![]() | A fact from Constitution of Hungary appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 July 2008, and was viewed approximately 113 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Please somebody add the link to the official text of the new constitution: [1]. Thanks. 193.224.79.8 ( talk) 14:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. How can there be an article about the 2011 Constitution without an English translation of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.159.59 ( talk) 03:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Tüzes fal, I appreciate your edits, but let me express certain objections.
I think that's it for major differences. - Biruitorul Talk 06:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Dans, I must object to the text you've reintroduced:
I find Biruitorul's claim, namely that the statements
and
are identical, outrageous. The moment judges become eligible to retire, they are fired, independently what the judges or their bosses want to do. That does not hold for the general population. B. simply vandalizes the article by forcing false and mesleading statements in place of the correct ones. 193.224.79.8 ( talk) 12:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
According to the Flag of Hungary article the Coat of Arms will be returned to the flag. Should this be added to the changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through Tüzes fal's recent changes. Many of these are fine, and I made only slight, non-substantive changes. I did make some larger changes, though, so let me mention them.
Anyway, good edits, and it's probably best to discuss any further changes here. - Biruitorul Talk 16:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Now that Hungary has had two written constitutions (the former one and the one that went into force on January 1), I'm wondering what anyone else thinks about possibly creating a separate article on the 1949 Constitution of Hungary, leaving this article with just a short summary on that, plus background and content on the 2011 constitution. There are pros and cons to each approach:
On the other hand,
Myself, I'm slightly against a split at this time, as I don't see an urgent need for it, but I did want to hear other opinions. - Biruitorul Talk 00:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"Split" seems like the wrong word; "duplicate" seems better. The 1949 Constitution obviously deserves its own article. It has its own history, features, and defined structures. It will probably be small, yes. But it will mostly contain information related to that constitution, and allow this article to focus on the new one. Int21h ( talk) 20:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Created I have created a new article. The 1949 Constitution information here should be slimmed and summarized to give more focus to information regarding the new constitution.
Int21h (
talk) 20:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Biruitorul deleted the following direct quote from Princeton University international constitutional law scholar and Hungary specialist Kim Lane Scheppele saying "how about waiting until the amendment actually passes, and then using a source that isn't alarmist soapboxing?"
I re-instated it, and Koertefa re-deleted it.
Do Biruitorul and Koertefa consider writings by constitutional law scholars to be soap-boxing? In whose interest is it to suppress scholarly analysis and criticism of a proposed constitutional mega-amendment with enormous consequences until after it has been passed by a government with the supermajority sufficient to have passed the constitution itself plus every one of hundreds of subsequent amendments in the ensuing years?
Stevan Harnad 19:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad ( talk • contribs)
Stevan Harnad 19:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
First, I cannot speak for Koertefa, but as for myself, I would say there is absolutely no contradiction between on the one hand being a constitutional law scholar and having papers published in academic journals, and on the other hand engaging in soapboxing/diatribes/screeds on what is, after all, an explicitly political blog called "the conscience of a liberal". "Toxic waste dump of bad constitutional ideas"? That kind of language has no place in an encyclopedia.
Second, there's absolutely no harm in waiting until the amendment is duly enacted before mentioning it. Sure, it may well pass unchanged, but there's always a chance it'll be watered down or even withdrawn. In spite of his detractors' claims, Orbán isn't Putin or Nazarbayev; there are domestic and external constraints on him. I refer you to this article: it's both non-alarmist, something we could quote; and it indicates the thing isn't a done deal.
