Talk:Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code)

Article 301 of What?

WS already has s:Constitution of the Republic of Turkey--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully resolved by name change and context in article. Lambiam^Talk 14:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish somebody would create an article on the penal code and fork this from that.--Adoniscik (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A problem with that is that whatever we write about it should be reported from a neutral point of view and be verifiable based on published reliable sources. Now that an English translation has been published in book form with a commentary (which I haven't seen yet) this might perhaps be possible.[1] So if you feel an irresistible urge to contribute...  --Lambiam 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So far we have 3 articles about the Turkish Penal Code under the euphemistic names of Article nnn of the country's Penal Code:

• Article 301 which makes it a criminal offence to insult Turkey, the Turkish nation, Turkish government institutions, or Turkish national heroes.
• Article 299 which makes it a criminal offence to "Insult the President of Turkey".
• Article 312 which makes it a criminal offence to incite racial or religious hatred by encouraging people to commit a criminal offence.

In other countries these crimes might be called by names of the offences they describe, such as sedition, treason, or hate speech. In reality, these Article titles do not describe the crimes they are talking about and inhibit understanding of Turkish criminal law. I don't believe that we need an extant English translation to write an article about the Penal code of Turkey or any other Penal code, the fact one exists and is written down in any language is enough the verify the code exists by speakers of that language, and the fact its existence is mentioned in English language and other language reports is enough for an article to be started. The fact these articles even exist is sufficient to justify a superior article about the penal code because these articles are merely detailed extensions of it. Also, since these are crimes, why not also add them to the article about Crime in Turkey and sidestep the whole issue? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Added liks to these articles to Crime in Turkey. Feel free to write an article about the penal code. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

unreferenced

The template unreferenced includes the following "This article or section does not cite its references or sources" (my highlighting). --Philip Baird Shearer 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that most of the article has citations I have removed the template. However it would be nice to have an English language source for Article 301 as few native English speakers would be able to translate the the original from Turkish so they have no way of verifying that the translation is correct. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So provided. The text in the article is different in a materially insignificant detail, but is a more literal translation of the original Turkish: The world kişi occurring in the first two clauses (follow the link to Türk Ceza Kanunu and search for "301"), not represented in the Amnesty translation, means "person", as can easily be checked[2]. --Lambiam^Talk 20:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

Whatever the case, it is clear that the Article has a chilling effect on free expression, notwithstanding its fourth clause - I happen to agree, but the wording here seems like clear POV. Any chance of a more neutral version? Loganberry (Talk) 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a link has been given to show the context used in this paragraph. Richard001 04:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree that "whatever the case" is POV, so revised and added a source. Kelvinc 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Joost Lagendijk

Unless someone objects I will remove this paragraph in a day or so. This paragraph doesn't quite make sense (I can't read dutch so I couldn't read the referenced article). The reason that it doesn't make sense is that no official action was taken against Joost Lagendijk, no prosecution, no court, no judgment, nothing. Somebody reports a crime, the prosecutor says "does not apply". Thats it. If there is something I'm missing please write it here before I delete the paragraph. Mdozturk 23:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur.. Baristarim 23:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that he was charged, and that this was a high-profile case, reported worldwide in the press, and still regularly being referenced as an illustration of the lack of freedom of opinion in Turkey. I think it is better to give accurate information here than just to omit it. What I'd like to see is an article on Kemal Kerinçsiz, which could help to put some things in perspective.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The case was brought by a private complaint. I can sue anyone I want to for any reason, but as long as the responsible judge says the case has no merits, it doesn't mean jack s... frankly. If that weren't the case, we could fill any article with all types of litigation and court-cases that have been dismissed by the judiciary. It is not being referenced "as an illustration of the lack of freedom of opinion" in Turkey. Did you know that for 2005 Turkey was ranked higher than Italy for its freedom of media? "Accurate information" is very subjective, if you bombard the reader with tons of cases that have never come to a conclusion, that is also not an "accurate portrayal" of the issue for pyschological reasons, you see what I mean? Baristarim 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't charged and there was no case! I think he wished he was charged and he wished it would be a high profile case but it didn't happen. You said it was "reported worldwide in the press", could you give some links from the english speaking press? I'd like to read more about this. Mdozturk 14:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link of an article in English stating he was charged: [3].  --Lambiam^Talk 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

