Jump to content

Talk:Dirty, dangerous and demeaning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changes

[edit]

There were a number of problems with the article which were removed and put back in.

This article must focus on the term dirty, dangerous, and demeaning and how it is used. Otherwise we just get a pile of original research.

This article was originally extremely US-centric.

There is nothing to say that these jobs are necessarily well paid - very often they aren't. Perhaps in the United States, under certain circumstances, but even now many of these jobs are paid poorly in the US.

There isn't "mystique" around these jobs - people do feel detached from them, but they're generally low-status. Frederick Taylor's theories of work have very little to do with this article. The list of unions contains only those from the United States - are we going to put every union that represents these workers? There would be thousands. If we want to talk about the United States, create a United States section. I cut out the mention of specific migration flows for the same reason - very US-centric, and there are many labour flows that need talking about.

Mostlyharmless (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think needs adding to the article, and more importantly, why do you think those things are relevant to the term 3D? Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All your sources on migrant working conditions have the implied or stated premises that there are domestic workers initially employed in 3D jobs and most migrant workers are paid non-standard wages. The migrant workers are only fulfilling a shortage in labor and this shortage manifests itself in 3D jobs. Following this logic then most migrant workers are employed by 3D jobs. Are you are assuming that all people employed in 3D jobs are migrant workers? 128.12.169.7 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent contributions to the Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning article. Your edits concerning low wage undesirable occupations are off topic and should be on a different page, possible one concerning low wage occupations. Your writing leaves something to be desired and has a slanted POV that comes through in a tone of personal experience. If you have experiences to share with employment in a 3D occupation this could be an addition to the page. Please return the links to 3D occupations, labor organization, economic principles of supply and demand and add your immigrant issues accordingly. The cited references existing on the page provide the necessary references. I have asked for assistance from the labor portal and additional references concerning pay rates are forthcoming. It could be taken as common knowledge these occupation are higher wage, and economic theory indicates higher pay but the published validation you ask for is not difficult to find on the bureau of labor statistics web site. They publish an occupational outlook handbook each year.Granite07 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View of outsider

[edit]

After a first glance at the edits in dispute and at the comments above, here are my thoughts:

  • The comment above "If you have experiences to share with employment in a 3D occupation this could be an addition to the page" is off-target. Articles are not about our experiences; they are about what is verifiable in reliable sources. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
  • Most editing disputes can be resolved by applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines such as verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS.
  • The article paragraph beginning "Frederick Winslow Taylor perceived the worker as a component of a larger system" has no references to indicate that reliable sources have discussed this in connection with 3D. Remember we are documenting what reliable sources have said about 3D; we aren't writing about our own opinions or experiences. That paragraph should stay out.
  • The list of occupations considered to be 3D seem appropriate but must be verfiied from reliable sources. The cited reference demonstrates danger, but I'm not sure that it demonstrates 3D. The following section about "not on the list but also 3D" has no references to verify that reliable sources consider them to be 3D jobs. Therefore, it must go.
  • The list of labor unions is not directly related to 3D and again there are no refs to RS to verify that there is any connection to 3D.

Think verifiability. Unverifiable statement can always be deleted. Verifiable statements cannot be removed unless they violate other policies or guidelines. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References don't check out

[edit]

There are some references that don't check out with the statements they footnote. In particular, the jukka_takala interview is cited for the inclusion of Ironworker or Steel erector, Roofer, Electrician, Truck driver, Construction worker, and Nursing as 3D jobs. But Takala did not say those jobs were 3D jobs. His only mention of 3D was this quote:

Having said that, migrant workers are often over-represented in the so-called “3D jobs” - dirty, dangerous and demanding - and in high-risk sectors such as agriculture, construction, healthcare and transport.

He labeled agriculture, etc. as high-risk jobs but he did not label them as 3D jobs. His interview would be a valid source for the statement that migrant workers are over-represented in 3D jobs, but is not a source for the idea that the jobs mentioned above are 3D jobs.

By contrast, the Hwang reference includes a statement:

the so-called 3D--dirty, dangerous and difficult--jobs such as construction work, mining and deep-sea fishing.

that is a valid source for naming those jobs as 3D.

So please carefully check your references before you include them.

