Jump to content

Talk:James F. Amos

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

planning guidance

[edit]

http://www.stripes.com/news/marine-commandant-vows-to-make-corps-lighter-more-mobile-1.123396

I didn't see anything really noteworthy here. He seems to be continuing down existing paths with a lot of studies due next year. Hcobb (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DADT Information

[edit]

Okay, we now have an edit war. What do you suggest we do about it? BTW, sorry about your wife’s health problems and thanks for your service. I’m a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahaun (talk • contribs) 17:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just put it in the body. It's not that complicated. It's not appropriate for the lead at all, which has been my only objection. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lahaun that the material is appropriate for the article. I agree with Bahamut that the lead might be the best place for it. I don't agree that the appropriate action to take when one finds material that is appropriate for the article but not in the right place is to delete the information. We should all strive to improve the article. I don't think that it is better with the material absent than it is with it incorrectly placed. If you have a clear idea of where the material would better be placed, you should place it there. Sterrettc (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not happy, with the reformatting, please explain why here, without undoing it.Lahaun (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Regarding 'born again Christian': I do not see the cited material use that terminology. Neither do I see General Amos using that terminology in the quote contained in the cited material. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with the terminology itself (all Christians are 'born again in Christ), it seems it is most often used by non-Christians to deride and dismiss Christians. I do not see where General Amos's religion has anything to do with his service as Commandant - the reason he has an article. If there is some connection with 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' it should be made clear. Otherwise, I think it violates NPOV and I do not see any reason for it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.44.129 (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gen Amos "fires" two marine major generals

[edit]

If someone wants to expand the article here are some references that talk about General Amos "firing" two marine major generals over a taliban attack on camp Bastion that resulted in 2 casualties and 8 injured marines as well as 6 destroyed harriers.Washington Post article, New York Times article. Regards, — -dainomite   01:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried about adding this bit of Amos lore: http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/07/Did-Marines-Top-General-Stab-Another-Four-Star-In-The-Back#.Un0M-qk-bbY.twitter Does it cross the BLP line? Hcobb (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE, but if these complaints become something bigger, ending Amos' career or derailing the careers of close subordinates, it might deserve mention. EricSerge (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2014

[edit]

Under Nickname, please change "Blue Falcon Actual" to "Tamer" because "Blue Falcon Actual" is a pejorative that was presumably added by a vandal. "Tamer" is Gen. Amos' call sign, easily verifiable through a number of sources via Google. Thank you. Den1995 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Den1995 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Dwpaul Talk 06:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callsign/nickname

[edit]

Can we get a reliable source for the callsign or nickname? I have removed it as a precaution due to the vandalism shown by the facebook post.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, I added a source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly lied to Congress

[edit]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/interactive/article/20141010/NEWS/310100074

Should we wait for confirmation next week? Hcobb (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about Walter B. Jones, Jr., is he notable? http://thehill.com/policy/defense/220877-gop-lawmaker-pushes-for-investigation-into-top-marines-service-record Hcobb (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should wait for this to manifest. These allegations are brought by the attorney friends of Major Wernick who the IG found no wrong doing on the part of Amos. Walter Jones has been supportive of Wernick. All indications point to these allegations being a smear campaign by folks upset by Amos' policies. Remember, all allegations were found unsubstantiated by IG. It would be wrong of Wikipedia to support the defamation of Amos via the Wiki Website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usa usa 123 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revising this page

[edit]

Good Day, Thanks for your help. This living biography does not fit within the context of "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" available via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight and I would like to garner support to revise it. I am just an end-user not a contributor. I have been stunned for a few years that this living biography was not improved previously. It's graded as a "C" . Let's improve it!

I am happy to make revisions myself but I don't want to get into edit war or cause problems. We need to remove the media garbage from this webpage; it's irrelevant to his service to the Marine Corp. Any allegations were unsubstantiated and we should not be documenting them in Wikipedia.

The following sections in the biography need to be removed entirely: "Conflict with Marine Corps Times", "alleged abuse of power in misconduct cases", "Resume controversy". By allowing these sorts of media driven topics to dominate a military service personnel's record on Wikipedia, we are mistakenly degrading the value of Wikipedia. We cannot allow Wikipedia to simply be an extension of media by approving any topic that is published in a newspaper. Citing a bunch of Marine Corp Times articles is not appropriate. We must be held to a higher standard. All leaders face scrutiny in the media but we should draw a line and focus on the meaningful events of person's career.

