Talk:Bell Witch

At the time...

Are there any know references to the Bell Witch phenomenon from the actual time they allegedly occurred (1817-1820) or immediately thereafter? Or is all such documentation from much later in the century? 98.221.137.91 (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Documentation

The hauntings took place between 1817 and 1820, yet the first documentation of the event came in 1887, 70 years afterward, when nearly every possible witness was dead? Who's to say this wasn't just some story made up by a random author which snow-balled into a classic folktale?

Well that's the fun of folktales, is it not? nut-meg 06:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The actual article mentioned above was published in 'Goodspeed's History of Tennessee' (Robertson County) for 1886. In 1886, the only person left from the original family of John Bell (1750-1820) was Elizabeth Bell Powell (Betsy) who was then living with her daughter in Mississippi. Betsy died two years later in 1888. I highly suspect the article was written for Goodspeed by M. V. Ingram as it contains elements of Ingram's style, and sounds like a promotional of the legend. Most of the articles were collected by agents of Goodspeed from officials of the counties in Tennessee. (Jcook56050 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

In reponse to the above question - a copy of the Saturday Evening Post Article and Goodspeeds's History of TN both predate Ingram's book by over a quarter of a century. This gives credence to the fact that the initial story is not a fabrication by Ingram. Ingram would have been a young boy when the original artical was printed. Additionally Ingram had the opportunity to speak to people who experienced the original haunting such as Ibby Gunn and Mahala Byns Darden. Mahala Darden is also on the record about Ingram speaking to herself and others who lived through the events. Additionally we know that Ingram was given Richard Williams Bell's written account of the haunting. Much ado is made about Ingram being a bad faith actor and making the story up but there is no evidence to support this. For a long time the "smoking gun" against Ingram was the fact that there was no evidence of the Saturday Evening Post article he references. But evidence of Post article has long existed and we now have four separate sources for the article - Ingram himself, The New England Farmer of Boston, Green Mountain Freeman of Vermont, and the Saturday Evening Posts own retraction of the article. Speculation that Ingram "enhanced" the story is just that, speculation. In the over 100 years the book has been in print there has never been any evidence that Ingram added to any of stories outside of a hefty dose of skepticism.

For another account - the article from the Daily American mentions people many people in the area to visit the witch and that "any doubters can come see for themselves." This matches up with both the Goodspeed and Saturday Evening Post articles. We now have three different sources citing people coming to the community to visit the witch prior to Ingram's book being published. This is all already referenced in the main article but the entire page needs cleaned up to be made into a coherent whole.

As for the Goodspeed article - this article predates Ingram's in person, boots on the ground research. There is NO REASON to "highly suspect" the article was written by Ingram. This is another accusation that has less documentation that Ingram's work and amounts to nothing more than opinion and conjecture. If the article is written by Ingram, prove it. But one should not discount the article merely because one feels it "contains elements of Ingram's style."

That leads to next question - Why should Ingram's account not be taken at face value? He was a newspaper man, he spoke to eye witnesses, his time researching the subject is documented from multiple sources, and he was trusted by the family enough to look after their only written account. None of the Bell family or their direct descendants who no doubt both heard the stories and read the book have come forth to discount any of Ingram's claims.

Here are a couple of references, from the Chronicling America newspaper archive. Not much, but they do relate a murder of a man named Smith, and accusation of witchcraft and Lindard and Burgess from 1868 and 1869.

Nashville Union and American, Saturday, March 20, 1869 "The case of the State vs. Clinard and Burgess, for the murder of James Brith, a supposed witch, was continued upon affidavits of the defendants." The article does give the last name of "Brith" but that may have been a problem of transcription of the name "Smith.