By the way, I've done a couple of the jobs on the list. I don't consider any of those jobs "demeaning". They might be demanding or difficult, but not demeaning. Most of them are rewarding in terms both of personal satisfaction and money. I'd like to see the article moved to D, D, and Demanding (or D, D, and Difficult) instead of D, D, and Demeaning. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You agree then that 3D jobs pay well, the foundation of this entire debate, high-paying v's low-paying. If possible I would still be out in the trenches pulling my weight with local 185. I do not know the source of demeaning (since I am not a cobbler), but also found the work rewarding. The refrasing of the last D to demeaning may be a touch of American blue-collar humor as it only appears in a few American sources, thus the neologism designation. Granite07 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to get frustrated with the original research here. There was a reason why I stripped it back severely, and that was to provide a framework with which "dirty, dangerous, and demeaning" could be written about. There is a quite definite and specific way in which this term is used, both in non-academic and academic settings (it's not like I'm trying to impose one over the other) and Granite clearly has no idea - instead trying to shoehorn this concept onto the United States working class. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment "it isn't a simple supply/demand relationship" is false, migration from point a to point b would not occur unless there was a "simple supply/demand relationship" - exploitation and illegal immigration are important concepts but this is not necessarily the proper forum for these to be the main focus. It is the conditions of the work and the reasons individuals are employed in these jobs not immigrant labor issues. All of you sources talk about 3D jobs secondary to the exploitation and illegal immigration. Show a source that discusses 3D as a primary focus and that this is directly correlated with exploitation. You are making a fundamental logic error by affirming the consequent.

I also have the concrete burns and occupational injuries from more than eight years working in 3D occupations, covering three of the top ten. In addition I can personally attest though not use this as source in the article (why I only mention it here) that 3D is a universal phrase amongst American blue-collar workers. The 3D connotation we have debated all day exists in academic circles only. Thus reason for the lack of citable material to place my arguments on.

Your insistence that dirty, dangerous, and demeaning is associated only with migrant labor issues is both misdirected and unfounded. You base this only on that you assume all 3D workers are migrants based on your cited sources indicating that many migrant workers are employed in 3D occupations. This is a fundamental flaw in logic.

Your argument that the jukka_takala interview is unfounded is very shallow, the context of the sentence very clearly indicates that the high risk occupations are 3D occupations. You are merely twisting the text structure to suit your arguments. There are many other sources listing these same occupations as 3D. It is very obvious from any perspective that yes these occupations all fit the same profile and your insistence that each be individually cited is absurd.

It must be remembered that in all regions of the globe, 3D jobs are filled first by domestic workers and second by migrant workers who fill any shortage of labor. It is obvious that both the migrant worker experience and the domestic worker experience in 3D occupations are both very relevant to this page. The exclusion of one or the other is unfounded.128.12.169.7 (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't cite it, I'm within rights to delete it. I quote "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."
Your - 'it's used this way in the workplace' assertion just doesn't cut it.
Thus far you have provided very little in the way of sources that use the phrase in connection with the United States. YES, some of the occupations you have mentioned are examples of dirty or dangerous or demeaning, jobs but this is not the same as "dirty, dangerous and demeaning", which is a neologism.
  • All of the listed occupations are all three "dirty, dangerous and demeaning", your confusion of the separation of these terms into individual concpts is incorrect, a job that is demeaning by itself does not fit the criteria, nor is an individually dangerous or dirty occupation.Granite07 (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, your assertions about wages are just plain false. Wages in most of the world (including the developed world) for 3D jobs remain low. Take the mining industry in China, or the forestry industry in New Zealand. It isn't "obvious" that these jobs are filled by domestic workers first.

  • you have misread the text, It is obvious that both the migrant worker experience and the domestic worker experience in 3D occupations are both very relevant to this page you have misplaced the "obvious" to the wrong conceptGranite07 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't obvious that there's a simple supply/demand correlation with wages.

have you taken economics 1Granite07 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jukka Takala doesn't say what you claim about the occupations you mention in relation to "dirty, dangerous and demeaning". Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is the wage for miners in China, and what are the Chinese wages for the same workers in non-mining labor. Are they slaves or free labor. Does China have a free market economy or are there barriers to trade and labor that could affect wages, are workers allowed to organize?Granite07 (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources very clearly state those occupations are "dirty, dangerous and demeaning" by name. Further no article lists all 3D jobs, something you even imply. What occupations do you cite as 3D?
The sources very clearly state that 3D jobs pay a premium. Look up anyone of these occupations in the cited goverment website as see that the pay is higher than for comparably educated people. What source do you cite that wages are low in comparison to other occupations the worker is qualified for?
You think jobs are filled first by people from the other side of the globe and then from domestic labor, and this is obvious to you, where is your source for this?
All of your sources only pertain to exploited illegal migrant labor that is often employed in 3D jobs.Granite07 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a Formal fallacy by Affirming the consequent
e.g. if most migrants work 3D jobs then most 3D jobs are occupied by migrant workers, this is not necessarily true
also looks like the Fallacy of the undistributed middle

