Jump to content

Talk:A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Burner Plan)

Neutrality of Title

[edit]

Responsible is a loaded political word, and does not conform to a neutral point of view. The article should be retitled along lines used in the popular press, if it has sufficient notability to be frequently mentioned. RayAYang (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the actual name of the plan. I didn't make it up. -Dankirkd (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you access the articles cited in the Exposure and Influence section of the article you will see that the popular press refers to the plan by the name of the plan "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq", or the "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq", or even just the "Responsible Plan". The title is appropriate and accurate and should have no bearing on a judgment of the neutrality of the actual article about the document. -Dankirkd (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that calling the title "accurate" would be, almost trivially, a matter of political opinion. Whether it is appropriate is clearly a matter of evolving political debate, where I don't think it's Wikipedia's role to take a position. It is a relatively tired and common dodge these days to name laws and proposals things that make them hard to oppose. I recall, among other things the PATRIOT Act (where the effort was successful, sadly), and the United States invasion of Panama, which was thankfully not forever named Just Cause. I certainly don't want Wikipedia to get drawn in (anymore than is unavoidable) into the the recriminations of the political debate. RayAYang (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have chosen to change the article name to Burner Plan, which is a less loaded title, and appropriate in light of her role in originating the plan. I have also found other references to it (just Google on "Burner Plan", Iraq) I hope this meets everybody's satisfaction, and we can regard the neutrality of the title as a non-issue. A redirect under the old title still leads to this page. If anybody objects, please reply here. RayAYang (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Burner Plan" works.--Bedford Pray 07:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The neutrality of the document's title is not a factor in how we should name this article. (The Magical Mystery Tour (album) article's title is not a problem, either -- Wikipedia is not judging anything to be magical or mysterious by its titling, just using the name of the articld's subject.) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) makes it clear that the article about a book is to carry the book's title; there's only some question of that for something like the Tao Te Ching, which apparently is not the original title of the book, but is the common title in English. If this document is almost universally referred to as the Burner Plan in the press, and almost never as A Responsible Plan, that might be a reason to consider making an exception, but I don't believe that's the case. (Madonna (entertainer) is an example of that -- her last name is not in the article title, because it's almost never used in coverage of the singer.) This should be moved back to the original title, though a redirect from Burner Plan is good idea.-Pete (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be more acceptable. Making "Burner Plan" the primary document name is wrong because that is not the name of the document. Again, the document has been referenced by major publications as cited in the article as "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq", or the "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq", or even just the "Responsible Plan". There are only a few "Burner plan" type references out there, mostly on blogs, and they mostly resort to that as a shorthand because the title is long-winded. Changing the title arbitrarily, and differently from what the national press calls it, enforces a POV worse than leaving it as it is IMO. Writing "The Burner Plan, formally entitled A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" is just plain inaccurate now. The document has never been formally entitled 'A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq', and the renaming has only occurred here at Wikipedia. -Dankirkd (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The formal title is what its authors wanted to call it. I think the regular title should be one that is free of bias, short, recognizable, and conventional. Although the plan is not sufficiently prominent to receive much coverage, mainstream media outlets have explicitly refrained (check the references) from calling it a "Responsible Plan" in the lead, recognizing the charged nature of those words. Instead, things like "Democratic challengers' plan" and "Burner's Plan" have been used, with the candidates' explicit title given, if at all, only towards the bottom. I think this is just good practice as regards neutrality. The Iraq War is not called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," nor is the Panama War called "Operation Just Peace." Permitting people who conceive of politically controversial things to name them is generally not in keeping with neutrality. The press recognizes this (mostly), and so should we. RayAYang (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fear your own alterations are projecting a POV. The fact that national press don't cite the full name of the document in their headlines is probably more due the fact it is wordy and limiting from the perspective of writing an eye-catching lede and headline. The two headlines you cite are not good arguments for renaming the document's name in Wikipedia. The newspapers are making reference to what they believe their readers are familiar with. MSNBC on a national scale talks about "Democractic challengers", and the Seattle Times to an audience more familiar with a local candidate used "Burner". That's not a reason to rename the article because only within the body of an article is the full, wordy name used. Furthermore, are you going to rename the No Child Left Behind Act because you think it is politically charged? You've started down a slippery slope with your renaming of the title and that's worse than