Specifically, re: "Conflict with Marine Corps Times" - while the MC Times acquired email exchanges via FOIA among Amos's staff, Amos never said he was planning on "banning" the newspaper. The email were between staff members and Amos never types a word of those emails. See the articles cited in the Wikipedia article. Therefore, Wikipedia cannot continue associating this issue with Amos. Clearly the MC Times were upset and very well should be. General Milstead, on Amos' staff, said it was the dumbest idea he ever heard of. Read citations. Amos Later reported “I’m probably not the first commandant that’s been frustrated with the way the Marine Corps Times handles information and how they put it out and how they write their stories, and I’m probably not going to be the last, but I want to be clear to all Marines, there was never any intent nor will the Marine Corps Times be banned from the Marine Corps exchanges.” See second citation in Wikipedia. This is the media hype that should be removed and not be allowed to stain the living biography of a person.

Secondly, re: "alleged abuse of power in misconduct cases" - the Inspector General of the United States conducted a year long investigation of this and found absolutely no unlawful command influence. Just because a lawyer requested an IG investigation, doesn't mean it was substantiated. This too should be removed b/c to non-experts, this reads as though Amos is guilty and he is not. It's very biased towards the position of those who are in disagreement with Amos. Their message should not dominate Amos's living biography.

Thirdly, re: "Resume controversy" - this was a lie that a lawyer associated closely with those demanding an IG inspection made up. The US Marine Corp made an official statement saying Amos attended The Basic School. You dont get to be the Commandant by not the MC accidentally not noticing you just happened to skip TBS. Just because a lawyer said Amos didnt attend TBS and the MC Times reports it, doesnt mean it's true. The Federal Gov't replied saying he attending. Case closed. This totally needs to be removed b/c it's biased towards presenting only negative news media coverage.

Can we please proceed with removing the three sections entirely? I can do that, or maybe one of you with a better reputation on wikipedia? Thank you very much. Usa usa 123 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC) USA USA 123. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usa usa 123 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to USA USA 123: I was recently wondering whether there had ever been any resolution regarding allegations that General Amos misstated parts of his resume, so I checked this wikipedia page and was stunned to find no mention of them. My initial assumption was that someone was trying to improperly sweep embarrassing information under the rug. Having read your explanation, I understand your concern, but wikipedia's BLP guidance states that for public figures, "if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article." They also give the following example, which happens to be very similar to this situation:
"A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."
It seems clear that the three controversies you've deleted belong in the article, even if you are correct that they are false allegations made by dubious sources. Let's just keep it neutral, objectively state who said what, and cite legitimate sources. A clear, unambiguous, and well-sourced statement that Gen. Amos had been cleared of all wrongdoing after a year-long investigation by the inspector general would be much more effective exoneration than simply deleting that section and declaring his innocence on the "talk" page. VirgilGilmour (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


In reply to VirgilGilmour: Thank you for your positive contributions to various aspects of this page. But the Wikipedia guidance that you reference as to reasons why these allegations belong in this article do not apply in this situation b/c these allegations were proven false by the Federal Gov't rather than simply being denied by Amos, himself. Please re-read your reference.

Furthermore, we must not forget that the overarching principal in the "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons", is " "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..." The Section, Conflict with Marine Corps Times, is misleading because it simply documents a process that resulted in a non-event. Through FOIA, MC Times acquired an internal email between Marines other than Amos asking whether The Commandant could move the paper. The newspaper was never moved and the Marine Corp provided explanations and responses to inquiries by the MC Times. This Section implies that an event took place worthy of historical significance but it is not. Third party sources denounced this allegation, not just Amos. Wikipedia defers to 3rd party references when there is question.

Resume Controversy is a sham. Lee Thweatt is friend of Major James Weirick who initiated the IG investigation discussed in the "Alleged abuse of power in misconduct cases". Both the Marine Corp and the then Secretary of Defense, Hagel, said Amos attended TBS. Who in their right mind would insinuate that US screwed up so badly that they installed someone on the joint chiefs of staff who didnt even complete basic training? The Marines said,"Completion of professional military education requirements via correspondence is common practice today and is another method the Marine Corps uses to satisfy educational qualifications in circumstances preventing formal school attendance." This section flies in the face of the basic tenant, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..". This is not worthy of being in a living biography in an encyclopedia. This was a smear campaign that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia.