Granite07 (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given this discussion and the article I will remove Lean concept category

[edit]

I had thought this might be an interesting slant on the Muri concept of Lean/TPS but in fact it adds nothing to Lean itself. I cannot see any use of 3D within the Lean literature or here that is verifiable. Therefore I think it is confusing to keep it in Lean concepts where it is at best a subsection of Muri and not a concept in itself. Whilst Taylor is cited on the Lean Manufacturing page so is Benjamin Franklin neither were part of Lean. Facius (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Granite07 just put it back with no explanation. If everyone behaved that way the wikipedia would just dissolve into battles of will and persistence. Granite07 I am looking for an explanation of your behaviour otherwise i will just remove it again. Facius (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given no response I am removing the category again. Facius (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this page under review I can still see no content of significance on this page which would make it a Lean concept. It is clearly an important concept and one that is allied in some deep ways but not an intrinsically Lean one. I therfore again propose to remove it from the category. Facius (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Granite07's ownership of this page. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Lean again from this page. Facius (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Use of DDD

[edit]

What scope should the article take? Should it look at dirty, dangerous, and demeaning jobs, or the term dirty, dangerous and demeaning and its uses? Should the sources themselves refer specifically to the term dirty, dangerous and demeaning, or is enough that the jobs are dirty, dangerous, and/or demeaning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyharmless (talk • contribs) 05:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context - The term itself describes a shift - 3K is a Japanese term that developed in the 1980s, and refers to jobs that were common in Japan, and the backbone of its growth in 1960s and 1970s, such as shipbuilding, that people are now unwilling to do. "Dirty, d.." is a translation of this term, and has exactly the same connotations. The term is used as a whole, ("dirty, d.." rather than talking about it's constituent parts (which would mean talking about thousands of jobs over thousands of years), and is used to mean jobs which "the general public" won't usually willingly do. A search of "dirty, dangerous and (demeaning OR demanding)" will pull up thousands of examples of the term being used in the above manner, but very few other types of uses.

These jobs are thus are usually undertaken by an underclass. The term is often used in conjunction with migrants, particularly those from poor countries, often illegal, but also those with few skills, racial minorities etc. Because these jobs are performed by an underclass, their wages are often (but not always) low. It may be that the term has entered general use in the U.S. and now has a different meaning, but I haven't seen any evidence so far, and Granite has not presented any to support that claim. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The term 3D job has been in common use within the United States for several decades, though only recently used within printed text.
You are making a fundamental error (Fallacy of the undistributed middle, Affirming the consequent), while many migrant workers occupy less desirable jobs, not all undesirable jobs are necessarily filled by migrant workers. In India these jobs are exclusively filled by those of low class, while globally this is not necessarily true. Your definition of 3D jobs and stereotypical portrayal of an "underclass", resounds strongly with the Indian concept of a social class. You are misplacing the Hindu class system onto the 3D job concept.
Stating that "their wages are often (but not always) low", is a change from your previous position that wages are always low. Again "low" is perspective based, for those working these jobs, your low wage may be their high wage. Much of the work you cite as a source is written to persuade readers to action and often does not itself cite evidence of how wages are comparatively low.
I have cited the U.S. government records from tax returns that very clearly show 3D jobs offer a higher wage than comparable jobs for a given skill or education level. Additional citations also show "higher wage" is true globally. In context, high wage, can and often does mean, over $ 70,000 US dollars annually. [1][2][3] [4][5][6]
for comparison these jobs are not 3D and pay less [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]69.109.186.136 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Granite provides us with a statement "The term 3D job has been in common use within the United States for several decades, though only recently used within printed text" with no references to back it up. Once again, the sources fail to use the term "dirty, dangerous and demeaning" - which is what the article is about. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All ironworkers are 3D occupations (shown by citation). Some ironworkers are represented in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (shown by citation). Therefore some 3D occupations are represented in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (no need for second source to use 3D term since association has been established previously).
Mostlyharmless states that Granite 07 has "no references to back it up" Where does it say Wikipedia requires citations on a discussion page, Mostlyharmless obviously has not provided any here?69.109.124.123 (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
good questions, what do you think? Granite07 (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the last question needs clarification, the third D is required though Demeaning, Demanding and Difficult seem to be used interchangably in all sources. The 3K's also seem to interchange the last D depending on translation. How do the Japanese use the term? the Japanese 3K wiki article is a bit difficult to read.Granite07 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some of the contested material may be better suited for the Migrant worker article. 128.12.169.7 (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare a search for "dirty dangerous and demeaning" OR "dirty dangerous and demanding" -hong -kong -malaysia -singapore -asia -migrants -migrant -immigrant -visa -philippine -wiki -indonesia -japan -thailand -china with "dirty dangerous and demeaning" OR "dirty dangerous and demanding" 18 results vs 349, and of the 18 some are translations and refer to migrants, others talk about the oppression of blacks, one is a homoerotic site etc. etc. None suggest that the term is used the way you've tried to claim. It is used occasionally by Americans, but overwhelmingly to refer to migrants and Asia. In Google scholar, 2 results vs 111. Google is not the be all and end all, but the discrepancies suggest you've been engaging in original research from the beginning and are now trying to stick up for a completely unsupported position. You can't provide any references that the term is used in the way you claim cause there aren't any.

