This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The link to http://www.uscirf.gov/ doesn't seem to work. Bernburgerin 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Commissioner is nominated because of his position at a Private Organization. Thus, His and his organization's freedom of religion record is relevant. Check the USCIRF website for details. This is true for all sectional advocacy group.
Hypothetical example, If Walmart VP is a commissioner of a free-labor sectional advocacy group then VP, and Walmart's free-labor track record becomes relevant. More-over, Is Walmart VP abusing his commissioner position by opposing mom & pop business and pushing Walmart agenda is also a relevant question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov ( talk • contribs) 02:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Spacepotato: There are 3 problems here, So let's deal with them separately. First problem: On what basis commissioners are selected ? Answer: According to USCIRF website, "Commissioners are selected for their knowledge and experience in fields relevant to the issue of international religious freedom". How did commissioners gained that expertise? They gained their expertise by working in an organisation. The Organisations are listed in commissioner's bio on uscirf website. More-over, Commissioners haven't resigned from those private organization in question. In conclusion, Commissioners are selected based on their expertise developed at private organization listed in their bio. Hence, Track record of commissioner and his organization is relevant.
Second one: You say Richard land was not involved in the anti hindu event at SBC, but Anti-hindu event at SBC falls in the freedom of religion sphere. That's like saying that VP of labor-relation was not involved in the labor dispute of his employer.
Third one: You claim that HAF being an advocacy group is not a reliable source. If your claim is true than we should put a big disclaimer on USCIRF report and deem it unreliable because USCIRF itself is an advocacy group. Unbiasedpov ( talk) 23:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed this section because it appeared to be made up completely of original research. For example, it made criticisms of the USCIRF such as "Commissioner’s duel [sic] public and private role can produce conflict of interest and biased recommendation favoring one religion over other" and "Instead of reporting factual violence involving all religions, USCIRF uses deceptive hyperbole and discriminatory omission". However, these criticisms were not found in the quoted sources. It is not permissible to insert one's own personal editorializing into an article. Criticism can only be reported as it is found in reliable sources. Spacepotato ( talk) 03:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Conflict of Interest" is real, and USCIRF also has a conflict of interest and antinepotism policy. Check the USCIRF website. http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=45 More-over, Most commissioners are affiliated with evangelical religious organization making it extremely difficult for commission to behave in non-partisan manner. That's precisely the reason USCIRF website states “Commissioners are supposed to act as individuals on the commission’s behalf and not as representative of their private sector or religious organizations” Unbiasedpov ( talk) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed this because it seemed to consist mostly of inconsequential political gossip, such as a proposal to cut the funding of the USCIRF (which was denied) and a possible request for an investigation (which was withdrawn.) Rumors of infighting are already reported above. Spacepotato ( talk) 23:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I reverted most of some recent edits to the "Criticism and controversy" section, because they extensively misquoted sources, and added unjustified categories, such as Category:Anti-Islam activists. Also, regarding the commission's 2009 visit to India, I think it should suffice to give enough criticism to give an understanding of how the controversy arose and what it consists of. The article should not become a forum for quoting every possible piece of rhetoric against the USCIRF as this is not helpful to the reader. The edits did add some interesting material regarding the commission's 2001 visit to Egypt which I hope to improve and add back momentarily. Spacepotato ( talk) 21:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I can see that three anonymous editors are engaged here in a debate with Spacepotato . My view is that Spacepotato’s arguments are more convincing than those of the anonymous editors. My reasons are as follows.
Most importantly, Wikipedia attempts to present a neutral point of view. This is the second of Wikipedia’s five pillars. This necessitates not only that editors provide a neutral point of view in Wikipedia articles, but also that they avoid subjective language and a partisan point of view in their arguments on Talk pages and anywhere else they are trying to be persuasive. Writing objectively is an acquired skill and does not come automatically.
Anonymous editor 117.194.196.42 has referred to the virulently bigoted USCIRF. This is highly inappropriate language on Wikipedia, even on a Talk page, and shows that this anonymous editor has not adequately grasped the nature and importance of objective language. This is subjective language, and subjective language is intrinsically unpersuasive. This anonymous editor has also written I do not think … USCIRF would object to be referred to as anti-Hindus or Anti-Islam activists. They would probably be quite proud of it. Whether a Wikipedia user or an anonymous editor thinks an organization is anti-Hindu or Anti-Islam is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The only consideration that is relevant is whether there are sources to confirm that some person or organization (preferably more than one) has made persuasive statements that the organization is anti-Hindu or Anti-Islam. If anonymous editor 117.194.196.42 wishes to be persuasive, and wishes to be considered seriously by the Wikipedia community, I strongly recommend he or she practise using objective language.