The allegations in the section titled, "Alleged abuse of power in misconduct cases" were proven by the US Inspector General to be false. Wikipedia guidance BLPs are not "to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives...". These were allegations and nothing else and they are misleading.

I have reverted this page to the previous state by removing these sections since they don't fit within the context of "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" available via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight


Thank you, USA USA 123. Usa usa 123 (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to USA USA 123: Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:Dispute resolution state quite clearly: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text." I have therefore reverted it back. If you have improvements that can be made be ADDING exonerating evidence to these sections, I would welcome that. However, please do not simply delete my entire entry. I'm going to do my best to address all of your points. If you're not satisfied, please wait for a consensus before deleting.
- "the Wikipedia guidance that you reference as to reasons why these allegations belong in this article do not apply in this situation b/c these allegations were proven false by the Federal Gov't rather than simply being denied by Amos, himself." I think you mean the Federal Gov't ASSERTED that the allegations were false, rather than PROVED it. However, as you stated above, wikipedia relies on neutral WP:Third-party sources, which are "not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material." The Federal Government would obviously not be a neutral third-party source in this case.
- "Please re-read your reference." I just have, and I see nothing that implies that widely-reported allegations should be omitted if they are "proven false" by the Federal Gov't (or anyone else).
- "Furthermore, we must not forget that the overarching principal in the "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons", is " "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..." These controversies are, for better or worse, a huge part of Amos's public image. When you google "James Amos", nearly every major hit is primarily about at least one of these controversies, except, obviously, official Marine Corps sites. Leaving these incidents off of his wikipedia page will only have the effect of drawing more attention to the controversy (see the Streisand Effect). If you have evidence that clearly shows that the allegations are false, the best thing you can do is to add that information.
- "The Section, Conflict with Marine Corps Times, is misleading because it simply documents a process that resulted in a non-event. Through FOIA, MC Times acquired an internal email between Marines other than Amos asking whether The Commandant could move the paper. The newspaper was never moved and the Marine Corp provided explanations and responses to inquiries by the MC Times. Not true. As I wrote (and cited), In December 2013, Marine Corps Times newspapers were abruptly repositioned away from checkout counters in Marine Corps Exchange stores throughout the world.
- "This Section implies that an event took place worthy of historical significance but it is not. Third party sources denounced this allegation, not just Amos. Wikipedia defers to 3rd party references when there is question." I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I'm not sure you understand what is meant by a third-party source. As per wikipedia's guidelines, a WP:third-party source "is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." This is why I used USA Today as a source, rather than just the Marine Corps Times. If you've found a third-party source that found the allegations to be inaccurate, please provide it and add it to the section.
- "Resume Controversy is a sham. Lee Thweatt is friend of Major James Weirick who initiated the IG investigation discussed in the "Alleged abuse of power in misconduct cases". Even if it is a sham, the fact that the controversy received so much coverage makes it unquestionably worthy of inclusion. I'm not sure how this alleged friendship proves the controversy is a sham. Can you provide a citation? If so, I think you should definitely add it to that section. I'm actually very interested to read more about this. As I said before, these controversies are the first things that pop up when you google "James Amos," so the proverbial cat is out of the bag, which makes it even more crucial that this article include the exonerating evidence you're referring to.
- "Both the Marine Corp and the then Secretary of Defense, Hagel, said Amos attended TBS. Who in their right mind would insinuate that US screwed up so badly that they installed someone on the joint chiefs of staff who didnt even complete basic training?" To my knowledge, no one has asserted that he didn't attend "basic training." However, the service record he provided to Congress during his confirmation listed his graduation date as 1972, but the Marine Corps had no record of Amos until 1973. Marine Corps officials initially responded that Amos had never graduated from The Basic School, but subsequently clarified that he had graduated via correspondence course in February 1977. Secretary Hagel attributed the graduation date discrepancy to "a data entry error in one of the Marine Corps’ personnel databases" and asserted that the service record initially provided to Congress had been prepared by the Marine Corps Manpower office, rather than by Amos himself. These are all objective facts and have been cited meticulously.
- "The Marines said,"Completion of professional military education requirements via correspondence is common practice today and is another method the Marine Corps uses to satisfy educational qualifications in circumstances preventing formal school attendance." This section flies in the face of the basic tenant, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..". This is not worthy of being in a living biography in an encyclopedia. This was a smear campaign that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia." As it says in NPOV, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." Even if this WAS a smear campaign it absolutely needs to be mentioned. For example, George W. Bush's page mentions the Texas ANG controversy and John Kerry's mentions the Swift Boat Vets for Truth controversy. Both have been labeled as smear campaigns, but that doesn't mean they "should not be tolerated on Wikipedia." In fact, neutrality demands that both controversies be included.
- "The allegations in the section titled, "Alleged abuse of power in misconduct cases" were proven by the US Inspector General to be false." The Inspector General found that Amos was "reasonable under the circumstances", a fact that I included in one of the sections you deleted.
- "Wikipedia guidance BLPs are not "to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives...". These were allegations and nothing else and they are misleading." WP:Biographies of Living Persons states, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." A simple google search shows that these allegations are "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented." And there are certainly "multiple reliable third party sources documenting each allegation."
- I have reverted this page to the previous state by removing these sections since they don't fit within the context of "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" available via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight The very first sentence of that page defines "Neutral Point of View" as "representing...all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." By deleting these sections, you are actually detracting from the NPOV. As to the due and undue weight issue, as stated previously, these allegations are the most prominent issues that come up when googling "James Amos", so I think it's hard to argue that they aren't relevant.
Thank youVirgilGilmour (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Montford Point Marines and the Congressional Gold Medal