False, he was not charged.. A complaint was brought against him. It is not my fault that news sites et al cannot make the difference. In Turkish law, a complaint is brought and it can be considered the Western equivalent of being "charged", however for it to really become "charged" in the Western sense, it has to be approved by the Prosecutor and the sitting judge must conclude that the case's merits are sufficient. Otherwise it has no importance. Prosecutors are obliged to file reports on the merits of all complaints brought to them by any person or group. Hurriyet's English addition doesn't count, they sometimes even make basic syntax mistakes, you cannot expect them to nail down complicated cross-country legal terminology. :) Baristarim 15:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I decided to keep the paragraph in the article. It seems like there was at least a official investigation made by the procecutor. So at the end article 301 was used for harass Joost Lagendijk. This should be included in the article.Mdozturk 14:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You decided to keep it? :)) You might want to read the wiki rules.. I think we are not connecting on how the legal system in Turkey works. Furthermore, this is purely orientalism at its worst, probably there are many other Turkish writers who might have faced prosecution, but who gives a f..??? A stupid Dutch guy is subject to a short-lived "official" investigation, let's put him in!!! How dare does that happen to a Dutch guy??? Turks? nah, they can go to hell, their lives aren't worth shit compared to a Dutch guy.. Give me a break. Good faith, eh? Better dig some better stuff. If you are going to keep it based on a badly-translated paragraph from Hurriyet, than I will delete it. For the moment I got other fish to fry, but when I find the time I will take a closer look at this article. Baristarim 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Before you dive in headfirst like that Baristarim, maybe you should consider the harrassment effect that Section 301 has on EVERYONE... you go off on a tangent saying "who gives a shit about Turks, but when it happens to a Dutch guy, let's put it in!" - this just shows your extremist views (though you love to parade around like you're neutral). The article mentions that prosecution is dropped against a lot of people but a lot of people go to trial under 301... the point is that no matter what happens, this statute is used to harrass and silence... think about it from the defendant's point of view - how does he/she feel? They know that an investigation could occur at any time because they dared to speak freely, and they don't know what the prosecution is thinking about whether or not the charges will dropped or what the court's sentence might be. Even if there's an investigation and charges are then dropped, don't you think that the defendant has suffered and got at least a little scared or intimidated? When other journalists see this happening to their colleagues, wouldn't at least SOME of them quiet down? You don't think it's significant that turkey now thinks it can push its weight around and is at least harrassing some foreign politicians too?

You don't think that charges might only be getting dropped because turkey is having a tough time getting into the EU and lengthy jail sentences for what amounts to free speech kind of "looks bad"? I doubt that you've had the legal training to look at an issue from all sides, or if you have, I'd still leave legal analysis to others... someone who can't see this statute as a tool of intimidation in the hands of the government doesn't know what he's talking about. MalteseKnight 17:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you could find the time it might be more urgent to write more on Murat Belge.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, what is significant about Lagendijk is that it was an attempt to use the law against a foreign national. As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), all the other examples in the article pertain to Turkish citizens. - Che Nuevara 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is interesting. It is also interesting to see the turks on this site giving reasons why it should not be posted. A few sections below, you can also find a turk saying that Hrant Dink was prosecuted for calling turks dirty blooded and not because he talked about the Armenian genocide. None of the turks are talking about how this is an old law. None of them are talking about how it was used to silence anyone from talking about the genocide. Turks frequently talk about the genocides commited by the Americans. I have seen that countless of times. I still haven't seen any turk mention that there is no equivalent to law 301 in America. It is all very interesting. Vmelkon (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

new law vs old law

Article 301 was introduced as part of a package of penal-law reform in the process preceding the opening of negotations for Turkish membership of the European Union. I have heard that this law is an improvement (from the POV of the EU) of a previous law, which had a similar intention but was much stricter (either applied to more cases, or had stronger penalties, or both).

