Talk:Vietnam

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

Inaccurate or Inconsistent statement[edit]

The summary describes Vietnam as having high income inequality, but the gini ranking places it as moderate (and less than that of America) 216.145.68.130 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Innacurate Statement in Pre-History[edit]

"The oldest Homo sapiens fossils from mainland Southeast Asia are of Middle Pleistocene provenance, and include isolated tooth fragments from Tham Om and Hang Hum.[19]"

This is not even close to correct. The Middle Pleistocene ended around 126K years ago. The oldest modern human remains found anywhere in SE Asia are around 40K years old. http://australianmuseum.net.au/the-first-modern-humans-in-southeast-asiaVenqax (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement[edit]

Found: "Vietnam was part of Imperial China for over a millennium, from 111 BC to 938 AD." The statement doesn't accurately depict the history of Vietnam. It erroneously implies Vietnam had belonged originally to China, which is totally inaccurate. Vietnam had never been part of China before, but after the Chinese invasion, Vietnam was part of Imperial China at the time. Professor and Holder of the John Biggs Chair in Military History Spencer C Tucker, Spencer C. Tucker states in his book (http://books.google.com/books?id=hvyNAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=111+BC+to+938+AD,+vietnam&source=bl&ots=ZI78puaTtA&sig=bI15k6BdzP2Rj-xAB89FUyvZnEw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zf6lU-2UBrHo8AHSr4GgCA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=111%20BC%20to%20938%20AD%2C%20vietnam). That statement should be read: "Governgov (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)After the Chinese invasion, Vietnam was part of Imperial China for over a millennium, from 111 BC to 938 AD."


}}

This sounds strange to me as well, and I am neither Chinese nor Vietnamese. China has never existed as a continuous political entity for more than a millennium, and this sounds like an attempt to claim a history of modern, Communist China that does not exist. It would be like claiming that the United States actually existed for as long as there were humans in North America and then calling that period the Anarchic United States or the "Era of Warring Tribes" of the United States. The reality is that the political entity known as the United States did not exist until the Constitution was implemented. Similarly, China did not exist until the Ming's inherited (seized) the Chinese portion of the Mongol Empire in the 1400's. China before then was simply an amalgam of various independent kingdoms that have long since passed into oblivion. Calling them "China" would be like calling Europe today Roman. It's almost the reverse of the one-drop rule that we use to categorize Americans into whites and non-whites: if any territory is inside China, then its history is "Chinese." Florida is now a part of the United States, but the U.S. doesn't claim that Spain and its former empire are part of American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.130.131 (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Will it be better if one were to say that what is modern Vietnam was for a millennium part of the Chinese state? This is an important point, that it was part of A Chinese state, unlike Korea which was a vassal state/tributary state of Imperial China. It doesn't imply that Vietnam BELONGS to China, merely that it was PART of China. Just like Eire was part of Great Britain, but it is controversial to say that it BELONGS to China Historicalchild (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Minor typo[edit]

Found a typo in the part about the First Indochina War. "major strategic setback at during their defeat at the Siege of Dien Bien Phu"

Ordering of leaders in infobox[edit]

Why is the Communist Party General Secretary listed first and the President listed second? According to Syntax in Template:Infobox country, the first leader listed is usually the head of state's (wikilinked) title, e.g. "President", "Monarch". --WikiWinters (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

The two audio files at the top of the article have been transcribed similarly with /ɑː/, though the second, the native Vietnamese one, is clearly /æ/. So I've edited the second accordingly: the vowel value now matches that further down in the Etymology section.

The article currently gives most prominence to the US pron, /ɑː/. My judgment is that the Vietnamese pron should be the first mentioned. Spicemix (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency?[edit]

Is the Vietnamese pronunciation of the name of the country [viət˨ næm˧] or [viə̀t naːm]? -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with stub: Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76)[edit]

Hello, I noticed there was a gap in the former states of Cambodia so I created Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76); any help in expanding this stub would be much appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 04:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2014[edit]

Congdinh2610 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Please change "Ethnic groups 85.7% Vietnamese"

to "Ethnic groups 85.7% Viet"

Because there's not any ethnic group which is named Vietnamese, and this name could be make misunderstand with all Vietnamese people. In Vietnam, we named the main ethnic group is "Kinh" or "Viet", maybe "Viet" is more common and easy for foreign to understand, but not Vietnamese. Thank you.