The New York Herald, Sunday, Sept 20, 1868 "The man who was found dead a few days ago in the woods near Cedar Hill, Robertson county, Tenn., was named Smith. His murderers were Dick Burgess and Tom Linard, and they have been arrested and lodged in jail. An old feud seems to have been the cause of the killing. Hypercallipygian (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The Dunning Skeptic article. This is a poor source as the article doesn't add anything new to the discussion and get several things wrong. Dunning has the exact same sources to look at as everybody else and has no great insights into the phenomenon. Why should we take Dunning's skepticism over Ingram's accounts from first and second hand witnesses. Dunning goes as far to say they Ingram never interviewed any eye-witnesses or second hand witnesses of the account. This simply isn't true as Mahala Darden is in Ingram's book and she is quoted as remembering Ingram's visit. It was noted in the article that Mahala was "very active and bright in intellect...Her memory is as clear as crystal." She was capable of recalling when she saw General Lafayette down to the day and recount other events of the same day even though they happened 75 years prior. From all indications, she is reliable witness. Yes, the General Jackson story doesn't mesh up and Dunning is correct on that but 70+ years had passed between John Bell dying and Ingram's investigation. I would propose it is possible that the event attributed to Jackson took place but to a different individual. It might be worth the time to see what other Generals and/or officers might have been in the area. Jackson was extremely popular in TN and the changing of the name to Jackson within a story such as this might be done to give it more credibility or make a better story. The changing of one detail makes much more sense then attempting to dismiss the story completely. If nothing else, this line of conjecture holds as much weight as any of the others.Bhutlah (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You will want to sign your comments. Consider creating a new section at the bottom of the talk page for any edit consideration. Dunning's article meets reliable source criteria. Our opinions as editors are immaterial. As far as Darden's memory, Lafayette was in Clarksvile at a different time of year than what she recalled decades later. Fact checking Darden's memory is well beyond the scope of the article. Kintpuash (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Dunning does not meet the reliable source material. Self Published sources are not reliable sources per wikipedia as his material falls under a self published personal website and/or personal blog and/or user created content. Furthermore Dunning ignores firsthand, secondhand, and tertiary sources. Bhutlah (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Skeptoid media is a non-profit with a sizable staff. The Skeptoid article was written in 2008. The majority of pre-Ingram sources were added in late 2016 through 2017. I was the editor who added them, and consequently cognizant of the Skeptoid article's limitations. In regard to another edit made in the last 24 hours, the introduction needs no citations as it is a summary of the body where there are citations. Removing lede text because it is "unsourced" is not a valid reason. Kintpuash (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Now that I have a clearer head this morning I can start looking though this. Reading through Bhutlah comments I get the feeling that Bhutlah is doing original research and feels that they are an "expert" on the Bell Witch. Wikipedia does not allow us mere editors to insert our own research into an article, we have to cite what the notable experts publish on the subject. We can not dismiss a notable expert just because something new has come to light, or because we do not agree. To counter that you will need another citation from another notable expert. Dunning is quoted and cited as the information coming from Dunning, we don't state it as fact, but that this is what the notable expert is saying based on the research that was done, and Dunning cites his sources. Sgerbic (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I am in no way claiming to be an "expert" but I am going back to the original source material. If Dunning's observations are based on other sources then those sources should be used as the primary sources for the purposes of this article. There is no need to run the material through a second or third filter. What research has Bhutlah added that was his own? Please feel free to back up your statement! There was speculation on the Andrew Jackson bit but that is in the talk section and not in the article itself. All changes made are cited and come from the original source materials.

Lets examine Dunning's credibility on the Subject:

1. Lying about the fact that Ingram never spoke to first and secondhand witnesses such as Allan Bell, Joel E. Bell, Mahala Darling, and Nancy Ayers ("every person with firsthand knowledge of the Bell Witch hauntings was already dead when Ingram started his book; in fact, every person with secondhand knowledge was even dead.") This ignores the fact that Ingram was researching the subject and had spoken to Joel Bell as early as 1867 and newspaper accounts of Ingram doing research in the area and speaking to people who had first and secondhand accounts of the events. "I remember distinctly the discussion be­tween Mr. Joel E. Bell and myself in 1867, in regard to the publication of the history of the Bell Witch," - Ingram

2. Lying about the fact that all first and secondhand witnesses were dead at the time of Ingram's original article. (see above) (Partial list of living firsthand witnesses in 1867 when Ingram began his work: Joel Bell, Betsy Bell, Frank Miles, Lawson Fort, Patrick MeGowen, Mahala Darling, Ibby Gunn and Nancy Ayers)

3. Dunning says Ingram held onto the Bell Diary until the death of the immediate family. "in 1857 Richard gave the diary to his son, Allen Bell, who subsequently (and quite inexplicably) gave it to Ingram, with instructions to keep it private until after the deaths of the immediate family." - Dunning False. John Allen Bell handed over the manuscripts after the deaths of the immediate family not before.

