Jump to content

Talk:March 19, 2008, anti-war protest

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

Deletion Review

[edit]

Interested editors may wish to know that there is an ongoing deletion review of this article at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#March_19.2C_2008_anti-war_protest.Myheartinchile (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

berkeley protest

[edit]

there is nothing in any of the sources that shows any link between the ongoing daily protest that coincidentally occurred on March 19. The Berkeley controversy may in this manner be attributed to be part of any other anti war protest that just happens to occur on the same day. They are not related, read the sources.Myheartinchile (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did and they are. I also restored other content you previously deleted as unsourced even though the cite was at the end of the paragraph. Not all editors know they should probably add a cite to every sentence but the source was there. I've suggested in the Deletion Review that the article be renamed to something like the Fifth anniversary protests against the Iraq War but we'll see what concensus comes to. Banjeboi 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To myheartinchile: The protests in Berkeley and D.C. are related: they were both on the five-year anniversary of the start of the war. A five-year war anniversary is very rare for the U.S. (in American history the only other war lasting 5 years or more was the Vietnam war).Astuteoak (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
they are not related just because they happened on the same day. the 5-year milestone is an irrelevant moot point. the berkeley protests are ongoing and have nothing to do with the 5th anniversary, the berkeley protest occurred the day before the 5th anniversary and the day after and if i drive over there today, they'll still be there. the claim that it is related is original research, as there are no sources citing that the March 19 protest was organized by the same people or for the same reason, if you find a source use it, or else it should go, as there is already an article about the berkeley issue.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they are related. The organizers of the 5th year anniversary made the ongoing protests the obvious focus for the post rally actions - they rallied in the park and then went to the protest. We'll find a decent source that covers this and perhaps it will explain it better. Banjeboi 23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Again to myheartinchile: Please check the reference (#40 Berkeley Daily Planet). The front page news is "Protests Mark War’s Fifth Anniversary". If there is anything you don't understand in that headline let me know and I'll explain it more clearly for you.Astuteoak (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, let's play nice please. The Berkeley material should be treated accurately and this is a valid concern that others have raised. My hunch is that it needs to worded accurately based on sources and shown to be relevant. We don't need to be in a rush to do anything and we have plenty of media outlets who will have covered it so we can look to them for what is verifiable. Banjeboi 13:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to both of you for my caustic remarks. It looks like the article has benefited tremendously from the work of each of you. Nice work.Astuteoak (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firsty a clearer explanation, yes the protests did occur on the fifth anniversary, but just because the Berkeley Daily Planet made that observation doesn't mean that protest had anything to do with the March 19, 2008 protest. Its coincidental. And it still does not belong in this article because this article is about the March 19th protests. Not the Berkeley protest. It needs rewording and can be including since you guys think it should well, who am i alone to stop you. But it must be worded accordingly to make is clear that that is an ongoing protest and on that day of the continuing protest they made references to the national protests, if in fact that is verifiable. or else no. So if you can explain how they are otherwise related and verify it for me, bring it on. (please don't take that "bring it on" in the confrontational Bush manner, i almost backspaced it, but he doesn't own it, what i mean is, show me [hahha i almost wanted to say show me the money in a dr. evil manner now hahah) anyways. as for the "caustic remarks" boo hoo hoo oh my god im so had i hate you so much waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, just kidding, i'm sure i get just as condescending when i feel someone doesn't see something the way i do when i feel it is obvious. and thanks for teaching me a new word as i didn't know what caustic meant. hah! oh and thanks ive been trying to improve it from the start. even when i supported deltion.Myheartinchile (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change name?

[edit]