If anybody knows the details, it would be interesting to have a short paragraph about the situation before June 1, 2005, and about the differences to the current law.

Aleph4 12:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International

I slightly expanded the mention of Amnesty International's views in the article text - however I also feel that the Amnesty International logo (Amnesty International.svg) was superfluous in this article, therefore I am boldly (WP:BOLD) removing it. If you wish to re-add it, please justify here. Thanks. -- 201.51.211.130 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the logo a couple of days ago, along with Pamuk, since the article had no pictures and there was a photo request on the talk page. It's fair use and fairly superfluous really, so I don't mind at all. The one picture should be enough for now anyway, if any especially relevant free use images are suitable they can be added in due course. Richard001 01:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

confused

From [4]:

“ The new paragraph was allegedly aimed at ensuring increased freedom of opinion and was part of reforms adopted by the Turkish state as a condition for the country’s future admission into the European Union. ”

Is this law supposed to be replacing a more restrictive law? That's the only scenario I can come up with, off hand, in which a law outlawing opinions could be seen as increasing freedom of opinions.

If that's not the case, then what am I missing? TerraFrost 05:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Old law: Article 159 text

I find this text of old law TCK 159 (Article 159) as modified in January 2002 and Agost 2002 and which in 2005 was replaced by TCK 301:[5][6]

Madde 159. – (1) Türklüğü, Türk milletini, Türkiye devletini, Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi'ni, Bakanlar Kurulunu, bakanlıkları, adliyeyi, devletin askeri veya emniyet ve muhafaza kuvvetlerini veya bunları temsil eden bir kısmını alenen tahkir ve tezyif eden kimseye bir yıldan üç yıla kadar hapis cezası verilir.

(2) Birinci fıkrada yazılı cürümlerin işlenmesinde tahkir ve tezyif edilen açıkça belirtilmemiş olsa bile, ona yönelik bulunduğunda tereddüt edilmeyecek bir durum varsa, tahkir ve tezyif edilen açıklanmış gibi kabul edilir.

(3) Türkiye Cumhuriyeti kanunlarına veya Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi kararlarına alenen sövenlere bir aydan altı aya kadar hapis cezası verilir.

(4) Türklüğü, Türk milletini veya Türkiye devletini tahkir ve tezyif, yabancı memlekette bir Türk vatandaşı tarafından işlenirse verilecek ceza üçte biri oranında artırılır.

(5) Birinci fıkrada sayılan organları veya kurumları tahkir ve tezyif kastı bulunmaksızın, sadece eleştirmek maksadıyla yapılan yazılı, sözlü veya görüntülü düşünce açıklamaları cezayı gerektirmez.

If someone can translate then please to. Hevesli 08:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT LIE

In the article it is said that: "Hrant Dink (featured in the genocide documentary film Screamers) was also brought to trial for insulting Turkishness by mentioning the Armenian Genocide.". This is a slander. In Turkey in media Armenian Genocide Allegations are done. Mr Dink was not send to prison. He was not prosecuted because of his ideas about 1914-1922 incidents. He was found guilty since he said Turks are dirty bloodded. What he said is:"Türkten boşalacak o zehirli kanın yerini dolduracak temiz kan, Ermeni'nin Ermenistan'la kuracağı asil damarında mevcuttur. Yeter ki mevcudiyetinin farkında olsun.". I think it is not hard to reach the result text of the court. So do not try to hide the truth. I think Wikipedia is stg like Orientalism! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.122.113.165 (talk • contribs) 16:17, February 26, 2007 (UTC).

