Talk:Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania

Unclear

What is meant by:

• "...the critics of the Romanian democracy..."?
• "Chauvinism and ethnic nationalism have been also contantly used to describe mass media reports regarding various actions of UDMR in Romania." This just doesn't parse reasonably. Chauvinism has been used to describe the reports?

Also, is "revanchism", with its derivation from "revenge" really the right word (used repeatedly in the article)? Wouldn't "irredentism" be more appropriate? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:55, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

POV

Some recent additions looked mostly on the mark, but were very POV against this party. I've toned down the POV a little, probably more is needed. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:55, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Still POV

This article still looks POV against this party, the lack of balance can be seen at some points. -Adam78 12:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Adam, are you saying you've tried to edit it and that your edits have been resisted, or just that you haven't tried to edit it? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:00, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't edited it; I'd rather let others, possibly ethnic Hungarians living in Transylvania, do it. That's what I intended this template for. Although I didn't read through the whole article, the part about radicals caught my attention, which depicts them as nearly lunatics. I really wonder if it's true and typical. To me, the clearly Romanian point of view is tangible in these paragraphs. --Adam78 00:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I basically agree that this leans toward a Romanian POV, but the NPOV tag indicates a dispute. I don't see anyone resisting having this article brought into balance, I just don't see anyone taking on the work. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider myself to be the most appropriate person to fix it, since I don't live in Transylvania, neither am I familiar with Transylvanian politics. If there is really no one turning up to fix these, I might consult a friend of mine about this sometime. – For the time present, can you suggest a more fitting template for this article? --Adam78 11:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You know, I jsut looked and there really may not be one. We really ought to have something to distinguish actual disputes from a mere cleanup task. I guess you might as well leave that tag on for now, I'll probably look into this sometime (more generally, not just for this article). -- Jmabel | Talk 02:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would say this article is a little far fetched. I am a Romanian, ethnic Romanian, not Hungarian and it seems that the UDMR is actually not as hardcore anti-Romanian as this article makes it look like.

First of all this party represents the rather more moderate Hungarians that are willing to live peacefully and quietly next to the majority of Romanians in Transilvania (who have lived there for the past 2000 years). They have been in 3 governing coalitions ever since 1996 ,so they are a pretty mature party in power.

Secondly, right now the Council of Szecklers in Romania( the REAL ANTI-ROMANIAN hardliners) have adopted this plan to make the Szecklerland autonomous and the UDMR is opposing the plan. I would call that pretty moderate. Lets change the article guys. Its not fair to the Hungarian minority of Romania who votes for these people and its not fair for this party which is actually pretty centristic and liberal and not at all radical.

And what the hell is the "Tacit Romanian-Hungarian Conflict"? I have never heard of it. Sure there was at some points some friction but never a conflict. When you say conflict I think Bosnia or Kosovo. There was no such thing in Transilvania. Ethnic groups there live quite happily with each other and its not just Romanians(78%) and Hungarians (15%) that live in Transilvania but also Germans, Slovaks, Serbs, Czechs, Ruthenes, Jews, Croats and others. Let's not forget that during the revolution in 1989 little difference was made between who was fighting despite ethnic background and that continued ever since. (anon 24 June 2005)

• This seems basically on the mark, and I for one would more than welcome any work you want to do on the article. If you have some citations (especially on the UMDR opposing an autonomous Székelyföld), they would be very helpful. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

++ I think the article is pretty much neutral and I do not see it taking sides. As a Romanian living in Romania(Transylvania) I would be tempted to add a lot more in there as there are a lot of things that have not been said about UDMR. In ragard to Adam's remark about the radicals I have to confirm that the facts stated in the article are absolutely real and it is a known fact that they have outrageous demands. Attacks on Romanian symbols and attempts to revival austro-hungarian realities are quite common among UDMR's politicians (see [1] ).

++Looking at the history of this article I have to say that I do not agree with some of the aspects that were removed. I am especially disturbed by the fact that the antisemitic statements of some UDMR leaders has been removed. I can confirm such statements and idncate various articles in which they are reported.

++In this talk I have also noticed a remark from someone claiming to be a Hungarian living in Romania who says that UDMR moderate leaders are against regional autonomy. This is not true and one cn easily have a look at there 2004 electoral compaign logo where the word autonomy is very much present.

