This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The fact that you don't like the comparison doesn't make it less relevant to compare this manifesto to previous conservative manifestos.
70.30.251.170 ( talk) 04:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
someone should rewrite this sentence: "The document calls for civil disobedience against laws which contradict Christian doctrines." It makes it sound as if the document makes a general call to disobey laws "which contradict Christian doctrines; this isn't precisely what the document calls for. I don't have time to think through a more precise restatement right now... Teaforthetillerman ( talk) 05:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The See also section has a link to Civil rights movement. Early in the description in the article text, however, there is a link to pro-life movement, which is the relevant subset of the civil rights movement. As categorization tries to use the most specific category in an analogous case, would it be preferable to remove the broader link? I acknowledge that this is a See also section, and not categorization, so it is only an analogy. However, having the three See alsos which would be left would dovetail nicely and elegantly with the three prongs of the document. Comments? Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we need something other than primary sources to include these exceptions? In other words, is it necessary for some other source to acknowledge or take note of the fact that these individuals refuse to sign, or is it enough that they are notable people and have written about why they are refusing to sign? Ἀλήθεια 23:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This HRC Back Story should be referenced in the article.
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/11/hrc-responds-to-misleading-claims-by-organizations-seeking-to-discriminate/
Native94080 (
talk)
15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Why remove the quotation that was quoted in this periodical, which highlighted the plight of the unborn, the disabled, and elderly? This is the key part of the Declaration, and should be here so one signing should know what they are doing. It is not "Cherrypicking". It is a terse summory of the essential enclosure of the Declaration, brought to our attention by The Christian Order. I request you undo the edit or place in the quote yourself. Why, then, quote the end (their summary) of the Declaration? This is doing the same thing, as you accuse me, so what is your yard-stick? Their summary is not as clear as the one picked out by Christian Order.
MacOfJesus ( talk) 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. However, I was thinking of the would-be-signee. That quote, as sourced by the Editors or the Christian Order, who spend a lot of time reading and sourcing, I feel extreemly apt for the enquiring on-looker. And that quote above all puts the finger on the crux of the matter:
It lists those severely threatened, it mentions marriage and lists those things that threaten it, it mentions freedom of religion and refers to compelings. It contains all the elements that the Declaration stands for, in a quoting form rather than an outling form. (An outling form, at this stage, can be seen as taking liberties).
MacOfJesus ( talk) 11:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The Article page would benefit with a list of the marginalised and threatened that the Christian Churches are defending:
1. The lives of the unborn.
2. The disabled.
3. The elderly.
4. The institution of Marriage, and the things that are threatening it.
5. Freedom of Religion and the rights of conscience.
An outline of The Pledge.
An outline of rendering to "Caesar" and to God.
MacOfJesus ( talk) 22:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I did do that. But is not the truth of this self-evident?
I have written on article pages, and used to historical dissertation (corrected spelling) and also written the Jung associate page: Father Victor White. I don't know how many credentials you want?
MacOfJesus ( talk) 21:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have left an outline of my request on John J. Allen talk page.
Perhaps I have'nt made myself clear. What I envisage is a list of what the Declaration says of itself, not what I say.
I thought the Christian Order was such.
What I want is a better article page.
The best source is the Declaration itself, speaking of itself. Perhaps, at this stage, a month after, it is the only source.
MacOfJesus ( talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank You.
This is why I suggested just listing the things that the Declaration was talking about without need for saying anything. Shurly that would be acceptable, to everyone, no matter what one thinks of the Declaration itself.
If we are worried about the substances of the Declaration, then why have the article page in the first place?
I will delete my comment.
I do not know anything about Christian Order, other than it is a very direct and straight publication, and long standing.