[edit]

I checked the sources (I had to update one's URL) and I can't find anything affirming that Gen. Amos worked with Congress to recognize these Marines, only that he recognized their contributions in a speech he gave. However, there are some indications that this did in fact happen (e.g. one Marine's widow saying he'd done more than all previous commandants combined). Please provide the actual quote. Also, this section includes several (admittedly uncontroversial) opinions WP:ASSERT For example, "bringing much deserved recognition to these American patriots" should probably be replaced with something like "recognizing the Montford Point Marines."VirgilGilmour (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the Bio include widely-publicized but controversial allegations?

[edit]

The consensus is that the "Résumé controversy" and "Alleged abuse of power in misconduct cases" sections should be significantly shortened to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight.

There is support by two participants, Collect and Coretheapple, for removing the "Conflict with Marine Corps Times" section per WP:BLP because the section "finds no direct connection between Amos and any decision". Since no editors argued for including that section, there is a consensus for removing the section. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content, it should be removed:

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.

Regarding the "Résumé controversy" and "Alleged abuse of power in misconduct cases" sections, I recommend bold editing to trim the sections and further discussion if the editing is disputed.

Cunard (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "Tenure as Commandant" section include the "Résumé controversy," "Conflict with Marine Corps Times," and "Alleged abuse of power in misconduct cases"? VirgilGilmour (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • WEIGHT is important here, and the current weight given the, in my opinion, minor events is grossly excessive. The "resume" issue is a non-issue, and should be covered in, at most, two sentences, and not given a section which could be read as implying Amos did anything improper. The "Marine Corps Times" section finds no direct connect between Amos and any decision, and so WP:BLP clearly requires removal of that bit of trivia. The "alleged abuse of power" boils down to an unproven allegation, and the final "ruling" that his acts had an improper appearance at most. Three sentences. Period. Collect (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Summoned by bot. The question posed in this RfC isn't quite on point. Yes, there may be some mention. But at the length currently in the article? Absolutely, positively not. It has to be cut way way way way down per WP:UNDUE. This article seems far off kilter in terms of balance. I agree with Collect above in every respect. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the issue? Yes, I agree that coverage of the resume issue is overdone. On the other hand, I don't see anyone working to provide a more moderate alternative. Until someone does, there's no controversy worthy of an RFC, is there? Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, the sections in question have grown significantly since I initially posed the question. I completely agree that these sections are far too long relative to their weight. To answer Dicklyon's question, the RFC was regarding whether these sections should be included at all. An editor had previously deleted them unilaterally but without achieving consensus first (see the section above, "Revising this Page.") Thus far, the consensus seems to be that these sections should be significantly shorter, but should include all of the relevant information. I feel I should repeat how I got involved in editing this page in the first place, as it relates to why it's important that these sections be included: "I was recently wondering whether there had ever been any resolution regarding allegations that General Amos misstated parts of his resume, so I checked this wikipedia page and was stunned to find no mention of them. My initial assumption was that someone was trying to improperly sweep embarrassing information under the rug."VirgilGilmour (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James F. Amos. 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}}).

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 17:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James F. Amos. 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) 02:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on James F. Amos. 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) 19:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_F._Amos&oldid=1204820555"