The contents of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms page were merged into Small arms trade on February 12, 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This whole debate about civilians having the rights to bear weapons is completely US-centered. The fact that arguments against small arms control (ie: FOR the widespread use of firearms) are given as much importance as the arguments for it is a clear American bias. But we are here dealing with an international issue so I suggest to modify the article so as to balance it in a way that reflect the current state of the issue (which is that basically no non-American civil group actually advocates the widespread use of small arms around the world -- only arms sellers do). JB 07/23/07
I'd like to make the following point: it is said that small arms must be restricted in conflict zones. To me this makes no sense, and will not work. here is why:
Take africa. In most conflict areas, you have Warlords terrorizing a largely disarmed population. No Warlord could get very far if every time he tried to massacre a village, he was greeted by the entire village armed with AK-47's!
To think that you can somehow only disarm the Warlords is at best naive. Most of the Hutu-Tutsie massacres have been done with Machetes. People with the inclination to be thugs, like african warlords, will always find a way to arm themselves. It is only by giving the general population the tools to defend themselves, that the so-called "conflict" will be eradicated.
Dullfig 02:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Please can you reference which 'international gun owners's groups said this, and on what basis? Thank you, Mark Richards 22:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Unless there are some references provided for these comments, I'll remove them next week. Thanks,
Mark Richards 08:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
International gun owners associations claim that the small arms problem does not arrise from privately owned pistols, revolvers, hunting and precision rifles, but mainly from the military type small arms like assault rifles, mortars and grenades. They claim that the verifiable number of small arms victims is closer to 130,000 per annum. Thus gun owner organisations have been protesting against UN attempts to include such firearms into UN anti proliferation measures. This same view is being held by the US Government which has vetoed attempts to include these into UN measures.
Here is a link: http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislative%20Action&url=http://www.nraila.org
Do a search on the NRA site for United Nations related material, there is a lot of stuff.
Must read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel073001.shtml This document slams the UN numbers.
Ok, now provide some evidence on the 500'000 victims Mr. Richards.... you can't... the UN can't... no one can it is a phoney number.
You see. Thus both views must be given. Not just one. If you don't like small arms, that does not mean that you have to imposse your view on everyone. Plus the UN is supposed to curb the illegal trade in military small arms, not private small arms, Oxfam is trying to push their anti-gun agenda which has nothing to do with that.
Regards, Meswiss
I am happy for it to remain, if you mention which international gun owner's associations. The NRA is the National Rifle Association. If you know of any international ones, then reffer to them, otherwise, remove them. The content you have got there is just not relevant to the points made, and unnecessarily drag US gun politics into an issue unrelated to them. Please reference the figures and opinions - who is responsible for those surveys you mention? I don't feel the need to justify the UN figures, the article merely reports that that is what the UN says. If you want to put in what some international gun club has to say on the matter, please specify which one, and where. Thanks, Mark Richards 19:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, the NRA is an international gun owners organisation. They have many many members that are not US citizens and that live outside the US. This opinion, that the NRA is a pure US pro-gun movement is typical of gun ownership opponents. Because of its sheer size, the NRA has become the defacto internationnal gun owners organisation. All the other gun owner organisations do work with the NRA to some extend. I would also like to point out that this has nothing to do with US gun politics, if you knew the subject you would know what that is about (concealed carry laws, AWB, protection for firearms manufacturers, etc). The position that small civilian small arms which the UN wishes to intermix with military ones, do not pose a threat to the world and thus should not be overregulated is supported by all gun owner associations, be it ProTell, COLFO or others. Considering everything, the way this page related to UN claims, and what their opponents claim is a fair view of the matter. It should remain this way. Otherwise, maybe one should also remove what the UN claims on this matter, cause it's Junkscience. Regards, Meswiss.
This view is supported by the 2001,2002,2003 Small Arms Surveys which point out that almost all small arms killing of civilians is perpetrated by organized crime, pirates/bandits and rebel groups and that these guns represent only 2/10 of a percent off the worlds small arms. You can mention accusations of the UN survey being suspect, if you can specify who said it and on what basis, otherwise, it's just more of your speculation. Mark Richards 16:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
a) The Small Arms Survey is a UN sponsored study, so that stuff is going right back there. Have you read it, I actually read all their online material to get confirmation on what you call a NRA claim. Here is the link http://www.smallarmssurvey.org b) I have plenty of printed stuff on the the subject that is not from the NRA, so your twist that only the NRA is supporting this view is going right out. If I could, I would put it up, believe me. c) You seem to behave like a typical anti-gunner, when facts don't match illusions or a political agenda, then the're ignored.