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  LeoFrank  Talk 16:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this is problematic, since the main article on the ethnic group is called Vietnamese people but I agree the OP is correct (Kinh is also bolded in the lead in the main article). This seems to me to be plainly analogous to Cambodian vs Khmer, Laotian vs Lao and Burmese vs Burman. bridies (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • No further input, so made the edit. bridies (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Give me one example then[edit]

Give me one example of socialist states which hasn't had single-party rule post-1917 then @Bridies:. --TIAYN (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and People's Republic of Bangladesh, it would seem, and arguably various other states under socialist governments (we are talking about governments, yes?) at one time or another: "socialist state" is ambiguous, and if we must remove one, "single-party" should be what remains. None of this is even relevant: shall I start giving references that describe Vietnam as a "single-party" state, government, or regime? bridies (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
As much as various people would like to see their variations of their ideology in any specific country most countries are a mix.

A state can have socialism or socialist principles in its constitution no matter its political plurality. Then any part is consititutionally bound to uphold certain virtues just like any party in America (and its de facto two party system) is bound to uphold its virtues. Of course sometimes constitutions are ignored. Just like it partly was in the USSR and partly is today in the US. Other reasons which make Vietnam a socialist country but still a single-party state is the states regulation and ownership of the economy which actually is growing and the way the result of this economic activiity benefits the people (after corruption) instead of single individuals or groups of them as under oligarchy or fascism. 79.136.64.95 (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The notion that state ownership benefits "the people" and not vested "individuals or groups" is verifiably ridiculous ;) Otherwise I agree regards pervasive state ownership making it something recognisably socialist, as it's commonly understood. I don't really see what you're getting at in regards to the OP, though. bridies (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrative Map[edit]

Administrative maps need to fix because Ha Tay province was merged into Hanoi since 2008. Nguyenthienhaian (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Viet Nam or Vietnam?[edit]

Thhir government prefers rendering of Viet Nam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a good point actually. The Vietnamese government does prefer Viet Nam (rather than Vietnam). I think this should be looked into and be given serious consideration. For instance: http://www.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/English
Doublestuff (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2014[edit]

Under the heading "1862–1945: French Indochina", there is a vocabulary error in the final sentence. Instead of "Japan exploited Vietnam's natural resources to support its military campaigns, cumulating in a full-scale takeover of the country ...", it should read "Japan exploited Vietnam's natural resources to support its military campaigns, culminating in a full-scale takeover of the country ...." Mprat001 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014[edit]

i wanna edit it,in language part,Vietnam culture is a branch of the chinese culture 204.237.43.205 (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Tourism[edit]

Shouldn't the section "tourism" better be shifted from "culture" to "economy"? --Schwobator (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015[edit]

Vietnam populations should be 90.630.000 instead of 90.730.000. 67.230.153.29 (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1946–54: First Indochina War - extensive NPOV problems[edit]

1) Note #2 in this section begins, "Neither the United States government nor Ngô Đình Diệm's State of Vietnam signed anything at the 1954 Geneva Conference." There was no reason to expect Diệm's regime would sign anything at the Geneva accords because 1) Diệm's government did not exist yet, nor did any nation of South Vietnam, by any name, 2) the French were still the official rulers of Vietnam at the negotiations, and 3) Diệm did not seize power until after the agreements were all signed. Diệm was not a party, nor was the US. Saying Diệm and the US were not signatories and disagreed with the agreement between the French and the Viet Minh was a common excuse used by Diệm and US leaders to absolve Diệm and the US for interfering with an agreement to which they were not parties. Diệm created a nation that did not exist by overthrowing the French-supported Emperor Bảo Đại and seceding the South from the rest of Vietnam. That secession is what absolved the Diệm regime from having to hold elections, not the fact that he hadn't signed off on the Geneva Accords (which are the source for this).