-- razvanila | Talk 12:15, Aug 21, 2005 (UTC)

If you can get solid citation for this, it would be a great addition to the article. I'm sure you understand why someone might have removed such statements if they were uncited. On anti-Semitism, cited statements should be easy; proving that there are not moderate leaders unconcerned with autonomy seems tougher, and the burden of proof ought to be on the other side. Does someone have a citation for whom these leaders might be? If not, it should just be dropped. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:18, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this page, and I find it incredibly POV. As a Romanian expat, of Romanian ethnicity, I know how to spot nationalistic Romanian discourse when I see it, and this page is a lot of slander in lieu of even an attempt at neutrality. I looked over the history, briefly, and it seems that the article's problem begins right at the beginning when on 16 Jan 2005 an <anonymous> contributor expanded it from a stub to a full article, and formed the very rotten core of this article (whose history of contributions to other articles suggests that he has an axe to grind with a perceived Hungarian expansionism). Since then, other edits seem to be an attempt to tone down the original contributor's text. I suggest that instead of plugging up holes, the original deadwood be thrown out and rewritten, keeping as much as possible of the discernible non-POV 'facts' in this article. Andreidude 23:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

With the exception of the comments about Budapest's propaganda and the description of radicals, I believe I've fairly cleaned up this article and that the POV label may be removed (until more bias resurfaces). How can this be done...? Andreidude 04:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Give it a day or two, see (for example) if anyone jumps in and restores a lot of what you removed, or argues that it is now POV in the other direction, or something like that; if nothing like that happens, just remove the label with a comment that you believe the POV issues have now been addressed. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the parts removed by Andreidude have eliminated the parts that they do not like. For instance the anti-semitic attitude of some UDMR memebers is something that has to be present. I will come back with some material on this.

Also, the removal of the passages that tempt to show that there is an anti-romanian state of sipirt among many of the UDMR's leaders is incorrect nd wants to hide a clear reality that anyone living in Romania can see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.76.29.218 (talk • contribs) 11 Sept 2005.

As the above posted comment probably tries to say, Andreidude has removed too many of the negative comments that were initialy included against UDMR. My personal impression is that he is not neutral and he altered the reality according to his symptahies. I shall take some time and re-write the article in the near future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by razvanila (talk • contribs) 11 Sept 2005.

If you bring proof of anti-Semitic attitudes among some of the members which is relevant to an article about the party, that may be ok - but makes sure to name the specific politicians and not generalize it to the party level. As for "anti-Romanian", this is a conceptually very loaded term : I challenge you to clearly define what this means without bringing your own point of view into it... Andreidude 16:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The Troll

Do not feed. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

UDMR has a terrorist request like territorial authonomy! -- Dacodava

The main article in UDMR statute is the territorial authonomy said an important leader of UDMR, Eckstein Kovacs Peter!!!Dacodava

As I have said to you elsewhere, this is a totally idiosyncratic definition of terrorism, that would define every virtually all Native Americans in the United States as "terrorists", not to mention the Generalitat de Catalunya, the Scottish Parliament, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

So, I rewrote the article, using very few sentences from the previous one, and taking most of the information from the udmr statute. I have to say that I am Hungarian myself, but I am not affiliated with udmr in any ways, and completely dissinterested, what I have written, I consider to be verifiable facts, or widely known statements. cheers, --Stevebalogh 11:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed my previous comments in this talk, as they were reflecting on the old article, since I have completely rewritten it, they are no longer relevant. However, if there are any opinions on this (latest) version, I am open to discussions. --Stevebalogh 15:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Steve's edits added considerable good material, and I think they created a better base from which to move forward with this article. However, I think the resulting article is too "inside" and from a Magyar perspective. I think it is important that that perspective be well represented in the article, but right now there is essentially no criticism of the party in the article other than that it might be insufficiently nationalist. Clearly the article needs at least a section on (cited) ethnic Romanian views of the party.

Per Wikipedia:Editing policy, I am reproducing here what got removed along the way. I think a only little of this even potentially belongs in the article in its present form—its mostly uncited POV—but it may be suggestive of what one might wish to track down by way of citable material.

