quite unlikely to convince then that you are the only person capable of "intellectual rigour" as you so amusingly call your position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Having originally been neutral, I am now persuaded that this article should be split per WP:DAB. This article is an incoherent bag of unrelated (except by name) concepts (connected only by a label used by politicians when they have an idea that doesn't fall into one of the more usual pots). Splitting won't be easy, but it will be worth it to de-muddle this article. Op47 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:DAB applies to single terms:
"Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous".
"Right-wing socialism" is a concept, so WP:CONCEPTDAB applies:
"If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page".
--Nug (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

The article is about all the ways the term has been used. The definition in the lead is from a U.S. libertarian writer, who defines "right-wing socialism" as the "socialism" of the mainstream Republican Party in the U.S. Hence George W. Bush was a "right-wing socialist." Then it talks about Bismarck's conservative government and fascism. TFD (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Having just come across this article, I found it very interesting, and I think it's worth keeping. True, the subject is a bit vague - there are various different movements and ideas that have been characterised at times as 'right-wing socialism'/'conservative socialism'. But even so, I think there's something to be gained from considering these different ideas in one article, rather than turning it into a disambiguation page. A dab page is a very crude device, and would likely lead to arguments over what items exactly should be listed on it. An article allows for text and explanation, and considering the history of the concept of 'right-wing socialism', rather than just listing alleged examples of it. Robofish (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If that is what you think, then you should post your opinion at the talk page of WP:DISAMBIG, because this guideline says that each subject should have a separate article. TFD (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Since apparantly (contrary to WP:RFC and WP:ANRFC) I am not good enough to close this RfC, I have notified WP:ANRFC to request closure. Op47 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Again oppose any non-admin closure contrary to AfD criteria and procedures - one does not use a backdoor to gain what was not accepted at AfD. If you wish to delete an article which had been kept at AfD, the procedure is to nominate it at AfD. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Note both prior AfDs had substantially more participation than this RfC had - and those who opined "keep" (or "delete") in the past were given no notification of this RfC - the proper venue for a third AfD is ... AfD. BTW, "4 to 2" does not qualify as a hell of a "consensus" as far as any math courses I ever had. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

All, please be advised that I have reported the repeated interference with closing this RfC to ANI. Thankyou. Op47 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to concur with Collect that this page should not be replaced using the RfC process after failing an AfD. I think that Collect is concerned that closing now immediately following the last poll would result in a "mini-AfD" which is why there is resistance to close this. I would also like to add that I like N-HH's overall idea of a breakdown of examples of terms (and outbound links where appropriate). However, I think a blank disambiguation page would not do the topic justice. Many of the complaints I have seen here are complaints that could be applied to any brief summary of political ideas. The term means different things to different people. Definitions are sometimes contradictory (De Soto et al), while others use the term as if it were an every day turn of phrase (NYT). Because this is a political term, many prominent sources are political tracts and works of philosophy that are not NPOV (Rothbard). It is not an actual political party and few self identify using the term without further clarification. I could make these same arguments for the word "liberal" for example. None of these are sufficient arguments IMO for exclusion.
In the interest of moving on to bigger and better things, lets save our AfD battles for the articles that are truly Wiki-cancer; the long-winded fan fiction summaries, the D list porn actor bios and free ad space. G-d knows I see more of those then I see articles like this. I'm happy to help invest some time into this piece but want to work on a bit of a clearer consensus and see how this pans out before making any changes. Just know if you're not interested in working on this article there are others who will. Thanks Jaydubya93 (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The broad conclusion among the uninvolved commenting at ANI appears to be that this sort of "split and disambiguate" proposal is not appropriate for AFD and would indeed probably be shut down there anyway. So, can we drop the "wrong process" tangent and come back to the substantive issue in this forum rather than wasting even more time somewhere else as well? If necessary, we can notify all those who commented at the last AFD, as suggested in the ANI thread.
Also, of course, that slightly negates the latest "Oppose RFC proposal as it should be via AFD" comments above. If possible, actual observations focused on why this page is not a rather glaring synthesis of totally random topics that would be better off pointing people to the actual pages on those discrete topics rather than utterly misleading them that there is some acknowledged connection between them all would help. N-HH (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Topics related by using the same terminology, even if disparate in views of philosophers, generally end up in one reasonably sized article than in eighteen stubs. In fact, each stub would then be a candidate for "merge" or "deletion" at AfD I am sure ... if this article were unwieldy in size you would have a stronger case, but are you averring here that you would not seek to delete the future stubs? I find creation of a buncha stubs to be far more of a problem than the current article length. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this article would fall into the category of Wikipedia:Summary style articles. Therefore we should avoid unnecessary splits per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. --Nug (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
AVOIDSPLIT is totally irrelevant here. It is about the needless creation of new sub-pages, which may well be merely stubs, on non-notable aspects of the main topic where a page exists on that main topic. Here, there is no coherent main topic and the substantive "sub-pages" already exist (eg Social Democracy, Fascism, Bismarck, Peronism, Oswald Spengler etc) – ie those very pages and topics out of which this bizarre synthesis has been constructed. N-HH (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Never the less, this article remains a Wikipedia:Summary style article that would point to those other sub pages. --Nug (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Conservative or right-wing socialism[1][2] has been defined at various times and places as applying to different groups, just as the terms "right wing" and "socialism" have been treated in different ways in different times and places.