2) The article then states, "Two states formed after the partition – Ho Chi Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the north and Emperor Bảo Đại's State of Vietnam in the south." This is simply not true, and it reflects a bias to legitimize the nonexistent statehood of South Vietnam after the Geneva Conference. These were not the names of actual states, nor were they created at the Geneva Conference. There was only one Vietnam after the Geneva Accords. Until the South seceded, the North and the South were referred to as "regrouping zones" and "the northern and southern zones of Viet-Nam" in the Geneva Accords and in American documents (see the Pentagon Papers). Each zone was administered by the opposing parties within the nation of Vietnam. The Geneva Declaration also says "the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." South Vietnam was not even claimed to be a nation until the year after the Accords were signed and Diệm overthrew the governing authorities of the southern administrative zone. This is all spelled out clearly in the Geneva Accords, which stand as THE authoritative RS for all of this. Other sources reflect the interpretations of their authors. That's ok, but it's not history.

3) The responsibility for enforcing these terms rested with the French and People's Army Commanders [Art. 22]. The French and the People's Army (Viet Minh) signed off on this. It's incorrect and divisive for us to say that two states were formed until after Diệm's coup. (This reflects a bias in favor of the South, and against the Communists.) The French were required to enforce adherence to the agreements but simply abandoned its responsibility without even asking for help. The People's Army Commanders did their part. This section must, IMO, describe the role of the French after the Geneva Conference, as they are one of the two warring parties described in this section and the major party to the agreement. This reflects a Western bias IMO. Again, the Accords are the source for their responsibility.

4) Further NPOV problems follow in that same paragraph, where it states that "almost a million northerners, mainly Catholics, moved south, fearing persecution by the communists." While the number is true, there is no statement of the hundreds of thousands of people who moved to the North during the same time, fearing whatever they feared from the regime in the South. This again reflects an anti-North bias.

This war ended 40 years ago. Can we put aside our partisan rhetoric and report the facts here? Emotions still run very deep, but we still need to be neutral on these issues, and I think it's time we tried. The Communist North won. They're doing ok. Dcs002 (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to much of what you say, and certainly not to your overall objective (which I take to be intellectual accuracy), but I think the article at hand as well as your comments - especially your point no. 3 - fail in a major way to reflect my understanding that the 1954 Geneva Accords specified that free elections were to be held in both the north and south "regrouping zones" to determine the direction of the sole country, that these elections were held in the south but never in the north, and that this failure in the north was the primary justification for the subsequent US intervention in Vietnam. This electoral failure in the north was the essence of US fears as described by its "domino theory". I think this article, especially the introduction, needs to be edited to reflect this fact.BLZebubba (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to second Dcs002 and say that this section needs much more improvement.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015[edit]

In the part: "Administrative subdivisions", now it has a sentence: "Vietnam is divided into 58 provinces (Vietnamese: tỉnh, from the Chinese 省, shěng). " Please edit this sentence to: "Vietnam is divided into 58 provinces (Vietnamese: tỉnh)."

Because I think there is not any reason to give an explanation in Chinese language here, neither the origin of any word in other language except Vietnamese. This is an article about Vietnam and it's written in English, there's not any related to Chinese language here (this article is not about language, not about the etymology). Thank you. Congdinh2610 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It is possible that the information may be irrelevant but we need consensus for that in order to avoid revert wars. --TL22 (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2015[edit]

One of the Notes near the bottom of the article has this: >The non-communist Vietnamese delegation objected strenuously to any division of Vietnam, however, the French accepted the proposal Viet Minh proposal, that Vietnam be united by elections under the supervision of "local commissions".

There are two changes I am requesting:

Put semicolon, not comma, immediately before "however" (this assumes that "however" belongs with the FOLLOWING, not the preceding, part of the remark.

Remove "proposal" occurring just BEFORE "Viet Minh". 128.63.16.47 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Info Box Inaccuracy under 'Religion'[edit]

In the info box, the information next to religion says "Vietnamese folk religion". While this may be the majority religion in Vietnam, there is no reason to include religion in the info box if Vietnam is a secular state. For example, neither of the info boxes for USA and PRC on their respective pages include religion, as both of them are secular states. I will be removing religion from the info box on this page.--Fischia Il Vento (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vietnam. 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:

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

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2016[edit]

27.48.2.206 (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vietnam. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016[edit]

Please change the population size from 91,700,000 to 94,104,000 because the old number is no longer correct. The latest number 94,104,000 is recorded on 28/02/2016 in the UN's World Population Statistics. Quang1611 (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Viet Minh declare independence from France (in Infobox)?![edit]

In 1945 the whole French Indochina, of which all 3 states of Vietnam (Annam, Cochinchina and Tonkin) belong, was under Japan rules. So, how were they able to declare independence from France?!