what you think you're trying to accomplish. -Dankirkd (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a short proposal below, regarding edits to the article in general. I think the title is definitely one of the points where we can and should seek a third opinion, or one of the other more formal dispute resolution processes. We've repeated arguments at each other, which is a good sign that a third eye, and some cooling off time, are probably desirable. RayAYang (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you took a dramatic step in renaming the article so soon, and that because this is a disputed issue, you should revert it until it is resolved. Consensus is not there for your renaming and three of the five users that have participated in this discussion are against the renaming. My suggested compromise would be that "Burner Plan" redirect to "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq", not the other way around as you have it, as Pete suggested previously above. -Dankirkd (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a published plan, with the title as originaly used on this page. As a published work, the article about it should retain the name, much like any other book with "controversial" subjects. The publication is about a biased (aka liberal, progressive, democratic, etc) plan to end the Iraq War. A balanced view of the article is what was written, because it gave an outline of the plan. Return the article to the original name. Chadlupkes (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How to Win Friends and Influence People is a book with a rather self-congratulatory title. The Wikipedia article about it bears its title -- like every Wikipedia article about a published document I've ever seen. This seems like a pretty obvious choice to me, but I'm going to leave you guys to sort it out for now -- I have too many other irons in the fire right now. -Pete (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm...how can there be any controversy about the name of the article????? The title of the document is "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq." RayAYang is completely off base on this. Apparently RayAYang fails to understand the difference between making a claim of the plan being responsible as opposed to the use of the word "Responsible" in the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.246.97 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some side discussion led to the following:
These heavily lopsided search results, combined with Ray's expressed willingness to reconsider (below), leads me to think it's time to change the name back to the document's proper title. I would think any further energy this point should go into how the document is described in the lead paragraph. -Pete (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few more search results:
My suggestion for the leading sentence is:
-Dankirkd (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dankirkd, this is notification that I've made a change there, if you haven't seen it already. I think "official" may be more ambiguous than "name given by its creators." Subsequently, I've split off the second sentence for length. On other grounds, I still wonder if it would be appropriate to mention Darcy Burner's role in instigating the plan in the lead, rather than hiding it in the Germination section. There is, if I'm reading the sources correctly, no indication any of the other original endorsing candidates played a role in writing the plan. I'm also worried about "national security professionals," since, aside from retired military officers, there was only Dr. Korb mentioned. The use of the plural may be inappropriate, vague, and misleading. But that has been a contested edit, so I'll address that here. RayAYang (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is really splitting hairs IMO. When a document is given a name by its creators it typically considered the official name, or put another way, a document is given a name that is considered the official name, and anything else is what other people might call it. I don't think there is anything ambiguous about the use here of the word official. I also think it is fair to say "national security professionals" since that's what other sources writing about the plan have used. Finally, I believe there is adequate discussion of the players within the article to not further enlarge what has already become a lengthy lead. -Dankirkd (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my point: a Google search of the use of the phrase in Wikipedia, "name given by its creators" site:en.wikipedia.org yields no results, which means your suggestion would have no precedence. On the other hand the search "is the official name" site:en.wikipedia.org shows that phrasing is common and used on 518 Wikipedia pages. -Dankirkd (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, I'm a mathematician. Splitting hairs for greater precision and clarity is what I do. And I find references to other writers unpersuasive. Using the plural on "national security professionals" is misleading, as Dr. Korb is the only named non-military national security type involved in the plan's creation. RayAYang (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are dual roles for at least one of the Military guys. Arguably, Capt. Seaquist's primary credential is being the former Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning, rather than being the Captain of the U.S.S. Iowa. Hence the plural is entirely appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.246.97 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
---
My "splitting hairs" comment related to the "official" issue. The "national security professionals" reference could encompass Korb, John Johns, or Seaquist. From the document's site:
  • Dr. Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration
  • Brigadier General John Johns (U.S. Army ret.), specialist in counterinsurgency and nation-building
  • Capt. Larry Seaquist (U.S. Navy ret.), former commander of the U.S.S. Iowa and former Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning
The comment above makes a good point that you could consider people in multiple roles as listed on the endorsement list. -Dankirkd (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Article