MacOfJesus ( talk) 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I question the neutrality of the article. For example, it assumes that marriage is threatened; this is a view of the conservatives, but not general consensus. The Dec. certainly does not speak for itself in an encyclopedic sense; that would be simple acceptance of a controversial subject, namely, whether the authors speak for the Church generally; whether their fears reflect true dangers, and whether their alliance reflects a political, not ecclesial, congeries. Overall, there should be a section for the Christian dissent: especially, mention that the Greek Orthodox bishops have declined to endorse this document. A mention of the issues of dissent should include false ecumenism, use of the Church for political ends, and something about ecclesiology. Cyranorox ( talk) 19:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I deleted this because, as I have explained elsewhere, we are not, as editors, bound to take everyone's self-description on faith. No proof exists that anyone is being persecuted for their opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage; the document may very well stand as an ecumenical statement against those two things, but that does not make this a religious liberty issue, any more than "My religion won't let me serve black people, why are you suing my restaurant?" would be a religious liberty issue. Roscelese ( talk) 18:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see User:Roscelese/Canvassing incident. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently most or all of the signers given can be sourced to the web page of the delaration itself, but most are only sourced to there. I am concerned that this leaves the inclusion or exclusion decision up to the whims of editors here, i.e., "This guy is really important" "No he is not"..... etc. Currently the content about people speaking out about not signing are sourced, and I would like to brainstorm on whether the sourcing criterion for signers should also be third-party sources. Thoughts? Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Current dispute is over whether the document belongs in the "Civil rights and liberties" category or merits a "see also" link to the civil rights movement. Roscelese ( talk) 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Current dispute is over whether the document belongs in the "Civil rights and liberties" category or merits a "see also" link to the civil rights movement. Roscelese ( talk) 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the big deal about the discrimination thing. Prejudice and homophobia are maybe POV, but the framers aren't saying it's not discrimination-- they just think there's a compelling government interest for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.234.137 ( talk) 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that there is criticism from various religious groups, but what about criticism from civil rights groups? Do they have anything to say about this document? Ben Standeven ( talk) 12:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate material from self published sites has been repeatedly reinserted into this article. The offending material is as follows:
In addition, secular progressive and civil rights organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign and People for the American Way have criticized the document's positions and rhetoric.[15] Harry Knox, HRC's Religion and Faith Program Director and a Methodist pastor, commented, "It is deeply cynical for the authors of this document to paint themselves as victims because they cannot have a free hand to discriminate, including with taxpayer dollars."[16]
The first assertion is sourced to the "People for the American Way" website. The second is to the "Human Rights Campaign" website, both self-published sites. Wikipedia policy regarding [[WP:SELFPUB|self published sites]:]
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
- 2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
- 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
- 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
[emphasis added]
These sources fail in each of the italicized areas and so cannot be used. 1) The information is not about the organizations, themselves, 2) it involves claims about third parties, i.e. the Manhattan Declaration and its signatories, 3) it involves claims which ar not directly related to the sources. It should be removed on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Mamalujo ( talk) 22:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
You've made a BOLD edit and it's been reverted; please try now to gain consensus. That's what we do here; having strong political opinions doesn't magically exempt you from the rules.
Anyway. Among the problems with your edit:
– Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
References to Watergate in section on Charles Colson are unnecesary, and just a part from bias against evangelicals by wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.207.187.233 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what there is to object to here. The language in question is repeatedly identified as subjective - an editorial, described, criticized - and accurately sums up the argument that the editorial is making. The text makes no sense without the adjective, and the disruptive user has made no attempt to offer a substitute. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The M.D. is about three things -- the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. The first sentence of the lead makes that clear, but the remainder of the lead gives undue weight to marriage and shortchanges the other two related concerns. The marriage sentence should probably come out. Or the lead should be expanded to summarize the life and liberty arguments of the M.D. Cloonmore ( talk) 22:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
When Metropolitan Jonah signed the Declaration he was Metropolitan of Washington and Head of The Orthodox Church in America. It is not correct to describe him as former Metropolitan which he became only by his resignation in 2012. -- 131.220.75.127 ( talk) 09:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience. 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.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience. 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) 22:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience. 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) 08:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The fact that you don't like the comparison doesn't make it less relevant to compare this manifesto to previous conservative manifestos.