Finally, I have no stake here except to ensure that the subject is presented objectively. I'm not out to "suppress" anything, but only to maintain a balanced view. - Biruitorul Talk 21:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
You are basically right, when You said that we must leave the politics. Unfortunately reading the "Reactions and subsequent developments" section - which is almost longer than the text devoted to the subject (the constitution) of this article itself - gives the impression, that here we will find endless political argumentation for / against the constitution. It will provoke an endless edit war: Thousand protested against the constitution says the article - Fidesz supporters will add, that the Peace March was the greatest protest FOR the government in Hungary's history. Slovak fear - they recognized dual citizenship as well, no other neighboring country has dispute with Hungary on this issue. Fears from socialists? Mr. Baroso declared that there is not a dictature in Hungary. Political opinion of Miss Scheppele? Political oppinion of György Schöpflin. etc. I propose that we either should create a separate article,where anyone can gratify his or her passion towards politics or block this section - it simply will explode the poor article itself, there will be "crusades for/against the Orbán- governement, and wikipedia becomes some political blog.
Comparing the history of US constitution with that of Hungary makes no sense. You compare a 200 years old history with a history of 20 years. What if the next 200 years the Hungarian Constitution won't be modified? Calculating an average can be tricky. You compare a superpower with a mini-state, recently liberated from a dictature - totaly different conditions. With this logic, You can compare the number of Hungarian nuclear missiles with US-nuclear missiles.
Compare the comparable: the first two decades of the USA (small state, liberating itself from a superpower (UK) with that of Hungary (small state, liberating itself from a superpower (Soviet Union).
US-constitutions:
1. constitution: 1777. Article of Confederation
2. constitution: 1787. Constitution of the US
3. First TEN ratified amendements , in 5 years 1791 (Bill of rights), -11th modification in 1798, next in 1804. And let's not forget about the other amendments which were not ratified, but passed by the Congress. For example the 27th - passed in 1791, ratified in 1992.
We have a totally different impression.
-- Ltbuni ( talk) 18:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the previous commenters. This article looks like a " soapbox". Fakirbakir ( talk) 11:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it a little silly to have a section about "reactions to the 4th amendment", but no actual text *of* the amendment? FChE ( talk) 14:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The "2011 Constitution" section is highly unbalanced in my opinion. It concerns a lot about democratic deficiency however the constitution itself is not analysed properly. It does not even interpret it. There are no "pro and contra" and sufficient explanation of viewpoints. Fakirbakir ( talk) 11:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
SH: Even as it is gaining more and more attention and weight worldwide, attempts have now been made to delete Professor Scheppele's critique of the new Hungarian constitutional amendments as "soap-boxing," "recentism," and non-neutral POV. Now the attempted deletion invokes WP:NEWSORG and WP:UNDUE. I quote from the respective WP citeria to show, once again, that Professor Scheppele's critique is fully compliant with them and fully appropriate and timely for WP. Knowingly or unknowingly, those who keep deleting her analysis and critique are acting against, not for, a balanced and neutral presentation of the national and international views on this important, ongoing historic event.
-- Stevan Harnad Harnad ( talk)
It was linked in the blog-entry of Kim Lane Sceppele - I'd like to add it to the "External links" section. Objection? http://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/hungary/Fourth%20Amendment%20to%20the%20FL%20-Eng%20Corrected.pdf
Ltbuni ( talk) 21:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No, unfortunately it is not the official one. If I am not mistaken, it is made by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee. How about it now? Ltbuni ( talk) 13:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Guys, you are writing: "While giving the Constitutional Court the power to review the constitution itself on procedural grounds, it stipulates that the court cannot annul a law passed by a two-thirds parliamentary majority."