So get sensible. I am not cutting out the 500'000 UN claim either.
Regards, Meswiss
Well, my claim is referenced and backed up by UN data. What about yours ? Regards, Meswiss.
Actually, I also referenced my points Mr Richards. You are just not reading the links I attached. Regards, MeSwiss. No, come up with the evidence on the 500'000 victims Mr. Richards. Provide a reference that confirms that number!
Mr. Richards, you are missing the point. Should we continue this copy/paste contest or do we compromisse and let both views stand.
I did provide links to the organisations who said that, ProTell, COLFO, NRA, OurNation all have made the same comments. Simply, not everything can be referenced on the web. Like for your 500'000 victims claim, there is also no link to any evidence that backs up this claim. So, unless we compromisse both, we're not going anywhere. MeSwiss.
One more thing. When I added names to the bad guys that sell military small arms left and right, that did not seem to borther you. Maybe you should realize that I also favor the control of military small arms. MeSwiss.
Ok, I can name the gun owner organizations by name. MeSwiss
Why don't we put a footnote on that page that states that more information will be added and that the page is not final. MeSwiss.
Why don't we agree on future changes here first. I am all in favor of information that provides both points of view, I just hate it when I am told only one side of the story. what do you think Mr. Richards ?
I added the link to the Small Arms Survey, if you vist their website, you will see that they do this for the UN. What you are doing there is not right, cause that survey is one of the few documents that is considered as somewhat fair by both sides. Why don't you read the survey ? Anyways... I am not going to put it back right now. You can read about that document in the above links I gave you and you can read the S.A.S. yourself. MeSwiss.
Refactored a little, and added information about the Small Arms Survey, as you suggested - what do you think? Mark Richards 20:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I find it great now, there is the UN statement, link to research, link to opinions from the other side. Names of some places that export with little control. Should enable anyone to make up his own opinion. It should also explain the need for more controls on military type small arms, and the conroversy around the definition of small arms.
Regards, MeSwiss
This page is real good now. I hope that with time we can find some links to articles about countries and companies that continue to export military type small arms into regions of the world where these goods should not go to.
Regards, Meswiss
Dudtz Limiting gun sales does nothing people will just buy them illegally or make them People also like to collect wepons and don't intend to use them that much
This is a total opinion based write up.and you spelled weapons wrong. zach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.206.60 ( talk) 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What in the world is going on with this quote:
"The proliferation of small arms, and munitions and explosives has also calmed the violence associated with terrorism and organized crime. Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to love and kindness. These, in turn, have helped development prospects and increased human security in every way." - Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General
?
I have removed it.
Should be: "The proliferation of small arms, and munitions and explosives has also aggravated the violence associated with terrorism and organized crime. Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability. These, in turn, have damaged development prospects and imperiled human security in every way."
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General
"Small arms proliferation is a term of art used by organizations advocating the restriction of small arms sales to private citizens in conflict zones." - This is an inaccurate representation of the Control Arms Campaign, which informs the key part of this article. That campaign seeks control of the trade in small arms - to all parties in conflict zones and not simply private citizens. Donnacha 08:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Although this article is quite short and I believe it should be expanded, I have removed the Gun owners' organizations view section.
I believe they are representing inaccurate views by the organisations they cite, and that this is backed up by three citation needed tags, and not one source.
By all means revert and modify the section, but please get some sources. 220.239.88.91 08:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wondering what anyone knows about using Amnesty International as a source. They're a highly political organization, and it's not clear to me that they follow the publishing guidelines outlined for use as a reliable source in WP:SOURCES. Arthurrh 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Copied here February 12, 2014 from old UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms article. (One of only two discussions.) The second paragraph of this article states: 'The PoA was predicated upon a hypothesis that the illicit trade in small arms is a large and serious problem requiring global action through the UN. This hypothesis was ultimately disproven through progressive improvements in scholarship in the 2000s. The global size, scope, and impact of the entirely illicit international trade in small arms turned out to be much smaller and less of a concern to countries themselves than first hypothesized, with internal societal factors rising in relative importance.'