Anonymous editor 117.194.197.135 also relies heavily on subjective language. For example:
the granddaddy of all militant Christian lobbying groups (Incompatible with
WP:NPOV)
it is highly likely that they will not really object to being called as anti-Hindus or Islamophobes (Wikipedia is not impressed by what one or more editors think is highly likely. Wikipedia is only impressed by what can be verified by authoritative secondary sources.)
although they might stage a superficial protest for media purposes. (Incompatible with
WP:NPOV)
Anonymous editor 117.194.197.135 makes much use of subjective language, and too little use of objective language, and as a result is not convincing.
Anonymous editor 59.160.210.68 has suggested the term Hindu lobbying group is a smear and not a neutral description. This may be a valid concern, particularly as Spacepotato has written that the HAF describes itself as an advocacy group. Where there is dispute about the exact description to be applied to a person or organization, the best solution will often be to use the terminology the organization applies to itself, rather than paraphrasing that terminology. Therefore it is likely the best way for Wikipedia to describe the HAF is advocacy group, or whatever wording the HAF actually applies to itself.
It is not the role of Wikipedia to be partisan or polemical. Where a reader feels distrust, suspicion or enmity for a person or organization it is inevitable that the Wikipedia article about that person or organization will appear to be too positive, too euphemistic for that reader. Wikipedia is not in the business of winning hearts and minds in any ideological battle. Wikipedia is in the business of presenting the facts, and presenting them in a neutral and dispassionate manner.
For these reasons, I find Spacepotato’s arguments to be the more convincing. The anonymous editors who have contributed to this discussion have relied too heavily on subjective language and partisan arguments with the inevitable result that they have not convinced me. I encourage Spacepotato to proceed, albeit with caution given that this is a controversial topic and one that attracts a broad spectrum of views. Dolphin ( t) 04:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Spacepotato: Please refrain from doing unjust undo's. You should provide facts supporting your claim. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that advocacy group is unreliable source in one case and a reliable on another one. You can't claim that Stanke is right about consensus claim, but then turn around and claim that india disagreement is routine. You can't simply claim that richard land, who is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, is not involved in anti-hindu SBC event. You need to provide supporting facts because anti-hindu event at SBC falls in the sphere of ethics & religious liberty. You cannot censure richard land and SBC's track-record in freedom-of-religion sphere and claim it as irrelevant. For example, If walmart's labor-relation VP is also serving as commissioner at "free labor" advocacy group then both walmart and VP's labor related track record is very relevant. More-over, Is walmart VP misusing his commissioner position by targeting mom-and-pop stores and shielding walmart is also very relevant. This is double standard. Unbiasedpov ( talk) 04:44, 08 August 2010 (UTC)
"India is an exception" is a summary conclusion of the list prepared by spacepotato. Spacepotato's list shows total 22 instance of dissent for all USCIRF reports. 10 out 22 instances are w.r.t India. Spacepotatoes list cleary puts india in exception category. Spacepotato i agree with you that reference to archive means that reader needs to search, but On the other hand, It means that all future changes can be accomodated by this single reference to archive. I understand your point and i am fine either way. ::: Unbiasedpov ( talk) 15:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The comment on this editorial is out of place, because it is about the 2004 report, and it is in the middle of a section which is devoted to Indian press responses to the 2009 report. Also, the editorial [2] does not explicitly accuse the USA of hypocrisy, but rather sticks to insinuation. The reason for this is probably that the argument in the editorial is weak; the only charges against the USA are (1) that foreign-born citizens are not allowed to become president and that (2) all presidents have been Christians. However, neither of these points have anything to do with the USCIRF, or even with religious freedom—the USA has never had a Jewish president, for example, but this does not prevent Judaism from being freely practiced in the USA.