• There might be more expansion on the party vs. union/association issue.
• Previously there was a claim that ideologies in the party "range from extreme right to extreme left." Now there is a claim that neither of those is accepted by the party. In neither case is there any citation: both sides (meaning both what is in the article now and anyone who wants to restore the opposite) should be seeking citable sources.
• "It is, however, closer to the left part of the national political spectrum." I tend to think that is true, but it should probably be attributed to someone and cited before re-adding.
• Domokos Geza, was previously described as "a Moscow-educated communist politician of Romanian origin".
• The following paragraph was essentially cut:

The context in which UDMR was created was very complex. After WWI, Hungary has started a revanchist campaign to recover the territories it lost after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Among these territories was Transylvania, which became part of Romania after that war. This revanchist campaign took a new turn in 1968, when Romanian leader Nicolae Ceauşescu took a pro-Western attitude and condemned the USSR's invasion of Czechoslovakia, which put an end to the Prague Spring. In that moment Moscow decided to support Hungary's interests against Romania's in order to attack Ceauşescu's regime. This resulted in a wave of anti-Romanian agitation and propaganda that the Budapest government conducted on Romanian territory, especially by using the network of Hungarian Protestant churches.

I have do not think that was at all appropriately written (very pro-Romanian anti-Hungarian in its wording), but some background on the history of Hungarians in present-day Romania would make this article much more useful to the average English-speaking reader.

• "Almost all of the requests of UDMR can be found among the elements promoted by Budapest with Soviet backing in the 1970s and 1980s. However, they are also in line with typical European Union expectations for the treatment of ethnic minorities." Contentious. The word "however" here (rather than "and") is particularly contentious, implying that anything Mosvow and Budapest supported is presumed to lack legitimacy.
• Viktor Orbán seems to have vanished from the article, along with much of the discussion of the fissure between the mainstream of the party and the roughly 7% fraction that left to join the Uniunea Civică Maghiară (UCM).
• The following should not have been deleted without so much as an edit summary (this is not a personal criticism of Stevebalogh, I gather he's pretty new at this). It is very POV in its style, and lacks citation, but some (cited and more appropriately written) material about some of this may belong in the article:

The radicals are famous for displaying an openly anti-Romanian attitude. The radicals have been known to display Hungarian imperial flags and symbols, to attack Romanian flags, to refuse to speak Romanian; they have cultivated separatist sentiments, making strong demands for the full autonomy of some territories that have ethnic Hungarian majorities. Radicals subscribe to chauvinism and ethnic nationalism.

The moderates often distance themselves from the methods of the radicals, especially in recent times as the UDMR has sought to gain more widespread acceptance. They accept the Romanian administration, and some have even held positions in the Romanian government, but they do not consistently distance themselves from revanchist views. In 2004 the moderates led by Marko pushed for the display of highly controversial symbols like Statuia Libertăţii in Arad, which is a 19th century monument memorializing 13 generals who fought for Hungary. As they had killed 40,000 Romanians in their military campaigns, this support caused a national scandal in Romania. Moderates formally distance themselves from chauvinism and ethnic nationalism

…

UDMR is seen by some Romanians as the carrier of Budapest's revanchist ambitions that are now being redefined to fit the European context. Many ethnic Romanians are irritated by what they perceive as a constant demand for privileges by ethnic Hungarians.

Between 2000 and 2004 the moderate wing of UDMR successfully pushed for the closing down of Romanian language departments of traditionally Hungarian high schools which had existed for decades. This caused frustration among Romanians who felt they were discriminated against on and ethnic basis in their own country, and has resulted in public demonstrations. Hungarians, on the other hand, see the closures as only corrections of Communist mistakes.

• "UDMR enjoys a wide electoral support among the ethnic Hungarians living in Romania, with the exception of young voters." The present version says nothing about UDMR doing less well with young voters; this should presumably be cited, but if citable should certainly be restored.
• "There are no indications that UDMR as a party is supported by any of the ethnic Romanian population…Some local leaders of UDMR, often with mixed Romanian-Hungarian ethnic identity, have occasionally obtained small numbers of votes from ethnic Romanians in local and municipal elections. However, such cases are few and highly particular and this has never occurred in national elections." The current version disagrees. Both sides should muster their sources.

Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

References

The references are interesting point of views ! .. The UDMR was never talked about territorial autonomy, but DECENTRALIZATION! (to achieve, that the money from taxes to remain in the area. (For example there are parts of Romania, where the houses had not been cataloged, they do not pay any taxes .. or other money) Elmao 15:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The description

This topic doesn't interest me too much and I don't have much knowledge about it, but as a suggestion: when writing about a political party or some other political organization, these simple steps should be included in the introduction:

1. Concise description of the faction in its current form;

2. Concise description of the history of the party, such as the year of the founding;

3. Concise description of its legacy and its current influence in politics; and,

4. Concise description of its objectives and political stand.

Here is an example, for which I just made up these things: The Anittas Party is a Hittite Libertarian party currently lead by its founder, Anittas. The party, founded in 2005, has gained ground in the politics of Romanian Wikipedia and hopes to join the Parliament in the 2008 elections. In 2007, it formed a coalition with the Party of Dpotop and plans to evict the opposition lead by Dahn, from the goverment.

Forget the flow and the silliness; the point is that this is how a party should be described in its introduction. This article doesn't mention what this union stands for, its objective, or political stand. Those who don't trust common sense could use the Democratic Party as a point of reference. I hope that something will be done to complete this task. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

About the POV pushing

Dahn, I don' quite understand what you mean by POV pushing. If they are quoting what Bela himself has said about his own party, then how can that be POV-pushing, unless they are misquoting him somehow? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, the quote is not given in full, the issue of it reflecting the UDMR's policies is evidence of original research, the "info" is being moved to the top of the article (which is both irregular and tendentious). As Ronline said, this may just as well be a one-off statement, and its implications are hardly relevant to the article. Furthermore, the sources who report on the statement without interpreting it (which, btw, Gardianul doesn't!) also clearly indicate that, in the very same context, the UDMR insisted that it aimed for any form of autonomy, from minimal to maximal (and this is in fact consistent with its traditional policies from as early as anyone can tell). If this detail belongs in the text at all, it is to be included in one of the sections, and preferably accompanied by commentary on its implications coming from both sides. Dahn 22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny that we should believe the statutes of UDMR, while the official policy of Wikipedia is NPOV, which is not bound by legal issues. Dpotop 08:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hahhahha. Ha. Read me the part in the NPOV policy that allows you to insert stuff you presume implies a change in policies, over the party's own statements. Let's hear it. Dahn 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhapse the statement in question could be added to the Bela Marko article (after all there is enough evidence that he did make it). Would both of you gentlemen find that acceptable? Plinul cel tanar 11:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. I also have no objection to it being added to a relevant section here (not in the lead), as long as it is not presented as a change in the UDMR's policies (that is opinion, not fact), and as long as it is accompanied by relevant commentary from both sides - including the mention, found in other sources which I have made Dpotop aware of, that this was in the context of a speech clearly mentioning autonomy as the goal in question , and clearly stating that, as far as they are concerned, this is not a change in policy ("Marko Bela a aratat ca UDMR duce lupta pentru autonomie inca din 1990 si ca multi nu mai au rabdare, desi exemplul Tirolului de Sud arata ca aici a fost nevoie de 30 de ani pina la obtinerea autonomiei"). Dpotop should know by now that taking statements out of context and lining up third party- and third-person commentary with primary sources implies that someone deduces something from the text. I'm also sure he is familiar with WP:UNDUE. Dahn 11:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What makes for an official position?