Or it could be that you heard the phrase "dirty, dangerous and demeaning", and thought - I'll write an article about jobs that are dirty dangerous and demeaning! Just a pity the article was titled 'neologism', talked about 3K, has a wide use in academic literature, and I decided to save it from AfD where it surely would have been deleted. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Mostlyharmless for the personal attack, is that really necessary?
  • No, Mostlyharmless, you did not save this article from AfD, it came through that process on its own merit as a valid encyclopedic topic.
  • If you disagree that 3Ds can refer to anything other than migrant workers, can you provide a source that states this and contradicts the many sources provided showing 3Ds does apply to more than migrant workers?
  • Are you making an argument that 3D only is used in the context of migrant workers. Just to be certain we are on the same page, can you define in what way I have claimed the term is used?
  • Please define how you use low social class in this context.
Granite07 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Granite puts in references, and where the term is used, they almost all talk about labour migration (apart from a Barnes and Noble catalogue and an incidental use on a 'support the troops' website). The refs don't support the text, once again. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was the state of the article before I started editing. I'll leave others to decide whether the article would have survived AfD. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The issue here is becoming obvious, activists can discuss workers who occupy 3D jobs but workers can not talk about themselves occupying 3D jobs. This is beginning to sound more like an issue of elitist self-righteous activists not wanting their thunder stolen and less about citations.
No one has claimed this term did not originate with migrant worker activism or that the citations do not relate to immigration. All the citable sources do relate to immigrant issues, but every use of 3D is about domestic workers first then about immigrants who fill the shortage of labor.
The term has migrated from the activists’ literature to the workers vocabulary and is migrating to workers literature. To make this article better, a source needs to be found that states what percentage of 3D occupations are filled by local labor and what is filled by immigrant labor e.g. 98% local / 2% immigrant, 50/50 …
Granite07 (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

[edit]

2008-02-19 Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning


Future Sources For Review

[edit]

Take a look at these sources and see what you think of the content

Granite07 (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


labor supply and wages

[edit]

"These jobs can sometimes bring higher wages due to a shortage of willing individuals in a developed country; the jobs are often filled by foreign workers looking for wages higher than available in a developing country."