The second part of the sentence is false. 86.59.135.94 ( talk) 20:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is this article an "opinion piece", when it only enumerates the commonly known charges against the Orbán govmnt, and analizes them http://valasz.hu/itthon/magyarorszag-bunlajstroma-ezert-tamad-az-eu-es-amerika-106240 -- Ltbuni ( talk) 12:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
valasz.hu is the internet version of Heti Valasz, a prominent Hungarian weekly newspaper. The article itself (longer version is available in print, or online if purchased) discusses the "attacks", arguments of international organisations against the Hungarian government, presenting both the for and againsts: both the valid arguments, admitting that they are true, both the politcally motivated ones. If You accept Népszabadság, Népszava as reliable sources, then why don't You accept valasz.hu? My major concern with this article - apart from Mr. Harnad's self-approving actions - is that it gives the impression, that there is still a kind of international disapproval of the Hungarian Constitution, while it is not the issue anymore. Hungarians are a bit paranoid concerning international press, they see it biased, hostile against the present government. A typical example of this is the speech of Mr. Lauder (some leader of the World Jewish Congress). He sued (he had some casino investment or what) the present govmnt, and publicly condemned the Orbán govmnt for being tolerant to antisemitism. The next day, he appologized. Somehow, the media coverage of the accusation was moch more bigger, than the appology: http://ferenckumin.tumblr.com/post/49861228777/world-jewish-congress-president-apologizes-for-comments Sure, it is a blog, but "somehow" the article in the international press Mr. Kumin refers to (the apology of Mr. Lauder) can not be reached anymore... Almost only the Hungarian newspapers reported it. This Wiki-article itself was the result of a long wiki-war. I feel it is still unbalanced. I am all right with a shorter mention of Mr. Jagland's positive opinion - but we must somehow suppress Mr. Harnad's changes in the text: they are not true anymore. I don't agree with You on the importance of the Council of Europe. -- Ltbuni ( talk) 12:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
And let's not forget about the present scandal over the interview of Nobel-prize winner Imre Kertész, which was not published in the New York Times... http://hungarianglobe.mandiner.hu/cikk/20141111_kertesz_imre_certainly_hungary_is_no_dictatorship The interview can be read in English in the Hungarian Quarterly or in the Jewish newspaper Szombat's webpage in Hungarian: http://www.szombat.org/kultura-muvesztek/dokumentum-es-fikcio-kertesz-imrevel-beszelget-thomas-cooper -- Ltbuni ( talk) 12:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Hungary. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mti.hu/cikk/540039/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Hungary. 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.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
To amplify, I cut because a) that seems like overkill for the lead (it’s more of a rhetorical point) and b) is not supported by the body of the article (indeed I was able to find scant third party commentary on this provision). - Biruitorul Talk 20:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Constitution of Hungary appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 July 2008, and was viewed approximately 113 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Please somebody add the link to the official text of the new constitution: [1]. Thanks. 193.224.79.8 ( talk) 14:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. How can there be an article about the 2011 Constitution without an English translation of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.159.59 ( talk) 03:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Tüzes fal, I appreciate your edits, but let me express certain objections.
I think that's it for major differences. - Biruitorul Talk 06:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Dans, I must object to the text you've reintroduced:
I find Biruitorul's claim, namely that the statements
and
are identical, outrageous. The moment judges become eligible to retire, they are fired, independently what the judges or their bosses want to do. That does not hold for the general population. B. simply vandalizes the article by forcing false and mesleading statements in place of the correct ones. 193.224.79.8 ( talk) 12:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
According to the Flag of Hungary article the Coat of Arms will be returned to the flag. Should this be added to the changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through Tüzes fal's recent changes. Many of these are fine, and I made only slight, non-substantive changes. I did make some larger changes, though, so let me mention them.
Anyway, good edits, and it's probably best to discuss any further changes here. - Biruitorul Talk 16:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Now that Hungary has had two written constitutions (the former one and the one that went into force on January 1), I'm wondering what anyone else thinks about possibly creating a separate article on the 1949 Constitution of Hungary, leaving this article with just a short summary on that, plus background and content on the 2011 constitution. There are pros and cons to each approach:
On the other hand,
Myself, I'm slightly against a split at this time, as I don't see an urgent need for it, but I did want to hear other opinions. - Biruitorul Talk 00:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"Split" seems like the wrong word; "duplicate" seems better. The 1949 Constitution obviously deserves its own article. It has its own history, features, and defined structures. It will probably be small, yes. But it will mostly contain information related to that constitution, and allow this article to focus on the new one. Int21h ( talk) 20:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Created I have created a new article. The 1949 Constitution information here should be slimmed and summarized to give more focus to information regarding the new constitution.