3. Attempting to discredit Allen Bell while ignoring the reasons given for why the journal wasn't initially published or shared with the public. "in 1857 Richard gave the diary to his son, Allen Bell, who subsequently (and quite inexplicably) gave it to Ingram, with instructions to keep it private until after the deaths of the immediate family" - Dunning. This ignores the letter from John Allen Bell where we're told that Ingram had previously tried to get a copy of the diary but was denied, "Some years ago, while you were engaged in publishing a newspaper at Springfield, Tenn., Uncle Joel Bell applied to me for the manuscript of my father, Williams Bell, stating that the application was made at your request for the purpose of incorporating the same in a full and complete history of the so-called Bell Witch, which proposition I declined to accede to at that time, for several reasons that need not now be mentioned."

4. Dunning ignores John Allan's account for the reason why the family waited so long to hand over the diary to anybody. "after writing his own memories, and the recollections of other members of the family, father consulted with Uncle John Bell in regard to the matter, and they determined that in view of all the surrounding circumstances, it was best that it should not be published during the life of any of Grandfather John Bell's immediate family" The material wasn't published due to the surrounding circumstances (i.e. most likely a fear of the events beginning again) and was handed over to Ingram following the death of Joel Egbert Bell in 1890.

5. Dunning ask, " Why would Allen Bell give away such a unique heirloom to Ingram?" while ignoring John Allen Bell's answer to this very question, "You having made the application years ago, and believing you are capable, and will if you undertake it, being already acquainted with many of the circumstances, compile a faithful history of the events, I am willing to let you have this manuscript and notes, on the condition that you will agree to include all other corroborative testimony still to be had, and write a deserved sketch of Grandfather John Bell and family, and those associated with him in any way during the period of the unexplained visitation which afflicted him and gave rise to the excitement." He gave the journal to Ingram b/c he knew Ingram had been looking into and interviewing people on the subject decades at this point.

6. Dunning states, "That happened around 1880, when Ingram began writing his book." Dunning is wrong again, Ingram was working on publishing a history of the events as early as 1867. "I remember distinctly the discussion be­tween Mr. Joel E. Bell and myself in 1867, in regard to the publication of the history of the Bell Witch,"

7. Attempting to discredit Ingram and ascribe nefarious motives to Ingram's research. "Ingram had every reason to falsify the diary's existence." But Dunning fails to back this statement up with anything factual. This is nothing more than hearsay and slander. Ingram himself states his purpose in writing his book, "in undertaking the work, it shall not be my purpose to account for the series of dramatic events that so confused and mystified people at that time, but compile the data and let readers form their own conclusion." This approach would fall right in line with Ingram's decades of working in the Newspaper business and falls in line with modern research respecting a NPOV.

8. Dismissing secondary sources that back up Ingram's account of the Saturday Evening Post (via the retraction). "Ingram's book also falsified at least one other source." Even if it was years later before we got to see the reprints of the Saturday Evening Post article - Dunning has no good reason to outright dismiss it's existence due to the Saturday Evening Post's retraction. Dunning can't claim ignorance of the retraction as he brings it up in his article, "the Saturday Evening Post ran a story about the Bell Witch, blaming the crazy daughter Elizabeth for everything, and then retracted the story shortly thereafter..." If Dunning is a good faith actor, why did he ignore/dismiss the retraction as a secondary source?

9. Dunning seems to imply that William Bell's account is false due to the fact that he waited more than 30 years to write down the events that took place ("According to Ingram, Richard waited until 1846, more than 30 years, before he actually wrote down the events in his diary. He recorded his 30 year old memories of being a six year old child.") but fails to recognize that the Saturday Evening Post article IS THE REASON why William Bell wrote his account of the events 30+ years later! "Some enterprising person, wise in his own conceit, undertook to solve the mystery, and failing to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion, gave currency to a suspicion that the young daughter, Betsy Bell, actuated by her brothers, John and Drewry, was the author of the demonstration, and that the purpose was to make money by the exhibitions. This version found lodgment in many minds not acquainted with the facts, and the discussion became very distasteful and irritating to the family, and Williams Bell determined to write the incidents and truth of the whole story and let the public pass upon the injustice of such a judgment."

10. Dunning states: "The story of John Bell's murder at the hands of the Bell Witch was never described in any published account..." FALSE. Although the year of John Bell's death is listed as 1822 in this account - An issue The American Historcal Magazine published in October of 1900 recounts the death of John Bell at the hands of the Bell Witch. Of note, this story has numerous factual differences from Ingram's account but both follow a similar same narrative. But that doesn't change the fact that Dunning is factually wrong in stating there are no other published accounts.