Particularly when the History section reads in parts: "Japan exploited Vietnam[...], culminating in a full-scale takeover of the country in March 1945..." and "Following the military defeat of Japan and the fall of its puppet Empire of Vietnam in August 1945, the Viet Minh occupied Hanoi and proclaimed a provisional government, which asserted national independence on 2 September."

Any sharp reader should be able to see that the info in the Infobox flies against those in the History section, as they are. Shouldn't an edit be made to reconcile the two?

Remaining one-party socialist states[edit]

The article states as of 21 July 2016:

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, along with China, Cuba, and Laos, is one of the world's four remaining one-party socialist states officially espousing communism.

What happened to North Korea? Is it not a socialist state officially espousing communism? Is there no party in North Korea like the CP in China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.38.131 (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

North Korea's ideology is Juche and differs in nature from the Marxism–Leninism of other countries.. Dustin (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement: education in Viet Nam under the French[edit]

"A Western-style system of modern education was developed..."

While not entirely false, this is misleading in the extreme. Such education was only available to collaborationist elite, mostly Catholic, but not necessarily. For the rest of the populace? the overt policy was obscurantism, the infamous "chính sách ngu dân" ("stupid-people policy") (as enumerated by Ho Chi Minh among the offenses of the French, in the Declaration of Independence) – under which people like my wife's grandparents (for one concrete example), if discovered trying to study anything, including simply literacy in the Vietnamese language, could be beaten, tortured, even killed (they were, except for the last).

I'll leave it to you academic heads to rectify this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenThuHuong (talkcontribs) added by Samtar at 26 July 2016 (07:55 UTC) due to an edit filter

After World War II, Vietnam surrendered to United Kingdom in the South and to the Republic of China in the north. General Lu Han represented the Chinese Nationalist Army to accept the Japanese defeat in Vietnam on August 15, 1945. The Nationalist government favored and supported the Vietnamese party Đại Việt Quốc Dân Đảng. This forced the Việt Minh to unite with the Chinese Communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor Lone (talkcontribs) 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016[edit]

Change the number four to five in the last sentence of the opening. "Vietnam remains one of the world's four remaining one-party socialist states officially espousing communism" There are five: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam.

SuttonCS (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As I began to understand the process of making an edit. I believe I am following instructions by asking here on the related talk page for their to be a consensus that there are in fact "five remaining one-party socialist states officially espousing communism". I believe they are China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. I encourage the necessary conversation here to allow a consensus to be reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuttonCS (talkcontribs) 08:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Should we re-add Communist Party General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng to the infobox?[edit]

We all know Nguyễn Phú Trọng is the de facto supreme leader of Vietnam, but since May 2016, he has been absent from the infobox of this article. Template:Infobox_country says the first leader in the infobox should 'usually' be the head of state, not always. There are only five communist states in the world, and Vietnam is the only state out of the five that the supreme leader isn't holding the office of the head of state, I think a special case should be allowed. And no one has said everybody in the infobox should be the de jure offices of state. So why we can't re-add him to the infobox?

There is another similar example, that is Iran, the supreme leader of Iran is exactly in the infobox.

Cirolchou (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016[edit]

Espace10 (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

unification en 1976 pas en 1975.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Done. As Espace10 says, Vietnam was formally reunified in 1976, not 1975.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Update GDP per capita data for 2017 estimate[edit]

According to this: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=73&pr.y=7&sy=2014&ey=2018&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=582&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a= GDP (nominal) = 238.811 billion GDP per capita (nominal) = 2,554 USD GDP (PPP) = 637.13 billion GDP per capita (PPP) = 6,814 USD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linh.hvtc91 (talkcontribs) 09:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017[edit]

In the section on Vietnamese religion at the end of the second paragraph it says '81% of the Vietnamese people do not believe in God' may this be changed to 81% of the Vietnamese people do not believe in a God. this is for obvious reasons. Hamlyn2002 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done, CMD (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Vietnam. 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) 17:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Flag of Vietnam" image file is being vandalized[edit]

Apparently someone has vandalized the image file of "Flag of Vietnam" from the current version to the South Vietnam flag version. Can anyone here revert back to the original file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.110.144 (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vietnam. 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) 11:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)