The evidence for this is... a single source. That's nowhere near good enough for such a strong claim; undoubtedly, there are many who would disagree with it. (The fact that the United Nations is continuing to discuss the issue is evidence of that.) This section should probably be rewritten to say 'some scholars argue...', and include alternative views. Robofish ( talk) 00:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Copied here February 12, 2014 from old UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms article. (One of only two discussions.) I believe that Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules prevent me from editing the article, but I'll make a comment here.
Regarding the following paragraph from the article:
The arms trade treaty, like the PoA, is predicated upon a hypothesis that the illicit trade in small arms is a large and serious problem requiring global action through the UN. According to a well regarded 2012 Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution publication, "the relative importance of diversion or misuse of officially authorised transfers, compared to international entirely illegal black market trafficking has been thoroughly confirmed."[6] The authors go on to elaborate that "For most developing or fragile states, a combination of weak domestic regulation of authorised firearms possession with theft, loss or corrupt sale from official holdings tends to be a bigger source of weapons concern than illicit trafficking across borders."[7]
As one of the authors of the quoted text (and editors of the book: Owen Greene and Nicholas Marsh eds 2012 Small Arms, Crime and Conflict: Global Governance and the Threat of Armed Violence. London and New York: Routledge) we certainly did not state that the illicit trade in conventional arms is unimportant and by extension that either the ATT or PoA is unnecessary. To say that domestic sources are more important in some cases does not mean that internationally trafficked weapons are irrelevant. Moreover, the PoA addresses the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons "in all its aspects". That includes transfers which take place within a State (eg by corrupt sale from official holdings).
Owen Greene and I did write (page 164) that:
Moreover, SALW production and flows have major cross-border, regional and international dimensions; requiring regional and international governance mechanisms to enable information exchange, lesson-learning, coordination, risk management, aid, and cooperative controls.
We then go on to describe those international governance mechanisms and point out how they could be strengthened (pages 169-182). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Marsh ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Small arms trade. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The contents of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms page were merged into Small arms trade on February 12, 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This whole debate about civilians having the rights to bear weapons is completely US-centered. The fact that arguments against small arms control (ie: FOR the widespread use of firearms) are given as much importance as the arguments for it is a clear American bias. But we are here dealing with an international issue so I suggest to modify the article so as to balance it in a way that reflect the current state of the issue (which is that basically no non-American civil group actually advocates the widespread use of small arms around the world -- only arms sellers do). JB 07/23/07
I'd like to make the following point: it is said that small arms must be restricted in conflict zones. To me this makes no sense, and will not work. here is why:
Take africa. In most conflict areas, you have Warlords terrorizing a largely disarmed population. No Warlord could get very far if every time he tried to massacre a village, he was greeted by the entire village armed with AK-47's!
To think that you can somehow only disarm the Warlords is at best naive. Most of the Hutu-Tutsie massacres have been done with Machetes. People with the inclination to be thugs, like african warlords, will always find a way to arm themselves. It is only by giving the general population the tools to defend themselves, that the so-called "conflict" will be eradicated.
Dullfig 02:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Please can you reference which 'international gun owners's groups said this, and on what basis? Thank you, Mark Richards 22:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Unless there are some references provided for these comments, I'll remove them next week. Thanks,
Mark Richards 08:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
International gun owners associations claim that the small arms problem does not arrise from privately owned pistols, revolvers, hunting and precision rifles, but mainly from the military type small arms like assault rifles, mortars and grenades. They claim that the verifiable number of small arms victims is closer to 130,000 per annum. Thus gun owner organisations have been protesting against UN attempts to include such firearms into UN anti proliferation measures. This same view is being held by the US Government which has vetoed attempts to include these into UN measures.
Here is a link: http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislative%20Action&url=http://www.nraila.org
Do a search on the NRA site for United Nations related material, there is a lot of stuff.
Must read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel073001.shtml This document slams the UN numbers.
Ok, now provide some evidence on the 500'000 victims Mr. Richards.... you can't... the UN can't... no one can it is a phoney number.