70.30.251.170 ( talk) 04:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
someone should rewrite this sentence: "The document calls for civil disobedience against laws which contradict Christian doctrines." It makes it sound as if the document makes a general call to disobey laws "which contradict Christian doctrines; this isn't precisely what the document calls for. I don't have time to think through a more precise restatement right now... Teaforthetillerman ( talk) 05:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The See also section has a link to Civil rights movement. Early in the description in the article text, however, there is a link to pro-life movement, which is the relevant subset of the civil rights movement. As categorization tries to use the most specific category in an analogous case, would it be preferable to remove the broader link? I acknowledge that this is a See also section, and not categorization, so it is only an analogy. However, having the three See alsos which would be left would dovetail nicely and elegantly with the three prongs of the document. Comments? Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we need something other than primary sources to include these exceptions? In other words, is it necessary for some other source to acknowledge or take note of the fact that these individuals refuse to sign, or is it enough that they are notable people and have written about why they are refusing to sign? Ἀλήθεια 23:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This HRC Back Story should be referenced in the article.
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/11/hrc-responds-to-misleading-claims-by-organizations-seeking-to-discriminate/
Native94080 (
talk)
15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Why remove the quotation that was quoted in this periodical, which highlighted the plight of the unborn, the disabled, and elderly? This is the key part of the Declaration, and should be here so one signing should know what they are doing. It is not "Cherrypicking". It is a terse summory of the essential enclosure of the Declaration, brought to our attention by The Christian Order. I request you undo the edit or place in the quote yourself. Why, then, quote the end (their summary) of the Declaration? This is doing the same thing, as you accuse me, so what is your yard-stick? Their summary is not as clear as the one picked out by Christian Order.
MacOfJesus ( talk) 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. However, I was thinking of the would-be-signee. That quote, as sourced by the Editors or the Christian Order, who spend a lot of time reading and sourcing, I feel extreemly apt for the enquiring on-looker. And that quote above all puts the finger on the crux of the matter:
It lists those severely threatened, it mentions marriage and lists those things that threaten it, it mentions freedom of religion and refers to compelings. It contains all the elements that the Declaration stands for, in a quoting form rather than an outling form. (An outling form, at this stage, can be seen as taking liberties).
MacOfJesus ( talk) 11:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The Article page would benefit with a list of the marginalised and threatened that the Christian Churches are defending:
1. The lives of the unborn.
2. The disabled.
3. The elderly.
4. The institution of Marriage, and the things that are threatening it.
5. Freedom of Religion and the rights of conscience.
An outline of The Pledge.
An outline of rendering to "Caesar" and to God.
MacOfJesus ( talk) 22:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I did do that. But is not the truth of this self-evident?
I have written on article pages, and used to historical dissertation (corrected spelling) and also written the Jung associate page: Father Victor White. I don't know how many credentials you want?
MacOfJesus ( talk) 21:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have left an outline of my request on John J. Allen talk page.
Perhaps I have'nt made myself clear. What I envisage is a list of what the Declaration says of itself, not what I say.
I thought the Christian Order was such.
What I want is a better article page.
The best source is the Declaration itself, speaking of itself. Perhaps, at this stage, a month after, it is the only source.
MacOfJesus ( talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank You.
This is why I suggested just listing the things that the Declaration was talking about without need for saying anything. Shurly that would be acceptable, to everyone, no matter what one thinks of the Declaration itself.
If we are worried about the substances of the Declaration, then why have the article page in the first place?
I will delete my comment.
I do not know anything about Christian Order, other than it is a very direct and straight publication, and long standing.