I think the article name should change to reflect that it covers all the 5-year anniversary events not just those on the actual date. This would help clear up these misunderstandings. Banjeboi 03:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After researching more I do think we need to indeed change the name, even though everything here is attributable to the date itself most of the coverage relates it as 5th anniversary material. Banjeboi 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a simpler name change to "March 19, 2008 anti-war protests" could be a good new name, since protest is singular and this article was originally about the DC protest, but if its about all the protests of this particular day it would make more sense, however it comes off as news still since it was not orchestrated together and where all protests about the same thing which occurred on the same day but where otherwise unrelated.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well we'll certainly have to disagree on that. I keep seeing internationally coordinated events to have anti-war protests on the anniversary itself with many groups coordinating actions in multiple locations and even multiple cities or countries. Banjeboi 23:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and changed the title more in line with what you feel is a better title, but worded it in a manner that would be inclusive of the Berkeley protest so that we can avoid the argument over its specificity altogether.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, actually what I think is that it should be 5th anniversary protests not just March 19th protests. In any case we should see if the article survives AfD first then look to renaming. Banjeboi 21:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. Now that the deletion review is closed it would be good to consider renaming. 5th Anniversary protests against the Iraq War would, to me, seem the best candidate. As confining to the March 19 date is misleading in ways. The protests all seems to be linked to the anniversary not so much the date of invasion. Any ideas or feedback? Banjeboi 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think not, the article should just state the date since the protests occurred on that date and don't seem to have been organized and called the anniversary protest so we should keep it simple and not make our own observations. the other anniversary protests don't mention that its the 1st 2nd 3rd etc anniversary, so i think we should be consistent but in favor of consensus i renamed a combined date/anniversary title. also i made protest plural in line with the other articles and also since well it wasn't just the one DC protest this article is about anymore right? furthermore a LOT of these articles need some serious work, see the protests template.Myheartinchile (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
also, a name change to fifth anniversary comes off as a WP:COATRACK name change. tsk tsk.Myheartinchile (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can save the tsk tsk's as I think you may have missed what is not a coatrack. Events happened over several weeks all to mark the 5th Anniversary of the Iraq War so limiting the title to a single date seems to miss the mark. Significant protest events occurred on the weekend as well since March 19 was a Wednesday. As such calling it 5th Anniversary covers the related events. It's how the media outlets portrayed the events consistently and thus how the public generally saw them, not as the March 19 protests. Banjeboi 10:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no not really, the events occurred on March 19 and were centered around the 19th, it may be mentioned things built up to it, all single day titled articles mention or cover days where other related events occurred on the days before or after. Take San Francisco Gay Pride, you wouldn't change the title to Pride Month even though there are events all month long, the Pride Parade is the thesis to the surrounding events that prelude it. but take a look at the coat racks and perhaps you'll find merit in the tsking after all.Myheartinchile (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done for the moment

[edit]

I need to break now but will pick up again with Los Angeles[1], Hartford, Conneticut and Miami also had events some those are worth considering. The Berkeley events should be reworked a bit depending on what events may have taken place in other Bay Area cities, as San Francisco drew people in, there still might have been more actions in Oakland, Palo Alto, San Jose, etc. Banjeboi 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have to take another break. New York City, LA and Chicago still need to be fleshed out as I know they all had multiple events. Banjeboi 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wow, you've made some very nice edits to this page... it is looking very good now. thanks for your hard work. maybe you could help with the wikinews article as well?Myheartinchile (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I actually have no interest in the wikinews cite for the time being but anyone can copy what is here and paste it there. Banjeboi 23:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should, youd be very very good at it.Myheartinchile (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand tags

[edit]

I've added expand tags for New York, Chicago and Los Angeles; we also need an international section but completing the US stuff would seem to make more sense. If anyone knows of media sources or articles tha covers these areas please post them here if you don't add them yourself. Banjeboi 21:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they are hideous, overdone and should be removed.Myheartinchile (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible article

[edit]

referenced version Despite being kept as 'no consensus' at DRV, this article is a complete facade of an article. When you strip out all the puff, slogans, free advertising for minor protest groups, and background irrelevance, all you are left with is a list of non-notable protests, only prevented from looking like an an indiscriminate collection of facts or a an anti-war opinion piece apparently by virtue of happening on the same date (not even that is true), and on the same planet.

The biggest failing of it is the fact it has to justify itself in the lead section which is usually a dead giveaway of a precisely non-notable subject: "The protests were notable, in part, for mostly replacing mass marches with civil disobedience". I'm pretty sure that no such assertion could be accurately proven as either being true, or attributeable to this date, as civil disobedience as a form of protest has existed since the year dot. A clear case of unduly focussing on current events.

A relative minority of people in protest terms have done kerazy things that would get into the news (because that's what this article is full of, news items, and not historical events), and some wikipedians have abused the principle of reliable sourcing to produce this affront to the encyclopoedia. It doesn't even scan well as a summary list of news items.

