Talk:Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)

IRA

Which IRA was this guy a member of? I think it's safe to assume the PIRA, but could it have been the OIRA? Pauric 00:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There does seem to be continuing confusion over which organisation he was in, with a number of edits changing it. This is the best I can find: "Michael Gaughan was one of the first Provisional IRA members to be imprisoned in England." [1]. But it's not exactly an authoritative source. I would suggest that anybody changing, or reverting, his membership leave a comment asking for references and directing to the talk page. I would guess PIRA for the time being. How about putting in a {{citation}} ? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 09:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like sound reasoning to me. Pauric 17:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That section is indeed confusing and I've added a tag to that effect and a comment in the code. It's unclear how or when he became a member of the Provisional IRA Billsmith60 (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

POV tag

I believe that this article does not meet Wikipedia's Neutral POV critera.

All of the sources on the article are highly questionable. Particularly the references for force-feeding which use extremely POV language. Biofoundationsoflanguage 09:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Either deal with the specifics or remove that tag. If you are unhappy with the references that are used in the article feel free to introduce new references and material.--Vintagekits 09:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference 2 is POV. Reference 4 is POV. Reference 5 only mentions the hunger strikes, not the methods used by the prison on prisoners. Reference 7 POV. Just because something's on the internet doesn't mean it is a reliable reference for a wiki article. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are just expressing your opinion that the are not neutral, additonally a source does not have to be neutral to be reliable per WP:RS. What exactly in the content do you consider as not neutral and why, lets dealing specifics. Can you provide referenced material which contradicts any of the information provided within the article?--Vintagekits 13:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag for now; please discuss here towards settling this dispute. --John 14:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Vintagekits 14:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did a general cleanup and copy edit, mostly just comma usage and such. I'm going to take some time to go through and verify the sources. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, a few things. Let's tackle them individually, so we don't get bogged down in one place and overlook another.

1. Ref 22 (Tribe). It doesn't seem like a reliable source. It looks like a collection of unverified user-created information. Considering that the only thing we're getting out of it is that someone was "embarrassed," I think we should just cut the whole paragraph. Sources like this aren't good for verifying opinions and such.
2. Ref 17 (The Ballad). I admittedly don't have much of a background here, but is it even relevant? We're not talking about Seamus Robinson (Irish Republican), but someone apparently more obscure, and I think we need evidence that the song is relevant and notable, not simply that it exists.

I'm going to look further into the medical issue, as well as some of the inconsistent numbers (March 30/31, and one of the sources, for some reason, says he died after 67 days). I'm also going to take a look at Biofoundationsoflanguage's grievances now, which I haven't done yet. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

With regards 1. you could be right but I will try and find a more reliable source first and it seems like a well written and factual piece, 2. We are talking about Seamus Robinson (songwriter) - the song is pretty notable I would say, one of the more recogised rebel songs of the modern era.--Vintagekits 22:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how well-written that piece is, it hasn't been vetted, and we're solely using it to judge a very subjective topic. We absolutely need a better source.

As far as #2 goes ... sounds good. Let's try to find a source that explains that it's widely recognized. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at Biofoundations' edits ... looks like you did a pretty good job referencing the whole thing. The issues that remain aren't really a big deal:

1. "The funeral had embarrassed ..." Give it a good source, or it has to be removed.
2. The first paragraph in Commemoration should be referenced, but I couldn't care less if anyone does or doesn't at this point.
3. I think the medical stuff here is OK. The original source didn't have anything on that, and finding general force-feeding criticism and applying it here is something I don't believe necessary. It's applicability here is original research, anyway.
4. Can we find another source for his demands? "A History of Ireland in Song" strikes me as unreliable.
5. And, out of curiosity, do you know what "Tírghrá, National Commemoration Centre" is?

Thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1. sorted, 2. sorted, 3. I'll get a ref for that but as explained above further info in essential (even if it is graphic) - I also have a graphic quote from Gerry Kelly describing the methods they used to enforce the force feeding. 4. sorted, 5. Tirghra is a book with a biography off all IRA, Sinn Fein, Cumann na Ban and Fianna Eireann member that where killed during the troubles and the NCC is a committee that was assembly to research, compile, write and publish Tirghra.--Vintagekits 02:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of page

I would like to echo the concerns other editors have made on the neutrality of this page. The sources are almost entirely from partisan Republican sources. To give one example, reference eight is used as a reference for the description of force-feeding methods used. Reference eight is from the Noraid website. This fact is not mentioned in the citation, which in itself is bad practice and misleading. One does not have to be Ian Paisley to think that Noraid is a partisan, POV and unreliable source on this topic.