[edit]

The article reads like a list of talking points. There is no mention of the opposition to said plan, nor are its impact, role in the debate, or the nature of its originators objectively discussed. RayAYang (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, definite neutrality problems.--Bedford Pray 05:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Firstly, there has been no notable opposition to the plan in the press. I've simply presented what is out there. One can say some right wing blogs have panned the plan, but blogs are typically not sources that in themselves are good enough to cite, and press coverage of the plan has been cited, without indicating whether the coverage is all pro or con. How is the background on the plan not objective? What has been stated are the facts behind it coming into being? The plan is relatively new, but already notable, and the role in the debate is put forth at the end, with reference to comments by the Speaker of the House. -Dankirkd (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will make some suggestions regarding the neutrality of the article, if it should, indeed, not be merged into one of the more general articles on the debate over the Iraq war, which is increasingly my opinion. First, the failure to mention the overtly partisan origin of the plan is a dramatic strike against its neutrality. Second, you evidently felt left wing blogs such as huffingtonpost, yglesias, dailykos, openleft, etc., worthy of citation, but not right wing blogs? That is another serious hole in the neutrality of the plan. Third, a failure to make note of alternative plans and to provide context for the reader of the plan's role in the Iraq debate is also a failure of neutrality. RayAYang (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for improving the article. I think the document has received enough notoriety and press to warrant an article of its own. There has been little coverage right wing coverage. Feel free to include what you can find. The plan references the Iraq Study Group, so it isn't ignoring other documents in the debate. -Dankirkd (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My time is limited -- you've clearly put a lot of effort into this article. I'm certainly not planning on diving into political blogs, or research alternative policy options :) This was more in the way of a new article patrol. I'll make a few minor edits, if that's agreeable. But how would you feel about incorporating this article into the pre-existing article on the Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq? We could leave a redirect behind, thus settling the context troubles, and create a new section. RayAYang (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth an article on its own, in my view. It is notable, it is documented. It could usefully be mentioned, with a "main article" link pointing to here, in the Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Also, I appreciate and support the author's clear neutrality in describing the document, which itself is a non-neutral plan, and in putting forth a DYK proposal. doncram (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my vanity, but I substantially rewrote the introduction :). Not that on Wikipedia one can be vain about credit. I (mostly) wanted to point out that the article is being changed as this discussion continues, and hopefully this discussion can incorporate proposals of possible changes, as well as commentary on changes being made. RayAYang (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments. The author has not done the research on opposition to the plan, because there have been few voices raised against it yet. When there are, I would hope someone would add info about the specific objections. That does not mean that there are neutrality problems, it means the wikipedia community has not done the work to provide the multi-person balance. If right wing blogs mention the plan, and concerns about it, please feel free to add the info. Wikipedia is supposed to be about the community developing balanced articles, not individuals spending all their time working on an article that everyone expects to be perfect on the first day. Also, alternative plans should be linked from Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This is an article about one of those plans, and had multiple people working on development and promotion. Now let's get multiple people working on the article instead of just complaining about it. Chadlupkes (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remark that the absence of opposition due to timing does not absolve Wikipedia of our responsibility to put out a neutral and even somewhat reserved article, since it is, quite clearly, political propaganda aimed at the election campaign. My edits on the introductory part of the article reflect this. It is important to aim for specificity over high-sounding slogans, give context about the nature of the originators and their political positions (i.e. as Democratic anti-war candidates), etc. As it happens, although this particular document has not yet gained enough currency to be part of our common political discourse, many of its elements touch deeply on subjects that have been argued for some time. These subjects should be presented in a straightforward, neutral fashion, avoiding charged terminology like "restore Constitutional rights" and "protect inalienable human rights," etc. Certainly somebody can point out that they're controversial and link to the appropriate articles elsewhere, if they like. I've committed a few hours just to editing the introduction already .... RayAYang (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I spent a couple of weeks researching and compiling this article, but I welcome all improvements. However, I find many of your edits questionable, and you've also become entangled with the document itself by becoming the one to rename it. I chose not to rename it when I created the article because doing so would have meant I was editorializing. -Dankirkd (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, let's discuss the nature of the edits you find questionable. However, I suggest we cool this down a bit, and discuss future changes in the talk section before we make them. I apologize for not adhering to this earlier -- I had not anticipated disagreement, which was probably naive of me. This is the first time I've been involved with an article on an emotionally charged political topic (my other memorable controversy is a question of historiographical research). For instance, I find your reversion of my edit on mentioning Darcy Burner in the introduction section questionable, since we have a verified Seattle Times article clearly stating that hers was the driving force behind the plan. But I won't try to re-insert that until we get some sort of agreement here. If you like, we can seek a third opinion for some of the points. RayAYang (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ray, you are presenting yourself and your position seeking neutrality with honor. Please continue the discussion on the specific points and questions. Chadlupkes (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as though all the major objections have been dealt with, and I certainly have no POV concerns about the article in its current state. Does anyone still object to the removal of the neutrality disputed tag? Olaf Davis | Talk 13:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks okay to me. Let's leave it up a day or so and see if anybody else objects. RayAYang (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