Int21h (
talk) 20:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Biruitorul deleted the following direct quote from Princeton University international constitutional law scholar and Hungary specialist Kim Lane Scheppele saying "how about waiting until the amendment actually passes, and then using a source that isn't alarmist soapboxing?"
I re-instated it, and Koertefa re-deleted it.
Do Biruitorul and Koertefa consider writings by constitutional law scholars to be soap-boxing? In whose interest is it to suppress scholarly analysis and criticism of a proposed constitutional mega-amendment with enormous consequences until after it has been passed by a government with the supermajority sufficient to have passed the constitution itself plus every one of hundreds of subsequent amendments in the ensuing years?
Stevan Harnad 19:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad ( talk • contribs)
Stevan Harnad 19:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
First, I cannot speak for Koertefa, but as for myself, I would say there is absolutely no contradiction between on the one hand being a constitutional law scholar and having papers published in academic journals, and on the other hand engaging in soapboxing/diatribes/screeds on what is, after all, an explicitly political blog called "the conscience of a liberal". "Toxic waste dump of bad constitutional ideas"? That kind of language has no place in an encyclopedia.
Second, there's absolutely no harm in waiting until the amendment is duly enacted before mentioning it. Sure, it may well pass unchanged, but there's always a chance it'll be watered down or even withdrawn. In spite of his detractors' claims, Orbán isn't Putin or Nazarbayev; there are domestic and external constraints on him. I refer you to this article: it's both non-alarmist, something we could quote; and it indicates the thing isn't a done deal.
Finally, I have no stake here except to ensure that the subject is presented objectively. I'm not out to "suppress" anything, but only to maintain a balanced view. - Biruitorul Talk 21:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
You are basically right, when You said that we must leave the politics. Unfortunately reading the "Reactions and subsequent developments" section - which is almost longer than the text devoted to the subject (the constitution) of this article itself - gives the impression, that here we will find endless political argumentation for / against the constitution. It will provoke an endless edit war: Thousand protested against the constitution says the article - Fidesz supporters will add, that the Peace March was the greatest protest FOR the government in Hungary's history. Slovak fear - they recognized dual citizenship as well, no other neighboring country has dispute with Hungary on this issue. Fears from socialists? Mr. Baroso declared that there is not a dictature in Hungary. Political opinion of Miss Scheppele? Political oppinion of György Schöpflin. etc. I propose that we either should create a separate article,where anyone can gratify his or her passion towards politics or block this section - it simply will explode the poor article itself, there will be "crusades for/against the Orbán- governement, and wikipedia becomes some political blog.
Comparing the history of US constitution with that of Hungary makes no sense. You compare a 200 years old history with a history of 20 years. What if the next 200 years the Hungarian Constitution won't be modified? Calculating an average can be tricky. You compare a superpower with a mini-state, recently liberated from a dictature - totaly different conditions. With this logic, You can compare the number of Hungarian nuclear missiles with US-nuclear missiles.
Compare the comparable: the first two decades of the USA (small state, liberating itself from a superpower (UK) with that of Hungary (small state, liberating itself from a superpower (Soviet Union).
US-constitutions:
1. constitution: 1777. Article of Confederation
2. constitution: 1787. Constitution of the US
3. First TEN ratified amendements , in 5 years 1791 (Bill of rights), -11th modification in 1798, next in 1804. And let's not forget about the other amendments which were not ratified, but passed by the Congress. For example the 27th - passed in 1791, ratified in 1992.
We have a totally different impression.