There are also references from An Phoblacht, the Sinn Fein newspaper, from Saorise, the Republican Sinn Fein newsletter, and from irelandsown.net, a Republican website. All of these are sources which are likely to portray IRA hungerstrikers from a hagiographic viewpoint, to exaggerate the ill-treatment which they received, and to exaggerate their impact on the political situation. A balanced page would have a couple of references from such sources, a couple of references from British government sources, and fifteen or so references from reputable history books on the Troubles.--86.31.239.209 00:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're suggesting we should balance out the page with British government sources and reputable history books. Help us find them! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"exaggerate the ill-treatment" - the guy died from the treatment he recieved - I'm not sure you can exaggerate that! Also I think this is a banned editor and I will now check that - if it is I will wipe this discussion.--Vintagekits 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Focus on the point they have made rather than whether they are a "banned user". The point that the page is not totally NPOV may not be without merit. It would be better to find some more neutral sources. --John 01:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I recognise the point the (single purpose) editor makes and I am currently going through books.--Vintagekits 01:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

- the guy died from not eating. He was provided with food but chose not to eat. Are you suggesting the provision of food was ill-treatment? Also please assume good faith: you have no reason to suspect that I might be a banned editor; and I am not one.--86.31.239.209 01:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not who I thought you were - but have you edited under another IP or user name? As for your other comment, I am not going to dignify that with a response.--Vintagekits 01:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have edited occasionally from several IPs. My previous point was a serious one: whether the guy died from pneumonia brought on by the hunger strike or the after-effects of force-feeding done in an attempt to beat the hunger-strike is essentially semantics: the basic cause of death is the same: the hunger strike. But this is a side issue - the basic point is that in a serious encyclopedia articles about the IRA (and anything else) should be referenced primarily from disinterested sources. Can you really defend reference 8?--86.31.239.209 01:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I welcome the introduction of any new sources, feel free to introduce them.--Vintagekits 01:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the description of force-feeding process, because the description used was not to be found in the source provided. I quoted what was there, and attributed it. If we would prefer not to have inline attribution, then we should probably use more neutral language to describe it. Rockpocket 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced it with the correct source. Additionally I will be looking forward to attributing ALL information you include in articles in a similar manner!--Vintagekits 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You will not need to, since I do it myself when the source is not neutral (see, for example, animal testing for plenty of examples). There are a few issues with this as it stands:

1. You can't simply cut and paste a sentence like that. Its a copyright violation. So if you have to put in in quotes if you wish to copy text verbatim. If you put it on quotes, then you need to attribute it.
2. The language is unencyclopaedic. Unless we are quoting verbatim, we need to ensure our language is neutral. "drag him or her by the hair to the top of the bed" is not neutral.
3. I very much doubt the content is from Irelands Own ("a family magazine published weekly in Ireland. It specialises in lightweight content, nostalgia for the "old days", traditional stories, knitting patterns, and uncontroversial family content, including puzzles and recipes"). It says it is copyright of the National Hunger Strike Commemoration Committee, not a neutral source.

So, again, I have no problem with this content being here, but lets keep this free from propaganda and attribute verbatim material, or else rewrite neutrally. Rockpocket 23:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that that is a description by Gearóid Ó Ceallaigh when he was describing his own force feeding around the same time as Gaughan. If its a direct qoute I will try and find it - but it'll have to be tommorrow cos I'm off to bed. slan.--Vintagekits 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you think there is a nice "kiddy friendly" way of describing force feeding or someone who does not want to be feed then you are mistaken - its a brutal act and uses brutal methods.--Vintagekits 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, if he said it we can attribute it to him. Rockpocket 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Gearóid Ó Ceallaigh description is in a source already in the article [2]. It's clear the other source is derived from what he said, so it needs changing slightly if being quoted verbatim and attributed to him. Scalpfarmer 22:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Commemoration section

This section is not showing up in the article for some reason - anyone know why? can someone fix it?--Vintagekits 17:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Category: Irish criminals

This was reverted as "pov". The first source in the article [3] states "[Gaughan was] sentenced in 1971 to seven years for conspiring to rob a London bank". Last time I checked conspiracy to rob banks was considered a crime, and Gaughan was convicted and sentenced for it, making him a criminal. Could the reverting editor explain to me why the addition of this cat is a "pov"? Rockpocket 01:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, does anyone know if the charges were brought as a Scheduled terrorist related offence? I.e., were the conspiracy charges for which he was convicted classed as purely criminal or as terrorist related? If it was the latter, we could change the cat to Category:People imprisoned for terrorism, if it was the former, then I can see no objective reason the cat could be considered POV. Rockpocket 01:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, please make sure you add an English criminals category to John Prescott, as his article makes it clear he's been convicted of various motoring offences, confirmed here. Scalpfarmer 01:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Do it yourself, if that is your wish. This is a wiki afterall, the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. Rockpocket 01:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Motoring offences (rightly or wrongly) are not usually regarded as criminal acts though. --John 01:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked speeding was a crime, despite people not regarding it as a criminal act. Scalpfarmer 01:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not entirely clear whether you have an issue with Michael Gaughan being categorised as criminal, or are concerned with John Prescott (in which case his talk page may be the better place for your comments). However, if it is the former, then I'm guessing that the issue is that prisoners of the Struggles did not like to see themselves as criminals. May I direct you to Walker, C.P. Irish republican prisoners—political detainees, prisoners of war or common criminals? Irish Jurist, 1984, 19, 189-225 for an independent review of the subject. His conclusion is:

The disparate claims for some sort of special treatment for convicted Republican prisoners can be rejected with confidence as almost totally without foundation in domestic or international law.

Rockpocket 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither to be fair, I'm just following your argument to its logical conclusion. If people who have been convicted of criminal offences are to have categories added accordingly, so be it. To that end I have taken the liberty of adding said categories to several Rangers F.C. players, but I will leave Prescott for another day. Your source is either incorrect or talking about a different time in history by the way, Irish Republican prisoners did receive special treatment until Special Category Status was abolished in 1976. However as the demands Gaughan was making were already conceded as part of that status, it is reasonable to assume that SCS did not apply to prisoners in English jails. Scalpfarmer 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how long those cats last on the Rangers players. I support your logical conclusions (though I think the consensus is that motoring offenses do not count as, as John says, they are not considered criminal offenses for some reason). By they way, Walker address your point about Special Category Status. He points out that his conclusions are based on formalistic law and concedes that does not pre-empt decisions made on "moral or political considerations". In other words, SCS may have been afforded to certain prisoners (most certainly for political reasons), but in the absence of that status being awarded at the British Government's discretion (as appears to be the case for Gaughan) there is no legal basis for an assumption that IRA members covicted of criminal offenses are any different from any other criminal. Rockpocket 18:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got to the bottom of it actually. SCS was Northern Ireland specific, as it was introduced by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Thus there was no discretion involved, it was purely a case of location. Although we're not sure if Gaughan was convicted of a scheduled terrorist offence, Frank Stagg was and he was also demanding the right not to do prison work which is a right he would have had automatically if he had SCS. Scalpfarmer 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That is helpful, thanks. The point here, it seems to me, is whether or not Gaughan was convicted of a scheduled terrorist offence. If he was then I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that the criminal cat is probably inappropriate and we should use the people convicted of terrorism cat, instead. In this case, assuming there is consensus to include paramilitary forces such as the IRA in the POW cat, then I would also be happy to support that cat too. However, as it stands, there is no indication that he was convicted of anything other than criminal charges (conspiring to rob bank). Therefore there is strong independent justification for the Irish criminal cat. There appears to be plenty of people happy to revert this with the explanation "POV" though no one appears willing to justify it further. Rockpocket 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This category is POV, who decides who is a criminal, I would regard Both the British and American governments as war criminals for their actions in Iraq and I am sure many people would agree with me, but I doubt WP would agree to me categorising them as such, and rightly so. The members of the IRA fought a war against Britain, a war that was political in nature.--padraig3uk 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference, my friend, is that your opinion is not an independent reliable source, whereas Time magazine reporting on Gaughan's conviction is. The criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, his status as a convicted criminal is verifiable. Please do not remove verified material because it offends your opinion. Rockpocket 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is yet again of location. The various terrorism bills had sections for scheduled offences that were Northern Ireland specific, for example see here [4]. It seems somewhat POV and contradictory to me to say that if he had committed the offence in Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom, as is frequently pointed out) it would be a scheduled terrorist offence, but because he committed the offence in England (still part of the United Kingdom) it's a normal criminal offence. Scalpfarmer 00:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That certainly does seem perverse, I agree, and most unfortunate for him. However, if carry a concealed weapon in California I could be jailed for 30 years on a 3-strikes rule, if I carry a concealed weapon in Texas, the police can't touch me. Seems contradictory, considering i'm in the same country, right? But as our American friends tend to say, "it is what it is". Should someone convicted of carrying a concealed weapon not be classed as a criminal on Wikipedia because it seems "POV" that someone else from a different states isn't for the same thing? Gaughan wasn't convicted in NIR, he was convicted in England. Therefore he wasn't subject to those bills, therefore - unfair or not - he was not given special status. Our job is not to analyse or provide social justice, but to report verifiable facts. Lets do that. Rockpocket 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no OP - Gaughan wa a Volunteer in the IRA, the IRA was at war with Britain, Gaughan was imprisoned for for carrying out a mission for the IRA and whilst imprisoned demanded POW status - therefore he is a POW not a criminal.--Vintagekits 00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense, Vk. One doesn't just get to "decide" that one is committing a criminal act as an act of war and therefore automatically be given POW status on demand. Consider the animal rights activists for example, they claim their acts of arson etc are a war also, a war against animal abusers. That doesn't mean they can be classed as a POWs. To be a POW your imprisonment must meet certain objective criteria, and that almost always includes following the rules of war. Robbing civilian banks to fund attacks do not come under rules of war. However, one could argue that is was an act of war, based on the IRA's MO. This isn't about a black and white agenda, its about an accurate depiction of the facts, what do you think of the suggestion I made at the bottom of the page as a way forward? Rockpocket 01:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually he was also convicted of more than bank robbery (or conspiring, depending on which source you agree with), he was also convicted of firearms possession see here. We've already established the fact he didn't have SCS was to do with his location rather than the nature of his offence, so some investigation of the actual law at the time is needed to establish whether he was convicted as a standard criminal or a scheduled offence, which did still exist outside Northern Ireland, they were just more stringent regarding the offences in NI. Scalpfarmer 00:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. But reading the Time source more carefully, I notice it actually states "Sentenced in 1971 to seven years for conspiring to rob a London bank for the I.R.A." (my bold). Taking that literally, it appears to suggest that conviction was not for just conspiring to rob a bank, but specifically doing so for the IRA. In the interests in moving towards a compromise, I would be content to use that as justification for replacing the criminal cat with Category:People convicted on terrorism charges. Does that seem fair, or am I reading too much into that single sentence? Rockpocket 01:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a better category. Regardless of people's opinions on the rights and wrongs of describing the IRA's actions as terrorism, the word does imply a political motivation whereas classing him as an "Irish criminal" does not. Scalpfarmer 13:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