MacOfJesus ( talk) 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I question the neutrality of the article. For example, it assumes that marriage is threatened; this is a view of the conservatives, but not general consensus. The Dec. certainly does not speak for itself in an encyclopedic sense; that would be simple acceptance of a controversial subject, namely, whether the authors speak for the Church generally; whether their fears reflect true dangers, and whether their alliance reflects a political, not ecclesial, congeries. Overall, there should be a section for the Christian dissent: especially, mention that the Greek Orthodox bishops have declined to endorse this document. A mention of the issues of dissent should include false ecumenism, use of the Church for political ends, and something about ecclesiology. Cyranorox ( talk) 19:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I deleted this because, as I have explained elsewhere, we are not, as editors, bound to take everyone's self-description on faith. No proof exists that anyone is being persecuted for their opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage; the document may very well stand as an ecumenical statement against those two things, but that does not make this a religious liberty issue, any more than "My religion won't let me serve black people, why are you suing my restaurant?" would be a religious liberty issue. Roscelese ( talk) 18:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see User:Roscelese/Canvassing incident. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently most or all of the signers given can be sourced to the web page of the delaration itself, but most are only sourced to there. I am concerned that this leaves the inclusion or exclusion decision up to the whims of editors here, i.e., "This guy is really important" "No he is not"..... etc. Currently the content about people speaking out about not signing are sourced, and I would like to brainstorm on whether the sourcing criterion for signers should also be third-party sources. Thoughts? Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Current dispute is over whether the document belongs in the "Civil rights and liberties" category or merits a "see also" link to the civil rights movement. Roscelese ( talk) 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Current dispute is over whether the document belongs in the "Civil rights and liberties" category or merits a "see also" link to the civil rights movement. Roscelese ( talk) 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the big deal about the discrimination thing. Prejudice and homophobia are maybe POV, but the framers aren't saying it's not discrimination-- they just think there's a compelling government interest for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.234.137 ( talk) 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that there is criticism from various religious groups, but what about criticism from civil rights groups? Do they have anything to say about this document? Ben Standeven ( talk) 12:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate material from self published sites has been repeatedly reinserted into this article. The offending material is as follows:
In addition, secular progressive and civil rights organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign and People for the American Way have criticized the document's positions and rhetoric.[15] Harry Knox, HRC's Religion and Faith Program Director and a Methodist pastor, commented, "It is deeply cynical for the authors of this document to paint themselves as victims because they cannot have a free hand to discriminate, including with taxpayer dollars."[16]
The first assertion is sourced to the "People for the American Way" website. The second is to the "Human Rights Campaign" website, both self-published sites. Wikipedia policy regarding [[WP:SELFPUB|self published sites]:]
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
- 2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
- 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
- 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
[emphasis added]
These sources fail in each of the italicized areas and so cannot be used. 1) The information is not about the organizations, themselves, 2) it involves claims about third parties, i.e. the Manhattan Declaration and its signatories, 3) it involves claims which ar not directly related to the sources. It should be removed on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Mamalujo ( talk) 22:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
You've made a BOLD edit and it's been reverted; please try now to gain consensus. That's what we do here; having strong political opinions doesn't magically exempt you from the rules.
Anyway. Among the problems with your edit:
– Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
References to Watergate in section on Charles Colson are unnecesary, and just a part from bias against evangelicals by wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.207.187.233 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what there is to object to here. The language in question is repeatedly identified as subjective - an editorial, described, criticized - and accurately sums up the argument that the editorial is making. The text makes no sense without the adjective, and the disruptive user has made no attempt to offer a substitute. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The M.D. is about three things -- the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. The first sentence of the lead makes that clear, but the remainder of the lead gives undue weight to marriage and shortchanges the other two related concerns. The marriage sentence should probably come out. Or the lead should be expanded to summarize the life and liberty arguments of the M.D. Cloonmore ( talk) 22:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
When Metropolitan Jonah signed the Declaration he was Metropolitan of Washington and Head of The Orthodox Church in America. It is not correct to describe him as former Metropolitan which he became only by his resignation in 2012. -- 131.220.75.127 ( talk) 09:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience. 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.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience. 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) 22:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience. 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) 08:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)