I added a "Criticism" section based on reliable sources, it really wasn't that hard to find. Now neutrality should be less of an issue. Lampman (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some good work. "Criticism" sections are generally discouraged, in favor of weaving the criticism into the narrative about the topic; going forward it would be good to work toward that. But this is a good start, with good citations. -Pete (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I think that if the "content" section is slightly revamped to remove loaded words and describe the proposals in more neutral language, we'd be good to go on the neutrality issue, myself. Sadly, RL is about to intervene and maybe I'll get to it later ... unless somebody else does it first! RayAYang (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article hadn't previously contained positive press inline quotes as has now been added for negative comments, so in order for this to truly provide even weight we need to dig a few quotes out of the positive press for inclusion if we're going to do more than just point to sources, and actually inline anti-plan quotes. -Dankirkd (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get to it over the weekend, if nobody else does. But before RL sucks you away, can you let us know whether the arguments above swayed you at all on the article title? It would be good if we can put that issue behind us. -Pete (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I just don't think there's a way a title like "Responsible Plan" can be neutral, especially as the name is long, but I don't want to stand in the way of everybody else disagrees with me. I know that historically certain things like Common Sense have gotten stuck with the author's proposed and biased title, and we should use those just so people know what we're talking about. On the other hand, other things, such as the surge in Iraq, the war in Panama, etc., have eventually been stuck with more neutral names that their originators intended. A good way to judge these things, I suppose, is to consider a hypothetical, since encyclopedia titles are meant to stand the test of time. If future historians 100 years from now were looking back at this, assuming the paper had any significance and wasn't lost in the humdrum, are they likely to call it the "Responsible Plan" or the "Burner Plan?" Ray Yang (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a question only future historians can answer. Personally I don't like the official name of the plan because it is wordy, but that's what the name is, so to suggest we are prescient enough to know what it should be called is a stretch. More people refer to the plan as the "Responsible Plan" than they do the suggestion you have made. I think the addition of criticism that suggests the plan is "irresponsible" takes on added weight when the article is correctly named after the document the article is about. -Dankirkd (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it's amazing that Reichert, who is a Congressman, and should know better, believes it should be the military's role to decide when the US enters and leaves wars. That's what's called a military dictatorship, but in a democracy I believe those decisions (with military consultation, of course) are left to the duly elected officials. Anyway, even if the opposition are obvious mental retards, they deserve equal representation, and this article doesn't provide that. The main problem is the "Background" section, which is just a cherry-picking of facts that help build up the case for the plan in question. Until that is cleaned up - or ideally removed - there is no way this article can be considered NPOV. Lampman (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Background section is an attempt to provide key facts that led up to the creation of the plan as suggested within the plan. The Iraq Study Group recommendations. The lack of action by the 110th Congress. General David Petraeus' statement which is quoted on the cover page of the plan and forms the foundation and premise of the plan. And the death toll and financial costs so far that are also referred to in the plan. The section makes no commentary about these facts. Perhaps what is needed to make that clear is a sentence that states that all of these things are cited within the plan as impetus for the plan. -Dankirkd (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some background is necessary in order to provide some context for the reader. If this list is indeed drawn from the report, then I think Dan's suggestion is a good one. A sentence or two introducing the section, and maybe some minor tweaks in the wording, should make it clear that any bias is in the report, rather than in the Wikipedia article. It could look something like this:

... -Pete (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if these facts are mentioned as background for the plan then they belong, but that should be made clear. Lampman (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following Pete's suggestion I have update the Background section. Hopefully that improves it. -Dankirkd (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the suggestions and past input I have merged the Criticism and Exposure and Influence into one new Views about the plan, following the model of the Iraq Study Group. This section includes quotes for and against the plan, or the plan's premise. -Dankirkd (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had initial concerns about the neutrality of the article, but with the recent changes I think it looks fine. I believe it should be de-tagged. Lampman (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporter?

[edit]

The Swing State Project is listed as a "supporter" of the plan. However, the cited source is a user diary on SSP, NOT anything authored by the site's proprietors. Assuming there is no objection, I would like to delete this reference. --DavidNYC (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Dankirkd (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

truthout.org as a notable news organization?

[edit]

Listed among the journalistic sources that commented on the plan is truthout.org. Is this really a notable enough news source to be listed along with the Atlantic or the Washington post? In my view, no, this link is a means to push up truthout's perceived importance. Bonewah (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a reasonable point, but perhaps it could have been expressed without the thinly-veiled accusation that the person who added it was not being above-board? -Pete (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, however, every place ive found truthout.org in wiki has been in a self-serving, advertising-esque sort of way like what was done here, so im a bit more brusque then i should be. Bonewah (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the article reference you're trying to exclude? It seems like a perfectly valid article to reference. I see nothing about this citation that warrants exclusion based on your personal perception about its inclusion. Dankirkd (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://www.responsibleplan.com/
    • In Jeff Merkley on 2011-05-06 20:05:10, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq on 2011-06-20 02:23:31, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. 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, 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) 19:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. 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).

  • 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) 13:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Responsible_Plan_to_End_the_War_in_Iraq&oldid=1253317971"