The paltry number of people involved in these protests (which the article even tries to justify in its own text, another dead giveaway of the above failings), compared to the original protests, and other truly notable protests, when compared with the size, in sheer kilobytes, of text in the article that is not actually describing the protests, shows it as a huge violation of the neutral point of view, because if that was done, it would clearly only merit a section of Protests against the Iraq War.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are all duly noted. In no particular order, per WP:LEDE we're suppose to summarize in the lede of an article ergo most articles try to sum up rather quickly why the subject of that article is notable so that readers may be interested in learning more. Many of the largest national and international groups involved, the near universal coverage by major news outlets and the volume of references would all seem to disagree that these were non-notable. In comparison to the very large 2003 protests these were indeed smaller and the article explains that and gives the reader sourced content and possible reasons why. Perhaps some scholars will write books on the subject but until then we have to lean on news accounts and magazine articles. This article is a split off Protests against the Iraq War where it is correctly summarized - like all the other protests there - in a single paragraph. Finally if you feel that it is just isn't acceptable and indeed violates all the points you raise you can always send it to AfD. Banjeboi 23:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are supposed to summarise in the lead, but you do not specifically say, "this subject is notable because....". By the very foundation of wikipedia, i.e. the five pillars, the noteworthy, and encyclopoedic, nature of the subject should be implicit in its content, not explicit by a narrative. Like I said, a self-justifying article is already on shaky ground.
Universal news coverage? The key word which you are not picking up there is news, and wikipedia is not a newspaper. I have not argued the sheer number of references here, because to say again, that is not the only measure of an article, and in this case they actually serve to detract from any substantive meaning by being presented as an indiscriminate but well sourced list of information. That also being said, it is woefuly inadequate as a mere factual list of actual events, what with the padding, coatracking and irrelevances I previously mentioned.
Wikipedia is also not a platform to document the activities of every organisation in the world, national or international, purely by default. There is no such allowance for inherent notability in this case, you do not get a free pass to dump information here because it is reliably sourced, and especially not for the actions of organisations where you cannot be clear on the who's, what's why's or wherefore's. I guarantee you will not find a detailed record of every single activity of, say, Greenpeace on Wikipedia, and for good reason. Certainly not along ther lines of some of the contrivances documented here, such as zomg jaywalking. In an encyclopoedia, you take a different approach to a newspaper, as to what is noteworthy, and how you write about it. Anticipating future scholarly attention is also not really on either.
Unless you have edited it since, at the time of writing the above, the supposed summary at section Protests against the Iraq War was nowhere near a proper overview of this article, and that article has way too much trivial detail in it aswell, which is bizarrely probably why some people can justify a POV fork like this article. I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here trying to illustrate the difference between the faithfull recording of the news reporting of every attention grabbing action made in the name of protest, and a decent unbiased well written article on a notable topic, because I'm just repeating what I wrote above already. And the Afd bit has got to be a joke. MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fan of military history and I like to use Wikipedia because it usually has information about whatever I'm looking for. There are Wikipedia articles even about obscure Naval vessels, such as the HMS Trouncer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Trouncer_%28D85%29) which never saw major battle and was decommissioned after 2 years. Most people don't care about this ship, but if you want to learn about it, it's in Wikipedia (and correctly so). A lot of people don't care about the historic 5-year anniversary war protest but readers should be able to go to an encyclopedia and find information about it if they want to.Astuteoak (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is well established policy that any commissioned vessel is automaticaly notable. This was established based on the merits of doing so or not, on the basis of wikipedia aspiring to be a repository of factual and noteworthy information for all time, not on the basis that readers might like to have it, or might want to read about it, or some people realy care about it (which are incidentally very common defences made for information that it has already been established does not belong here) Frankly arguing for including information about a ship bears little resemblence to arguing for the merits of this information. Despite some people's assertion that it is a limitless dumping ground, there are very large exemptions as to what should be included (note, this does not tally with what can sometimes be found, because wikipedia is not perfect, and never will be). There is even an entire other wiki for documenting news, which I note from looking above that the user in question has never contributed to. That position may have a bearing on their current viewpoint. MickMacNee (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you MickMacNee, i'll support AfD. wikipedia is an encyclopedia which means that it can wait for this to become notable if people do in fact write books about this.Myheartinchile (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm missing the constructive suggestions for improving the article and welcome everyone to take a deep breath and focus on whether or not they feel this article should exist at all. If you don't then you can simply state that and move on or AfD it if you feel that's the best route to go. If you'd like to make constructive suggestions for improving it then feel free but note that wikipedia is not a soapbox but a place where we build articles. Any constructive criticism should be presented as such and will likely help improve the article which is the goal - a better article. Banjeboi 11:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refrain from repeating the request for an Afd, as you know full well that rightly or wrongly, it would be speedily closed since it is so soon since the last closure as no consensus, that's the way wikipedia works, so your 'helpful suggestion' is a borderline insult. You just said it yourself what is wrong with the article, wikipedia is not a soapbox but a place to build articles. I have given a myriad reasons above why this is not a good article for wikipedia, and is a soapbox. If you want to ignore these, fine, but don't patronise others for pointing out what is glaringly wrong with this article. Your attitude here is quite bemusing, as you clearly have no ability to see any side other than your own, which having been the major architect of the article, hardly makes you an unbiased critic, because you now have a vested interest in the keeping of the article, irrespective of its merits. As I said, you should realy consider contributing to wikinews, because that is what this 'article' most resembles when you strip out the padding and bloat. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MickMacNee, please stop. Instead of insinuations or guessing my motives you could simply make constructive suggestions for those who do want to improve the article. My suggestion for those who wish to seek AfD is perfectly valid even if those who chose to do so have to wait six months, I believe that's the recommended time, to do so. Continuing the thread of Wikipedia is not news hardly makes sense as this is far from routine coverage of an ordinary event. Also disparaging me as the primary editor seems to be an ad hominem attack so let's agree to stick to simply improving the article only. Banjeboi 21:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, the comment on your role as primary editor is perfectly valid, and only someone unwilling to address it as such would resort to calling it a persoinal attack. But at least you agree to the idea that asking someone right now to take it to Afd is not helpful. Frankly, you have a fundemental misunderstanding of what makes a notable news report, and what makes an article. To quote the news policy, Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. These categorically were routine news on the day, because the acts in the grand scheme of things were pretty tame when considered on a scale of other direct attention grabbing action. You will not find the same level of coverage in wikipedia of the rest of the news reports of that day, because they can't be padded out into this mess of an article. But this line ignores a fundemental issue, NOT#NEWS is only a part of my criticisms of this article, which you are glossing over because you have lost your objectivity and ability to assess it properly. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of you all need to get over things already and stop fighting and work together to improve the article. After a double-length AFD and a deletion review, it has been determined that the article is going to remain on Wikipedia for the foreseeable future, whether the WP:NOT#NEWS people like it or not. Any fighting over the article's existence at this point makes those involved look like a bunch of whiners who are upset that they didn't get their way. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of pointers above as to what is wrong and how to fix it. What to do about coatracks should be the first point of call for anyone willing to try and fix this article, followed by serious consideration of converting it to a mainly bulleted list based format for the major specific acts, with basic factual content, which will then focus the mind to trimming out the leftover seriously non-notable actions, the various filler content and the complete irrelevences, because the layout and scanning as is, is terrible. Then maybe a meaningfull overview, background and analysis sections could be written, if there is enough real world coverage supporting the high claims being made about this collection of events actually representing a major cohesive subject topic. Frankly, once bulleted, I think it's fairly obvious the only notable thing anyone will be able to proveably say in summary is these all happened on (or near) the same date - duh. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i agree completely. now as for stop fighting and improve, well if we don't fight on here first and form a consensus well we will be fighting on the actual article page and no one wants that.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't want to fight at all and I believe wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground so I'm walking away from this. Banjeboi 23:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a talk page, talking is not battling, as said above I have given plenty of notice of my grievances here before I start editing, precisely to avoid accusations of warring if/when I do start editing the article. MickMacNee (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(the opinions seem to go both ways so I relabelled the heading of this section to "Opinions about Quality of Article".)Astuteoak (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so i used the word "fighting" don't look too much into it! i didn't mean it the way most people interpreted as! i mean't it to mean discuss or debate!!!Myheartinchile (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