I would prefer to leave this editorial out altogether as we already quote plenty of rhetorical attacks against the USCIRF and the USA and this extra one adds little, and does not help the balance of the article. I find the invective in the Indian press interesting and worth documenting, but this article is certainly not itself a forum to attack the USCIRF. Spacepotato ( talk) 23:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
India section needs to be short and focused on Subject. Thus, quasi-relevant material needs to be dropped. One missing item is USCIRF's factual rebuttal of criticism, but i can't find a single USCIRF press release providing facts supporting it's reported claims and rebutting criticism. If i find it then i will put it in. Unbiasedpov ( talk) 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if that's really true. What is the case is that in the mid 1990s many Christian religious groups in the U.S. were getting highly annoyed by the fact that the U.S. State Department was doing almost nothing year after year to protect oppressed religious minorities, or even to publicly highlight their plight. This agency was created as something of a rebuke to the State Department (since State seemingly suddenly lost almost all interest in the matter with the fall of communism), and also as a practical means to reduce growing political friction between Foggy Bottom and evangelicals. It was created because of Christian concerns, but there never was any official stated intention to favor Christianity over other religions... AnonMoos ( talk) 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC) but most appointed commissioners are christian evangelist who have no history of championing freedom of ALL religions. Equality and Freedom are inseparable. Only those who believe in equality of all religion/race or at least respect all religion/race will champion freedom of all religion/race. David Dukes is smart, intellegent and has decades of experience in race based advocacy. Does that mean he is suitable to be commissioner of civil rights commission or equal opportunity commission? USCIRF Appointments clearly indicate the intention. ( talk) 12:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The whole article is peppered with Stanke's POV. Most of the Stanke quotes fails to stand against facts. For Example: Stanke Quotes "Commissioners...who come from a variety of political and religious backgrounds as well as various areas of expertise," but the truth is that since inception majority of commissioners are officials of various evangelical organizations. Clearly the commission, which is suppose to protect freedom of ALL faith, was and is dominated by 1 faith. More-over, Some belong to organization which have displayed hatred towards other faiths. Unbiasedpov ( talk) 12:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I just found out that Mr.Ted Stahnke was the deputy director of USCIRF. His views naturally suffer a POV and should not be treated as gospel truth. Unbiasedpov ( talk) 12:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
IP @ 198.182.56.5: can you please stop affing content sourced ot a blog, it fails WP:RS Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States Commission on International Religious Freedom's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nytimes":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 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) 09:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The link to http://www.uscirf.gov/ doesn't seem to work. Bernburgerin 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Commissioner is nominated because of his position at a Private Organization. Thus, His and his organization's freedom of religion record is relevant. Check the USCIRF website for details. This is true for all sectional advocacy group.
Hypothetical example, If Walmart VP is a commissioner of a free-labor sectional advocacy group then VP, and Walmart's free-labor track record becomes relevant. More-over, Is Walmart VP abusing his commissioner position by opposing mom & pop business and pushing Walmart agenda is also a relevant question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov ( talk • contribs) 02:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Spacepotato: There are 3 problems here, So let's deal with them separately. First problem: On what basis commissioners are selected ? Answer: According to USCIRF website, "Commissioners are selected for their knowledge and experience in fields relevant to the issue of international religious freedom". How did commissioners gained that expertise? They gained their expertise by working in an organisation. The Organisations are listed in commissioner's bio on uscirf website. More-over, Commissioners haven't resigned from those private organization in question. In conclusion, Commissioners are selected based on their expertise developed at private organization listed in their bio. Hence, Track record of commissioner and his organization is relevant.
Second one: You say Richard land was not involved in the anti hindu event at SBC, but Anti-hindu event at SBC falls in the freedom of religion sphere. That's like saying that VP of labor-relation was not involved in the labor dispute of his employer.