One of the current usages was set by Jesús Huerta de Soto, examining a type of socialism in which institutional aggression is employed to maintain the social status quo and the privileges certain people or groups of people enjoy.[3] (This would be first subsection)

It has also been used by right-wing movements and politicians who promote social solidarity and paternalism rather than individualism, commercialism, and laissez-faire economics.[4][5] In those examples, the basic purpose of “right-wing socialism" is to maintain the status quo by restricting entrepreneurship and creative human action from disrupting the pre-established framework of social organization.[3] It supports social hierarchy and certain people and groups to hold higher status in such a hierarchy.[4] (examples of such - including Peronism etc. would belong here)

In other cases it represents a deliberate fusion of Marxism-Leninism and a social democratic type of socialism. (Japan and other examples which clearly represent such a fusion here)

Other movements which called themselves "socialist" but which show attributes similar to military socialism, guild socialism, agrarian socialism, and religious socialism (covering a slew of topics including the Amana one) have been called "right-wing socialism." Murray Rothbard called Bismarckism, fascism and Nazism examples of combinations of conservatism with socialism.[2]

Note this prevents lots of "stubs" littering Wikipedia and, I trust, breaks the broader topic and usage into four fairly well-defined subsections instead of 17 or 18 stubs. It retains the current material in what I consider a rational progression, and comment on which is invited. The remaining sections would then be arranged in the order suggested by this proposal for the lead. Collect (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, per WP:SS. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    Would you be kind enough to clarify, WP:SS refers the the summaries that are left when you split off a section of an article. Did you mean WP:LEAD perhaps? Op47 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Invented narrative and random mash-up which still seeks to link these disparate concepts, while not only suggesting but explicitly claiming – utterly incorrectly – that the term is no less coherent that "right wing" or "socialism" on its own. And as noted above, there is no risk of stubs littering WP because these "sub-pages" already exist for the most part, since those are the discrete topics at hand. N-HH (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose SS does not apply, but DISAMBIG does, assuming there are any topics that warrant articles. TFD (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:DISAMBIG applies to terms, not concepts. Clearly is "Right-wing socialism" is a concept with varied application, and it is useful to summarise those applications. Therefore WP:SS applies. --Nug (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
No. For example it can mean the right-wing of socialism (e.g., the British Labour Party), or right-wingers who have socialist views, e.g., the UK Conservative Party. The source that calls Conservatives right-wing socialists calls Labour left-wing socialists. Different topics. TFD (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You have a reliable source that states it can mean "the right-wing of socialism" or "right-wingers who have socialist views"? --Nug (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
If you do not think there are sources for this article, may I ask why you are defending it? Only one source provided gives a definition, that is De Soto's book. It is rs for what De Soto wrote. Collect has kindly provided examples above (22:45, 12 February 2014). In the English language, it is always possible to modify a political term with the adjective "right-wing", and the meaning is understood by context. Hence English dictionaries do not list every possible combination of adjectives and nouns. We understand that a "green card" is a card that is green, unless it is a distinct concept, in which case it has its own dictionary entry. Otherwise, although different English speakers may be referring to different shades of green or types of cards, they do not create a distinct concept each time they speak but are understandable according to context. TFD (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Collect's proposal appears to be well sourced, I meant do you have any sources supporting your specific claims? . --Nug (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I assume you're not seriously asking for sources for simple logical argument or for explanation of basic English language construction when it comes to composite terms. I hope you're not disputing them either. If you want them for the specific points you raise, you could, er, just read the article you've suddenly taken to doggedly defending and which you assert is "well sourced". As for that claim, that's precisely why the disputes around this page are so intractable. Most things in the current page, and in any proposed superficial rewrite of it, may be sourced individually but the problem is that no source connects all the disparate concepts and different uses of the composite term set out in it. Do you or Collect – or anyone else supporting the page – have any? Can you point to any dictionary of political terms that identifies an overarching coherent concept here? To stick with the green, would you support the existence of a page called "Green fascism", which covered everything including fascists who had incorporated environmentalism into their philosophy, greens with genuine fascist tendencies, fascists in Ireland and the polemical use of the term to oppose environmentalism while pretending it was all the same, broad topic? N-HH (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Um -- would you claim that the Rightwing article refers to a single well-defined concept - where it is obvious that it is an amorphous term in the first place? Many articles on Wikipedia contain multiple sections, and that is not a problem in those articles. For fun, tell me Philosophy does not contain a wide group of quite disparate topics. How many examples are needed? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────See WP:PRIMARY: "Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)."