True, though note that cat does not in itself say the IRA's actions are terrorism, simply that they have been convicted for an act of terrorism. There is a key difference. On is a matter of opinion, and one is a matter of record. Rockpocket 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

POW status

It would probably be helpful to establish some criteria at the category talk page that would establish what the basis for POW status is. I tend to agree that that is not suitable for Gaughan because it appears he was convicted of a criminal offense: robbing a bank (or conspiring to do so) is not an act of war. If he was jailed for being a member of a banned organization, or interned, then I think there may be a stronger case. However, what any of us think is somewhat beside the point. More important is whether there are reliable independent sources that describe him as a POW. If there it, then then we can add it, if not then it seems to fail WP:V. I am reverting it again and would ask for a source prior to it being included. Rockpocket 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, there is no justification for including the category POW here. Unless I am very much mistaken, this was an undeclared war, and the category POW would not apply. Of course, if a reliable source can be found to show that the IRA were regarded as POWs by anybody other than their supporters, the category is justified. --John 23:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In addition, I would propose the source I provided above is germane to this discussion. That independent academic reviewer could find no basis for claims POW status. Rockpocket 23:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] - more if you want!! Slainte!--Vintagekits 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in those sources that suggests Gaughan was a POW. That he was a "volunteer" in an "army" at "war" does not change the fact he was convicted for conspiring to rob a bank. Being jailed for committing a purely criminal act while serving in an (para)military force does not make you a prisoner of war. It makes you a criminal. See, for example, Lynndie England and the cats therein. Rockpocket 23:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Those links show it was a war - Tirghra states he was a Volunteer in Óglaigh na hÉireann.--Vintagekits 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but that doesn't address the point. Being inprisoned for a criminal offense while serving in a war does not automatically make one a prisoner of war. According to our article, "to be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war." Robbing banks is not among the laws and customs of war. Just as Lynndie England is not POW, because she did not follow the laws and customs of war in the actions for which she was convected. Rockpocket 00:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a proposed way around this. Why don't we put the jailed IRA members in their own cat Category:Imprisoned members of the IRA, and then make that a subcat of Category:Prisoners of war. By subcategorising we can distinguish them from more traditional POWs (captured while abiding the rules of war) yet still have them classed as such? Rockpocket 00:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110605025849/http://editorial.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?mlt=3309038 to http://editorial.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?mlt=3309038

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Gaughan (Irish republican). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927234529/http://sinnfein.ie/news/detail/6269 to http://sinnfein.ie/news/detail/6269
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ireland.yi.org/Frank_Stagg.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/06/guantanamo-and-medical-ethics.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://gwangjunews.benham-esl.com/forums/files/dec2006_441.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622071136/http://archives.tcm.ie/westernpeople/2004/08/25/story21194.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/westernpeople/2004/08/25/story21194.asp

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) 18:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Gaughan (Irish republican). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024065058/http://opal.ukc.ac.uk/cartoonx-cgi/ccc.py?mode=single&start=0&search=kilburn%20march to http://opal.ukc.ac.uk/cartoonx-cgi/ccc.py?mode=single&start=0&search=kilburn%20march

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) 20:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)