Third one: You claim that HAF being an advocacy group is not a reliable source. If your claim is true than we should put a big disclaimer on USCIRF report and deem it unreliable because USCIRF itself is an advocacy group. Unbiasedpov ( talk) 23:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed this section because it appeared to be made up completely of original research. For example, it made criticisms of the USCIRF such as "Commissioner’s duel [sic] public and private role can produce conflict of interest and biased recommendation favoring one religion over other" and "Instead of reporting factual violence involving all religions, USCIRF uses deceptive hyperbole and discriminatory omission". However, these criticisms were not found in the quoted sources. It is not permissible to insert one's own personal editorializing into an article. Criticism can only be reported as it is found in reliable sources. Spacepotato ( talk) 03:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Conflict of Interest" is real, and USCIRF also has a conflict of interest and antinepotism policy. Check the USCIRF website. http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=45 More-over, Most commissioners are affiliated with evangelical religious organization making it extremely difficult for commission to behave in non-partisan manner. That's precisely the reason USCIRF website states “Commissioners are supposed to act as individuals on the commission’s behalf and not as representative of their private sector or religious organizations” Unbiasedpov ( talk) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed this because it seemed to consist mostly of inconsequential political gossip, such as a proposal to cut the funding of the USCIRF (which was denied) and a possible request for an investigation (which was withdrawn.) Rumors of infighting are already reported above. Spacepotato ( talk) 23:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I reverted most of some recent edits to the "Criticism and controversy" section, because they extensively misquoted sources, and added unjustified categories, such as Category:Anti-Islam activists. Also, regarding the commission's 2009 visit to India, I think it should suffice to give enough criticism to give an understanding of how the controversy arose and what it consists of. The article should not become a forum for quoting every possible piece of rhetoric against the USCIRF as this is not helpful to the reader. The edits did add some interesting material regarding the commission's 2001 visit to Egypt which I hope to improve and add back momentarily. Spacepotato ( talk) 21:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I can see that three anonymous editors are engaged here in a debate with Spacepotato . My view is that Spacepotato’s arguments are more convincing than those of the anonymous editors. My reasons are as follows.
Most importantly, Wikipedia attempts to present a neutral point of view. This is the second of Wikipedia’s five pillars. This necessitates not only that editors provide a neutral point of view in Wikipedia articles, but also that they avoid subjective language and a partisan point of view in their arguments on Talk pages and anywhere else they are trying to be persuasive. Writing objectively is an acquired skill and does not come automatically.
Anonymous editor 117.194.196.42 has referred to the virulently bigoted USCIRF. This is highly inappropriate language on Wikipedia, even on a Talk page, and shows that this anonymous editor has not adequately grasped the nature and importance of objective language. This is subjective language, and subjective language is intrinsically unpersuasive. This anonymous editor has also written I do not think … USCIRF would object to be referred to as anti-Hindus or Anti-Islam activists. They would probably be quite proud of it. Whether a Wikipedia user or an anonymous editor thinks an organization is anti-Hindu or Anti-Islam is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The only consideration that is relevant is whether there are sources to confirm that some person or organization (preferably more than one) has made persuasive statements that the organization is anti-Hindu or Anti-Islam. If anonymous editor 117.194.196.42 wishes to be persuasive, and wishes to be considered seriously by the Wikipedia community, I strongly recommend he or she practise using objective language.
Anonymous editor 117.194.197.135 also relies heavily on subjective language. For example:
the granddaddy of all militant Christian lobbying groups (Incompatible with
WP:NPOV)
it is highly likely that they will not really object to being called as anti-Hindus or Islamophobes (Wikipedia is not impressed by what one or more editors think is highly likely. Wikipedia is only impressed by what can be verified by authoritative secondary sources.)
although they might stage a superficial protest for media purposes. (Incompatible with
WP:NPOV)
Anonymous editor 117.194.197.135 makes much use of subjective language, and too little use of objective language, and as a result is not convincing.
Anonymous editor 59.160.210.68 has suggested the term Hindu lobbying group is a smear and not a neutral description. This may be a valid concern, particularly as Spacepotato has written that the HAF describes itself as an advocacy group. Where there is dispute about the exact description to be applied to a person or organization, the best solution will often be to use the terminology the organization applies to itself, rather than paraphrasing that terminology. Therefore it is likely the best way for Wikipedia to describe the HAF is advocacy group, or whatever wording the HAF actually applies to itself.
It is not the role of Wikipedia to be partisan or polemical. Where a reader feels distrust, suspicion or enmity for a person or organization it is inevitable that the Wikipedia article about that person or organization will appear to be too positive, too euphemistic for that reader. Wikipedia is not in the business of winning hearts and minds in any ideological battle. Wikipedia is in the business of presenting the facts, and presenting them in a neutral and dispassionate manner.