this article systematically ignores all counter protests and pro-war rallies on March 19, 2008 including ones mentioned in material already referenced in the article, wikipedia must be unbias and showcase minority opinions like pro-war.Myheartinchile (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about anti-war protests, pro-war protests and counter-protests can go into articles relevant to those subjects. If, of course, they are notable enough. Banjeboi 10:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't balance a POV fork by creating another POV fork, you satisfy the neutral point of view at the point of source. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. While I don't believe it necessarily rises to the need of the NPOV tag, if there were counter-protests that were covered in reliable sources, then yes, they should be included. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
exactly they should be included the protests on March 19, 2008 were also in favor of the war as covered in already cited articles, it has to be noted as at many events both were present at the same rallies, these are not separate topics.Myheartinchile (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are in agreement. Instead of complaining you can improve the article by adding content. Please just make sure to include citations and references. If you have some idea for new text but have tentative or unsure feelings then just post a "draft" of the new text here (with a new heading for each suggestion so they can be worked on separately). We can discuss and work on them, and when there is broad consensus we'll add them to the article. I don't think anyone has a problem with that.Astuteoak (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, instead of complaining you could also improve the article by deleting content. "Less is more" ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well i tried to delete the berkeley stuff as irrelevent but benji wont have it.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "White House" :
    • {{cite web | title=Mar. 2008 Iraq anti-war protests (White House) | publisher=[[Los Angeles Times]] | date=[[19 March]] [[2008]] | url =http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-protest20mar20-natl-pg,0,3697987.photogallery?index=8 | accessdate=2008-06-12}}
    • {{cite web | title=Mar. 2008 Iraq anti-war protests (Arlington National Cemetery) | publisher=[[Los Angeles Times]] | date=[[19 March]] [[2008]] | url =http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-protest20mar20-natl-pg,0,3697987.photogallery?index=2 | accessdate=2008-06-12}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. 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) 20:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Tag

[edit]

There is a cleanup tag with this article, but it doesn't say what needs to be improved. Will someone explain what needs to be done? Or if no comments let's remove the tag. I'll check back in a few days to do it (or any other editor may do so also). Thanks.—OhioOakTree (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag. (If new topics for improvement they can be added on this Talk page).—OhioOakTree (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. 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) 20:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_19,_2008,_anti-war_protest&oldid=1199920160"