What is the difference between developed and undeveloped countries labor, possibly we should be speaking of regions. Is it true that in an undeveloped country unskilled labor has no preference for working conditions. It seems that even dogs have a preference for living conditions. If one is willing to trade comfort for wages then higher wages should hold true for any species of animal. If the wages for less comfortable occupations compared to comparably skilled occupations are lower then there must be some other issue causing the lower wage. For example in India, the cast system precludes portions of the population from certain low skilled yet favorable working conditions. An artificial arrangement of preclusion such as this could result in unbalanced wages. As a second example, if I offer you $1 to gut hogs or $1 to husk corn, which job will you accept and why. What wage would compel you to change your occupation. Granite07 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== DDD Classification and US-centricity ==
I (also) feel strongly that there are some serious issues with this article:
Perhaps in the US electrician, ironworker, powerhouse electrician, and electrician (lineman) are seen as DDD jobs, but in many regions of the world such jobs are seen as highly skilled labour, with no such stigmas as implied by the article name. As much training and skill is involved, it is not surprising that wages might be higher than normal, and this is what the citation links show - nothing more. Conversely, for labouring (which might arguably qualify as a 3D occupation), the mean wage is USD14.88/hr - hardly a premium for the supposed 3D stigma). It does appear that the inclusion of some of these occupations has been done purely to support the assertion that DDD jobs attract a premium wage. Case is not even slightly made and the assertion should be removed.
The article is still US-centric. As has been mentioned before, in most regions of the world, DDD occupations do not normally have a recruiting problem, given general problems with finding employment. Hence there is limited impetus for generous wages. In fact, I doubt very much if this is even the case in the US, but whether it is or not, is for those asserting it is true in the US to make the case. I'm watching this page, but please drop a note on my page if anyone tackles these issues and comments here. Centrepull (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not kick a dead dog but follow this:
"No, the subject of the case is not who does dirty, dangerous and demeaning jobs, but; whether the article should be about "dirty, dangerous and demeaning" (3D) - which is a transliteration of 3K, and is used (almost without exception, in both academic and general literature) to describe jobs taken by foreigners, or whether it should just be about hard, tedious or dangerous jobs (which describes a very large fraction of work today, and an even larger fraction of work in the past). Currently there is almost no use of the term to refer to the latter idea. Obviously, I'm stating my position here, but those are the two positions. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)"
So if I follow this post correctly, an Engineer from Malaysia that accepts a job at Google Europe as a cognitive scientist is a 3D worker?
Second, if a Filipino sex worker in Japan, who we have all apparently agreed is a 3D worker, was asked if they felt stigmatized "as implied by the article name", is it possible they might respond that they are proud of their (likely well paying) profession. And they might strongly object to the use of their trade as an example of a 3D job stereotypically "taken by foreigners"? As if there are no Japanese prostitutes, is not the issue really that the local labor resources simply can not satiate the Japanese demand for sex workers without a rise in the price level.
Granite07 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

"dirty, dangerous, demanding" OR "dirty, dangerous, demeaning" OR "dirty, dangerous, difficult" n = 164

Context: 65% Migrant = 103; 1% Lean = 1; 3% Robotics = 5; 9% working environment = 14; 22% not categorized (translation) = 35;

Good example of "working environment"

Chen, L. & Eriksson, T. "Vacancy Duration, Vacancy Characteristics and the Business Cycle – Evidence from Firm-level Data", 2008 International Symposium on Contemporary Labor Economics "Inequality and Poverty" Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics (WISE), Xiamen University, Xiamen, China, December 12-13, 2008 [12]

Assuming the papers not categorized due to translation are referencing the categorizations at the same rates observed and distributed accordingly:

  • 84% Migrant
  • 1% Lean
  • 4% Robotics
  • 11% Working environments

While 84% of papers are referencing migrant issues they are at the core within the context of "working environments". It does not appear that any of these papers would support the assertion that the term dirty, dangerous, demanding is in exclusively associated with migrant issues. On the contrary the context of use in the migrant issue papers implies the term is associated with a type of work, which is supported by the 11% of papers that explicitly provide this definition. Further since the topic of migrant issues is better documented and published than the details of dirty, dangerous, demanding occupations, prorating for this difference in population of publications would likely indicate a similar scale in the terms use. Meaning that the term dirty, dangerous, demanding is used relatively just as commonly in reference to migrant issues as to a work type independent of migrant issues.

The survey of published papers given above is incomplete, a paper written by a US National Institute of Science and Technology scientist did not appear in the results of the search and therefore indicates other similar documents are not represented. In this document dirty, dangerous, difficult is presented as the "essence of the construction workplace".

Stone, W. C. "NIST Construction Automation Program, Report No. 2. NIST Construction Automation Workshop. Proceedings." March 20-31, 1995. NISTIR 5856; 156 p. May 1996. National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST Construction Automation Program, Report No. 2. NIST Construction Automation Workshop. Proceedings. March 20-31, 1995, 1996. pg 13. [13]

Granite07 (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dirty, dangerous and demeaning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dirty, dangerous and demeaning/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== improved == article shows improvement in writing, content and organizationGranite07 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dirty, dangerous and demeaning. 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) 18:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dirty,_dangerous_and_demeaning&oldid=1206981150"