-- Ltbuni ( talk) 18:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the previous commenters. This article looks like a " soapbox". Fakirbakir ( talk) 11:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it a little silly to have a section about "reactions to the 4th amendment", but no actual text *of* the amendment? FChE ( talk) 14:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The "2011 Constitution" section is highly unbalanced in my opinion. It concerns a lot about democratic deficiency however the constitution itself is not analysed properly. It does not even interpret it. There are no "pro and contra" and sufficient explanation of viewpoints. Fakirbakir ( talk) 11:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
SH: Even as it is gaining more and more attention and weight worldwide, attempts have now been made to delete Professor Scheppele's critique of the new Hungarian constitutional amendments as "soap-boxing," "recentism," and non-neutral POV. Now the attempted deletion invokes WP:NEWSORG and WP:UNDUE. I quote from the respective WP citeria to show, once again, that Professor Scheppele's critique is fully compliant with them and fully appropriate and timely for WP. Knowingly or unknowingly, those who keep deleting her analysis and critique are acting against, not for, a balanced and neutral presentation of the national and international views on this important, ongoing historic event.
-- Stevan Harnad Harnad ( talk)
It was linked in the blog-entry of Kim Lane Sceppele - I'd like to add it to the "External links" section. Objection? http://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/hungary/Fourth%20Amendment%20to%20the%20FL%20-Eng%20Corrected.pdf
Ltbuni ( talk) 21:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No, unfortunately it is not the official one. If I am not mistaken, it is made by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee. How about it now? Ltbuni ( talk) 13:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Guys, you are writing: "While giving the Constitutional Court the power to review the constitution itself on procedural grounds, it stipulates that the court cannot annul a law passed by a two-thirds parliamentary majority."
The second part of the sentence is false. 86.59.135.94 ( talk) 20:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is this article an "opinion piece", when it only enumerates the commonly known charges against the Orbán govmnt, and analizes them http://valasz.hu/itthon/magyarorszag-bunlajstroma-ezert-tamad-az-eu-es-amerika-106240 -- Ltbuni ( talk) 12:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
valasz.hu is the internet version of Heti Valasz, a prominent Hungarian weekly newspaper. The article itself (longer version is available in print, or online if purchased) discusses the "attacks", arguments of international organisations against the Hungarian government, presenting both the for and againsts: both the valid arguments, admitting that they are true, both the politcally motivated ones. If You accept Népszabadság, Népszava as reliable sources, then why don't You accept valasz.hu? My major concern with this article - apart from Mr. Harnad's self-approving actions - is that it gives the impression, that there is still a kind of international disapproval of the Hungarian Constitution, while it is not the issue anymore. Hungarians are a bit paranoid concerning international press, they see it biased, hostile against the present government. A typical example of this is the speech of Mr. Lauder (some leader of the World Jewish Congress). He sued (he had some casino investment or what) the present govmnt, and publicly condemned the Orbán govmnt for being tolerant to antisemitism. The next day, he appologized. Somehow, the media coverage of the accusation was moch more bigger, than the appology: http://ferenckumin.tumblr.com/post/49861228777/world-jewish-congress-president-apologizes-for-comments Sure, it is a blog, but "somehow" the article in the international press Mr. Kumin refers to (the apology of Mr. Lauder) can not be reached anymore... Almost only the Hungarian newspapers reported it. This Wiki-article itself was the result of a long wiki-war. I feel it is still unbalanced. I am all right with a shorter mention of Mr. Jagland's positive opinion - but we must somehow suppress Mr. Harnad's changes in the text: they are not true anymore. I don't agree with You on the importance of the Council of Europe. -- Ltbuni ( talk) 12:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
And let's not forget about the present scandal over the interview of Nobel-prize winner Imre Kertész, which was not published in the New York Times... http://hungarianglobe.mandiner.hu/cikk/20141111_kertesz_imre_certainly_hungary_is_no_dictatorship The interview can be read in English in the Hungarian Quarterly or in the Jewish newspaper Szombat's webpage in Hungarian: http://www.szombat.org/kultura-muvesztek/dokumentum-es-fikcio-kertesz-imrevel-beszelget-thomas-cooper -- Ltbuni ( talk) 12:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Hungary. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mti.hu/cikk/540039/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Hungary. 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.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
To amplify, I cut because a) that seems like overkill for the lead (it’s more of a rhetorical point) and b) is not supported by the body of the article (indeed I was able to find scant third party commentary on this provision). - Biruitorul Talk 20:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)