You see. Thus both views must be given. Not just one. If you don't like small arms, that does not mean that you have to imposse your view on everyone. Plus the UN is supposed to curb the illegal trade in military small arms, not private small arms, Oxfam is trying to push their anti-gun agenda which has nothing to do with that.
Regards, Meswiss
I am happy for it to remain, if you mention which international gun owner's associations. The NRA is the National Rifle Association. If you know of any international ones, then reffer to them, otherwise, remove them. The content you have got there is just not relevant to the points made, and unnecessarily drag US gun politics into an issue unrelated to them. Please reference the figures and opinions - who is responsible for those surveys you mention? I don't feel the need to justify the UN figures, the article merely reports that that is what the UN says. If you want to put in what some international gun club has to say on the matter, please specify which one, and where. Thanks, Mark Richards 19:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, the NRA is an international gun owners organisation. They have many many members that are not US citizens and that live outside the US. This opinion, that the NRA is a pure US pro-gun movement is typical of gun ownership opponents. Because of its sheer size, the NRA has become the defacto internationnal gun owners organisation. All the other gun owner organisations do work with the NRA to some extend. I would also like to point out that this has nothing to do with US gun politics, if you knew the subject you would know what that is about (concealed carry laws, AWB, protection for firearms manufacturers, etc). The position that small civilian small arms which the UN wishes to intermix with military ones, do not pose a threat to the world and thus should not be overregulated is supported by all gun owner associations, be it ProTell, COLFO or others. Considering everything, the way this page related to UN claims, and what their opponents claim is a fair view of the matter. It should remain this way. Otherwise, maybe one should also remove what the UN claims on this matter, cause it's Junkscience. Regards, Meswiss.
This view is supported by the 2001,2002,2003 Small Arms Surveys which point out that almost all small arms killing of civilians is perpetrated by organized crime, pirates/bandits and rebel groups and that these guns represent only 2/10 of a percent off the worlds small arms. You can mention accusations of the UN survey being suspect, if you can specify who said it and on what basis, otherwise, it's just more of your speculation. Mark Richards 16:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
a) The Small Arms Survey is a UN sponsored study, so that stuff is going right back there. Have you read it, I actually read all their online material to get confirmation on what you call a NRA claim. Here is the link http://www.smallarmssurvey.org b) I have plenty of printed stuff on the the subject that is not from the NRA, so your twist that only the NRA is supporting this view is going right out. If I could, I would put it up, believe me. c) You seem to behave like a typical anti-gunner, when facts don't match illusions or a political agenda, then the're ignored.
So get sensible. I am not cutting out the 500'000 UN claim either.
Regards, Meswiss
Well, my claim is referenced and backed up by UN data. What about yours ? Regards, Meswiss.
Actually, I also referenced my points Mr Richards. You are just not reading the links I attached. Regards, MeSwiss. No, come up with the evidence on the 500'000 victims Mr. Richards. Provide a reference that confirms that number!
Mr. Richards, you are missing the point. Should we continue this copy/paste contest or do we compromisse and let both views stand.
I did provide links to the organisations who said that, ProTell, COLFO, NRA, OurNation all have made the same comments. Simply, not everything can be referenced on the web. Like for your 500'000 victims claim, there is also no link to any evidence that backs up this claim. So, unless we compromisse both, we're not going anywhere. MeSwiss.
One more thing. When I added names to the bad guys that sell military small arms left and right, that did not seem to borther you. Maybe you should realize that I also favor the control of military small arms. MeSwiss.
Ok, I can name the gun owner organizations by name. MeSwiss
Why don't we put a footnote on that page that states that more information will be added and that the page is not final. MeSwiss.
Why don't we agree on future changes here first. I am all in favor of information that provides both points of view, I just hate it when I am told only one side of the story. what do you think Mr. Richards ?
I added the link to the Small Arms Survey, if you vist their website, you will see that they do this for the UN. What you are doing there is not right, cause that survey is one of the few documents that is considered as somewhat fair by both sides. Why don't you read the survey ? Anyways... I am not going to put it back right now. You can read about that document in the above links I gave you and you can read the S.A.S. yourself. MeSwiss.