OK, let's get this straight -- you say it is "slander" to say that Hrant Dink was brought to trial. You say that he was not prosecuted or sent to prison, but then you say he was found guilty... so what are you trying to say? You sound like a stuttering fuck. If you are claiming that all Hrant Dink was prosecuted for was calling turks "dirty bloodded" (as you spelled it), a quick google search doesn't back you up and shows YOU to be the liar... Here is what Amnesty USA and the BBC say in their reports:

Amnesty USA said: Hrant Dink is a journalist and the editor of the Armenian-language weekly newspaper Agos, which is published in Istanbul. On 7 October 2005, Hrant Dink was given a six-month suspended prison sentence by the Sisli Court of First Instance No. 2 in Istanbul for “denigrating Turkishness” in an article he wrote on Armenian identity. According to the prosecutor in the case, Hrant Dink had written his article with the intention of denigrating Turkish national identity. The court suspended the sentence as the journalist had no previous convictions, on condition that he does not repeat the offence. Hrant Dink is currently appealing the decision. However, he is also being prosecuted under Article 301 for another offence (see below). Should he be imprisoned, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience. http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGEUR440352005

The BBC said: Dink, 53, was found guilty more than a year ago of insulting Turkish identity after he wrote an article which addressed the mass killings of Ottoman Armenians nine decades ago. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6279241.stm)

Since when was writing an article on "Armenian Identity" which is what he was sentenced for the same as saying "turks are dirty bloodded?" Since when is "an article which addressed the mass killings of Ottoman Armenians" the same thing as saying turks are "dirty bloodded?" You don't sound very neutral... show me an official news article from a NON-extremist, NON-turkish website saying that Hrant Dink did what you claim, and we'll go from there... MalteseKnight 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral or not, the fact is that Dink's conviction for denigrating Turkishness was not based on mentioning the Armenian Genocide, but on his words Türk'ten boşalacak o zehirli kan. The meaning of this is not fully clear even to native speakers of Turkish, but literally it means something like "the poisoned blood that will drain away from the Turks". This was interpreted by the high court as implying that Turkish blood is poisonous and therefore denigrating Turkishness. The prosecutor at the court of appeals had asked for acquittal, saying that the words should be interpreted in context and were not intended to denigrate Turkishness.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So AT BEST, the person who posted above is taking the comments out of context... though I've yet to see a source. In the end, there's no need to put in a subject line called "DO NOT LIE" simply to take one's comments out of context and post them up, IF Dink actually did make those comments... I will delete this thread unless someone can show that there is something useful to come of it... MalteseKnight 02:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The title of the thread violates AGF and is objectionable, but the thread itself serves as a reminder that the present formulation in the image caption (as well as the suggestion evoked by the use of this specific image) is factually incorrect. The correct information can be found in our article Hrant Dink. Here are some sources commenting specifically on the court case(s): http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=65648, http://www.bianet.org/2006/11/01_eng/news90480.htm. The statement that the conviction is based on a mention of the Armenian Genocide can be found in many newspaper articles, which however simply means they all got it wrong; the facts of the case are a bit more complicated. I can understand the urge to keep hammering in the genocide charge in face of the denialism of the Turkish state, but this should not go at the expense of factual correctness.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Some people seem to have a problem with reality. Hrant was proscuted not becaue of what he said and wrote about the alleged-Armenian genocide, but because of his mention in an article of "dirty Turkish blood". This is a fact. Many people have many opinions on the genocide allegation in Turkey and they talk and write about it actually more freely than in Armenia or USA or Europe. So that is obviously not a crime under 301. On the other hand, I do not know of any criminal law anywhere on the planet that does NOT punish insult of at least SOME national or religious symbols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.248.90 (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

I feel like the contruction of the sentences outlining what's covered under Article 301 are awkwardly constructed, i.e. "A person .... shall be punishable". Any thoughts on this? If no one objects, I would like to change this to either:

The act of publicly denigrating Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.

OR

A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punished by imprisonment of between six months and three years.