Let's recapitulate: There's an official meeting of the UDMR, dedicated to lanching the campaign for the European elections. During this meeting, the leader of UDMR declares that "Our objective is to get our country back, meaning land, property, forests". Then, you have two helping wikipedians (Ronline and Dahn) that say: No way, this is not the official position of the UDMR, because it's not in the statutes (dixit Ronline, followed by Dahn). This is just cool: The Hungarians themselves have come to say the things plainly, only to have helpful, "open-minded", "minority-friendly" Romanians be more catholic than the Pope. :):) Sometimes I wish I was not Romanian, so I can laugh at all this idiocy. Dpotop 11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Which part of this personal attack is relevant to the discussion? Dahn 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the recapitulation is a personal attack. Against you? Dpotop 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that I got an edit conflict, I have to add here a reply to the illogical "answer" of Dahn above. Of course they wanted the land, the properties, and the flag back from the 1990s. But until now nobody at this level said it plainly. And I don't see how my citation contradicts hat you say. They want "autonomy", for certain. Now, at last, we have some ideas as to what they want exactly. Autonomy is a vague word. Land, property, flag, these are concrete. Dpotop 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Which part of this editorializing of yours is relevant to the discussion? Dahn 11:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The one you fail to understand. Dpotop 11:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, you invoked a guideline. I have asked you to share with us where that guideline backs any of your claims or edits here. I can show you where that guideline and others say the exact opposite. Is this clear enough for you? Dahn 11:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I explained it, and you failed to understand. Other editors do understand (such as Anittas). However, I am sick of arguing with you, given the inequality of the means (I don't spend my days on Wikipedia, unlike you, got to work and raise my baby). Therefore, I have no chance of fair representation. I also resent your pretention of collaboration, when I have never seen you modulate one of your oppinions. Dpotop 12:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The point? Dahn 12:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I answered to your question... Dpotop 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Where? Was the answer to provide me with a policy that says you are in any way right "I got to work and raise my baby"? Or do you mean the question "Is this clear enough for you?", where the answer would have been "no". Because, as far as my eye can see in your posts, there is no single word coming from a wikipedia guideline. No: just an extended red herring and venomous off-topic comments aimed my way. Dahn 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In the part you don't understand. The one explaining why it's difficult to be more official than Marko Bela was on behalf of UDMR and UDMR candidates to the European elections (whereas you and Ronline claim it's "not official"). Dpotop 08:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'm asking you point me to the guideline where it says that contributors are allowed to place their deductions on equal footing with official data (actually, given that you added it to the lead, above official data). Because you invoked NPOV, I would very much like to see you quote from it. Dahn 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For instance, the same rule that allowed you, Ronline, and some other good editors to discard official sources of the Romanian parliament in translating "Partidul Romania Mare" into "Greater Romania Party" (whereas the official translation is Great Romania Party [2]). Dpotop 09:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that it is any way relevant to this discussion, but it has been clarified on that talk page a long time ago: per the same source, the Conservative Party would be "Conservator Party". Romglish is not official, even when Chamber staff is incompetent enough to use it. Furthermore, if you now google "greater romania party", the first hit you get is to its official site (with three matching search terms).

Now, the policy? Dahn 09:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you don't actually care about "official" (because "Conservator" is still official, regardless of your English expertise). So, find yourself a better argument than "official", and then we talk again. Dpotop 10:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You're embarrassing yourself with this type of arguments. A one-time mention on a site that uses poor English does not bear any consequence on anything, and you're still avoiding the main and relevant question. I could presume your lack of expertise in English makes these issues difficult, but I'm really not here to watch you try. Will there be anything else? Dahn 10:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot you're soooooo good in English. Thanks for reminding me. BTW, it's still official, even if they're not as smart as you are. Dpotop 13:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So nothing, then. Good. Dahn 13:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey :) .. the hole thing is for descentralization and no more... (did somebody heard about metaphores? or about "dis-interpreting" someone's words) Elmao 11:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Name: DUHR contra DAHR

Shouldn't the name be changed to Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (DAHR)? It is their own preferred English translation according to their website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.243.45.94 (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Hungarians in Romania are not the largest national minority in Europe living in one country

"Magyar (ethnic Hungarian) community of Romania, which is the largest national minority in Europe living in one country".

That is not true. There are 2,000,000 - 3,000,000 Poles living in Germany and 8,334,141 Russians living in Ukraine. Hahun (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania. 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/20030529084824/http://www.rmdsz.ro/script/aboutus.php?lang=hu&menuoption=0&aboutusID=2 to http://www.rmdsz.ro/script/aboutus.php?lang=hu&menuoption=0&aboutusID=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030514132630/http://www.rmdsz.ro/script/contact.php?lang=ro to http://www.rmdsz.ro/script/contact.php?lang=ro

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania. 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/20061121225341/http://www.pndro.ro/pdf/Legea%20pentru%20alegerea%20Camerei%20Deputatilor%20si%20a%20Senatului.pdf to http://www.pndro.ro/pdf/Legea%20pentru%20alegerea%20Camerei%20Deputatilor%20si%20a%20Senatului.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)