Refactored a little, and added information about the Small Arms Survey, as you suggested - what do you think? Mark Richards 20:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I find it great now, there is the UN statement, link to research, link to opinions from the other side. Names of some places that export with little control. Should enable anyone to make up his own opinion. It should also explain the need for more controls on military type small arms, and the conroversy around the definition of small arms.
Regards, MeSwiss
This page is real good now. I hope that with time we can find some links to articles about countries and companies that continue to export military type small arms into regions of the world where these goods should not go to.
Regards, Meswiss
Dudtz Limiting gun sales does nothing people will just buy them illegally or make them People also like to collect wepons and don't intend to use them that much
This is a total opinion based write up.and you spelled weapons wrong. zach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.206.60 ( talk) 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What in the world is going on with this quote:
"The proliferation of small arms, and munitions and explosives has also calmed the violence associated with terrorism and organized crime. Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to love and kindness. These, in turn, have helped development prospects and increased human security in every way." - Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General
?
I have removed it.
Should be: "The proliferation of small arms, and munitions and explosives has also aggravated the violence associated with terrorism and organized crime. Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability. These, in turn, have damaged development prospects and imperiled human security in every way."
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General
"Small arms proliferation is a term of art used by organizations advocating the restriction of small arms sales to private citizens in conflict zones." - This is an inaccurate representation of the Control Arms Campaign, which informs the key part of this article. That campaign seeks control of the trade in small arms - to all parties in conflict zones and not simply private citizens. Donnacha 08:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Although this article is quite short and I believe it should be expanded, I have removed the Gun owners' organizations view section.
I believe they are representing inaccurate views by the organisations they cite, and that this is backed up by three citation needed tags, and not one source.
By all means revert and modify the section, but please get some sources. 220.239.88.91 08:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wondering what anyone knows about using Amnesty International as a source. They're a highly political organization, and it's not clear to me that they follow the publishing guidelines outlined for use as a reliable source in WP:SOURCES. Arthurrh 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Copied here February 12, 2014 from old UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms article. (One of only two discussions.) The second paragraph of this article states: 'The PoA was predicated upon a hypothesis that the illicit trade in small arms is a large and serious problem requiring global action through the UN. This hypothesis was ultimately disproven through progressive improvements in scholarship in the 2000s. The global size, scope, and impact of the entirely illicit international trade in small arms turned out to be much smaller and less of a concern to countries themselves than first hypothesized, with internal societal factors rising in relative importance.'
The evidence for this is... a single source. That's nowhere near good enough for such a strong claim; undoubtedly, there are many who would disagree with it. (The fact that the United Nations is continuing to discuss the issue is evidence of that.) This section should probably be rewritten to say 'some scholars argue...', and include alternative views. Robofish ( talk) 00:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Copied here February 12, 2014 from old UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms article. (One of only two discussions.) I believe that Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules prevent me from editing the article, but I'll make a comment here.
Regarding the following paragraph from the article:
The arms trade treaty, like the PoA, is predicated upon a hypothesis that the illicit trade in small arms is a large and serious problem requiring global action through the UN. According to a well regarded 2012 Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution publication, "the relative importance of diversion or misuse of officially authorised transfers, compared to international entirely illegal black market trafficking has been thoroughly confirmed."[6] The authors go on to elaborate that "For most developing or fragile states, a combination of weak domestic regulation of authorised firearms possession with theft, loss or corrupt sale from official holdings tends to be a bigger source of weapons concern than illicit trafficking across borders."[7]
As one of the authors of the quoted text (and editors of the book: Owen Greene and Nicholas Marsh eds 2012 Small Arms, Crime and Conflict: Global Governance and the Threat of Armed Violence. London and New York: Routledge) we certainly did not state that the illicit trade in conventional arms is unimportant and by extension that either the ATT or PoA is unnecessary. To say that domestic sources are more important in some cases does not mean that internationally trafficked weapons are irrelevant. Moreover, the PoA addresses the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons "in all its aspects". That includes transfers which take place within a State (eg by corrupt sale from official holdings).
Owen Greene and I did write (page 164) that:
Moreover, SALW production and flows have major cross-border, regional and international dimensions; requiring regional and international governance mechanisms to enable information exchange, lesson-learning, coordination, risk management, aid, and cooperative controls.
We then go on to describe those international governance mechanisms and point out how they could be strengthened (pages 169-182). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Marsh ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Small arms trade. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)