If you think other articles should be deleted or disambiguated, please discuss on their talk pages, rather than disrupting this article to make a point.

TFD (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And I suggest that the term's uses bear enough in common to be sections within an article. As for your failure to assume good faith, I should mark that down to your inexperience online -- as I made no "point" and simply am following normal Wikipedia policies and practices. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
In answer to the question above, yes, "right-wing", like many other such terms, is a relatively fuzzy and arguably imprecise simple term, which can cover a sometimes varying range of things. Philosophy too covers a broad range of disciplines. We all know that. However, that is not the point. "Right-wing" is, despite that, and as constantly noted already, on its own a common and standard term of art in political analysis. You will find it defined in political dictionaries and encyclopedias, however broadly (just as you will find "Philosophy" defined in equivalent publications). "Right-wing socialism" by contrast is not just a broad and imprecise description but a composite term which covers wholly disparate notions by virtue of its lexical/grammatical construction alone, before we even get into the actual politics. Could you have the courtesy and intellectual rigour to now answer the questions I addressed to you above? For example, can you point us all to a source which offers a central, coherent definition of this term or connects the disparate uses of it (as opposed to sources which randomly apply it to those discrete concepts)? N-HH (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
OTOH can you accept that others happen to disagree with your position and that your request is tendentious at this point and has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual rigour? De gustibus applies. I find your mode of discussion to be more aimed at making personal attacks than at acceptance of the views of others at this point. Collect (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, asking someone to apply some rigour to their thinking presupposes – perhaps naively, it would now seem – that they are capable of doing so, so I don't quite see the personal attack involved in that request. And if asking totally reasonable questions in the first place is "tendentious", I wonder what that makes repeatedly avoiding them (while at the same time insisting that people answer yours in return, even when they've already been answered, and suggesting that basic logic and comprehension is a matter of personal "taste"). If the position you and others are maintaining is defensible, even if only as a legitimate subjective opinion, I am sure answers and references justifying those answers can be found and given. N-HH (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
There you go again. Comment on the points made, not your suggestion that anyone and everyone who disagrees has no "intellectual rigour" and their opinions are not "defensible" in your view. Everyone's views are "defensible" in my own opinion, and I find your stated position to be quite contrary to the ideals of WP:CONSENSUS Allow for the fact that different opinions exist, that you hold no copyright on the "truth" and that the statements here by each editor are made in good faith for the good of the encyclopedia. Otherwise, your screeds are not doing anyone any good whatsoever -- least of all the strengths of your own arguments. Have a gallon or two of tea, please. Collect (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Socially conservative and Economically Socialist[edit]

I think rightwing socialism is an idea for people who are socially conservative and economically socialist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guntaelgordo (talkcontribs) 15:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


There are Conservative/Right-Wing parties around the world which advocate government spending (socialism) in Germany,France, Singapore, Japan etc. Any government spending is Socialism, well then Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan were socialists. Bismarck created the first welfare state.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Right-wing socialism. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)