Since I'm not at all familiar with the Turkish language, any suggestions as to which version is closer to the original text would be welcomed. CanadianMist 21:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The English version is a very literal translation of the Turkish, so whichever of the two versions above deviates least in meaning from the version in the article deviates least from the meaning of the Turkish text. I'm not sure, though, what the problem is. While it is common to say that an offence is punishable, I see nothing wrong with saying that the perpetrator of an offence is punishable (i.e., may be punished). This is in fact the original meaning of the adjective; if V is a transitive verb, the word V-able (if it exists) means: capable of being V-ed. (drinkable, walkable, readable, sellable, etc.). Here are some links to original English-language laws using punishable as referring to the offender rather than the offence: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. The geographic spread of the sources shows that this use is not some local quirk.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I guess I'll leave it as is. As a native English speaker, I've never heard a person being referred to as 'punishable' or any other kind of 'able' for that matter - except maybe when referring to an artist's work (i.e. Charles Dickens is very readable / Donna Karan is very wearable) but these situations are not meant in the literral sense, of course, as is the punishable statement. It strikes me as awkward in its syntax, that's all. CanadianMist 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So you never met a person who was acceptable, accountable, adaptable, admirable, adorable, approachable, bearable, believable, changeable, controllable, correctable, dependable, desirable, detestable, employable, enjoyable, excitable, expendable, forgettable, forgivable, impeachable, laudable, laughable, likable, lovable, manageable, manipulatable, noticeable, predictable, presentable, reachable, recognizable, reformable, relocatable, remarkable, respectable, steerable, touchable, understandable, usable, or valuable?  --Lambiam^Talk 19:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Point made - I said in the above that I would let it stand. You were very capable in your explanation. I now realise that a person can be punishable (no matter how much the phrase offends my Canadian ears). Mea culpa. CanadianMist 22:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

kerincsiz

The article is created now (see Kemal Kerinçsiz), and a google search gave bunch of references that one can use. I thought about redirecting it to this article, but I think he deserves an article. Deniz^T_C 08:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The prime code of law.

Everyone(here law) is innocent, until the crime is obvious

What is the crime of Article 301, as far as i know none was neither punished nor found guilty because of it. if there is no crime how come that article is based as if it is against Human Rights, and article clearly identifies "insult(Also carries slandering meaning in Turkish language)" so if you want to talk about for example "Armenian Genocide" in order no to be guilty you must prove that citizens of Turkey and/or any state founded by Turks made that process. And this is Basic of Law systems anyywhere on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.208.79 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know the history?

The law is particularly old, but this article seems to talk about the current version. What about the older versions? Shouldn't there be an "Origin" or "History" section? Does anyone know the history of it? It seems like if the AKP government wanted, with the majority they have, couldn't they throw it away, or do they like it themselves? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The "Current" section is horribly out of date. Now that Erdogan has consolidated power, 301 cases are making a startling comeback. But this entry appears to have been written by apologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.70.87 (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111004142725/http://www.bolgehaber67.com/detayhaber.asp?id=1365 to http://www.bolgehaber67.com/detayhaber.asp?id=1365

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116123035/http://sc.tagesanzeiger.ch:80/dyn/news/kultur/560264.html to http://sc.tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/kultur/560264.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930211654/http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=114125 to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=114125
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bianet.org/bianet/kategori/english/78001/endless-trials-of-publisher-zarakolu
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=28098
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203224305/http://www.bianet.org./english/kategori/english/108226/justice-ministry-refuses-article-301-case to http://www.bianet.org/english/kategori/english/108226/justice-ministry-refuses-article-301-case
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091217023206/http://www.byegm.gov.tr:80/sayfa.aspx?Id=78 to http://www.byegm.gov.tr/sayfa.aspx?Id=78

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sc.tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/kultur/560264.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bianet.org/bianet/kategori/kadin/80142/vicdani-red-bir-insan-hakkidir
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706132730/http://www.bartstaes.be/turkije.php?id=5 to http://www.bartstaes.be/turkije.php?id=5
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.byegm.gov.tr/sayfa.aspx?Id=78

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)