For these reasons, I find Spacepotato’s arguments to be the more convincing. The anonymous editors who have contributed to this discussion have relied too heavily on subjective language and partisan arguments with the inevitable result that they have not convinced me. I encourage Spacepotato to proceed, albeit with caution given that this is a controversial topic and one that attracts a broad spectrum of views. Dolphin ( t) 04:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Spacepotato: Please refrain from doing unjust undo's. You should provide facts supporting your claim. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that advocacy group is unreliable source in one case and a reliable on another one. You can't claim that Stanke is right about consensus claim, but then turn around and claim that india disagreement is routine. You can't simply claim that richard land, who is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, is not involved in anti-hindu SBC event. You need to provide supporting facts because anti-hindu event at SBC falls in the sphere of ethics & religious liberty. You cannot censure richard land and SBC's track-record in freedom-of-religion sphere and claim it as irrelevant. For example, If walmart's labor-relation VP is also serving as commissioner at "free labor" advocacy group then both walmart and VP's labor related track record is very relevant. More-over, Is walmart VP misusing his commissioner position by targeting mom-and-pop stores and shielding walmart is also very relevant. This is double standard. Unbiasedpov ( talk) 04:44, 08 August 2010 (UTC)
"India is an exception" is a summary conclusion of the list prepared by spacepotato. Spacepotato's list shows total 22 instance of dissent for all USCIRF reports. 10 out 22 instances are w.r.t India. Spacepotatoes list cleary puts india in exception category. Spacepotato i agree with you that reference to archive means that reader needs to search, but On the other hand, It means that all future changes can be accomodated by this single reference to archive. I understand your point and i am fine either way. ::: Unbiasedpov ( talk) 15:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The comment on this editorial is out of place, because it is about the 2004 report, and it is in the middle of a section which is devoted to Indian press responses to the 2009 report. Also, the editorial [2] does not explicitly accuse the USA of hypocrisy, but rather sticks to insinuation. The reason for this is probably that the argument in the editorial is weak; the only charges against the USA are (1) that foreign-born citizens are not allowed to become president and that (2) all presidents have been Christians. However, neither of these points have anything to do with the USCIRF, or even with religious freedom—the USA has never had a Jewish president, for example, but this does not prevent Judaism from being freely practiced in the USA.
I would prefer to leave this editorial out altogether as we already quote plenty of rhetorical attacks against the USCIRF and the USA and this extra one adds little, and does not help the balance of the article. I find the invective in the Indian press interesting and worth documenting, but this article is certainly not itself a forum to attack the USCIRF. Spacepotato ( talk) 23:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
India section needs to be short and focused on Subject. Thus, quasi-relevant material needs to be dropped. One missing item is USCIRF's factual rebuttal of criticism, but i can't find a single USCIRF press release providing facts supporting it's reported claims and rebutting criticism. If i find it then i will put it in. Unbiasedpov ( talk) 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if that's really true. What is the case is that in the mid 1990s many Christian religious groups in the U.S. were getting highly annoyed by the fact that the U.S. State Department was doing almost nothing year after year to protect oppressed religious minorities, or even to publicly highlight their plight. This agency was created as something of a rebuke to the State Department (since State seemingly suddenly lost almost all interest in the matter with the fall of communism), and also as a practical means to reduce growing political friction between Foggy Bottom and evangelicals. It was created because of Christian concerns, but there never was any official stated intention to favor Christianity over other religions... AnonMoos ( talk) 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC) but most appointed commissioners are christian evangelist who have no history of championing freedom of ALL religions. Equality and Freedom are inseparable. Only those who believe in equality of all religion/race or at least respect all religion/race will champion freedom of all religion/race. David Dukes is smart, intellegent and has decades of experience in race based advocacy. Does that mean he is suitable to be commissioner of civil rights commission or equal opportunity commission? USCIRF Appointments clearly indicate the intention. ( talk) 12:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The whole article is peppered with Stanke's POV. Most of the Stanke quotes fails to stand against facts. For Example: Stanke Quotes "Commissioners...who come from a variety of political and religious backgrounds as well as various areas of expertise," but the truth is that since inception majority of commissioners are officials of various evangelical organizations. Clearly the commission, which is suppose to protect freedom of ALL faith, was and is dominated by 1 faith. More-over, Some belong to organization which have displayed hatred towards other faiths. Unbiasedpov ( talk) 12:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I just found out that Mr.Ted Stahnke was the deputy director of USCIRF. His views naturally suffer a POV and should not be treated as gospel truth. Unbiasedpov ( talk) 12:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
IP @ 198.182.56.5: can you please stop affing content sourced ot a blog, it fails WP:RS Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States Commission on International Religious Freedom's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nytimes":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 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) 09:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)