11. Andrew Jackson - "Ingram almost certainly made up the entire Andrew Jackson incident." - Dunning Why does Dunning make this claim? Ingram was reporting on what he heard from the community. If this is one of the community's stories why should Ingram not include it? The story itself is almost certainly false (as can be documented by other historical references that place Jackson in other places) but that doesn't change that the story exist. Ingram makes this clear in the Introduction of his book: "it shall not be my purpose to account for the series of dramatic events . . . but compile the data and let readers form their own conclusion." Why should we doubt that Ingram was recounting a story from the community? Ingram's book is not a personal account but instead is one where he attempts to "compile data and let the readers for their own conclusion." The story may be factually incorrect but Dunning provides no proof that Ingram falsified the account rather than reported on what he was being told at the time. What proof does Dunning have that Ingram was the one who falsified the account rather than just reporting on it?

I don't feel the need to keep going. As demonstrated above Dunning continuously misrepresents and omits in order to build a narrative he would prefer. He slanders primary sources without reason, misrepresents the facts, dismisses supporting documentation, attributes motives without proof/reason/cause, and ignores first and secondhand accounts. Not all, but the majority of Dunning's claims can be dismissed by simply reading the Introduction to Ingram's book. I don't understand the desire to hold onto Dunning as a source - he's a noted Skeptic, and as such he and his work should be open to skepticism. Just b/c somebody is a Skeptic doesn't mean that what they putting into print is factually correct. Nor should he get a pass when his article is full of factual errors. Bhutlah (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

As an aside – is it cool if we copy/paste this discussion into the Skeptics portion of the talk page as that is where it belongs. Yeah, I know I started the Dunning stuff here but attempting to clean it up into the correct section. Bhutlah (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Or is this better suited to the documentation section?

Bhutlah - I stopped reading after this first sentence "I am in no way claiming to be an "expert" but I am going back to the original source material." You obviously do not understand how Wikipedia works and you didn't fully understand my post from yesterday. Wikipedia DOES NOT allow original primary sources to be used by us mere editors. Only people who are notable in this area can do that. And then we cite THEM. We do not get to go back to the original source and do research and then cite that. YOU are not a notable expert but are acting like one. This is NOT allowed. If there are issues with Dunning's research then other experts will notice and write about that and then we can cite that in the article. It will look like this "Dunning says this this and this, but expert XYZ writes that Dunning did not take into account YZE or ZEA and based on that Dunning is incorrect with his statement about this". And using words like "slander" as you have here is not okay. "He slanders primary sources without reason". You don't get to make that statement, we don't know who you are, what your motives are and with what authority you feel you can write that. You appear to be a single purpose editor http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account which is a major red-flag. Since you created this account on August 2nd you have only edited the Bell Witch page. You have not created a talk page for your account which means you don't seem to be interested in discussion and hanging around to better Wikipedia. You do not understand the rules of Wikipedia as has been demonstrated over and over and yet you think it's okay to force your opinion onto Wikipedia because you have a computer and a Internet connection. You obviously have a passion for this, and we need more people like that, BUT I strongly suggest that before you continue down this path, you start at the beginning and learn the rules and nuances of Wikipedia before you just barge in. Start with small edits, start with things you don't have an emotional attachment to. Start by doing a lot of reading of talk pages, listening and asking questions and listening to the answers. I started out in 2008 just like you, believing that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" but not understanding that it might not remain. I managed to pull myself back right before I got banned, and I learned over the years and I'm still learning. I would be writing all this to you on your TALK page and not on the Bell Witch Talk page, but you haven't set up a talk page so I can't. I know I sound annoyed and am a little - but as I said I have been here before. If you find you have questions in the future you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page and I will help. Sgerbic (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

To follow up on Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia certainly allows primary sources and there are a fair number of them in the article. What we can't do as editors is draw conclusions or analyze those primary sources. They must stand alone unless another reliable source has something to say about it. In the Andrew Jackson section for instanve, the text gives a neutral summary of the Yancey letter. There are interpretations from various reliable sources that follow. Interpreting Dunning's article as in contradiction to the primary sources in the article is certainly not something we can do as editors. I agree, in the absence of another argument, that removing the text paraphrasing Dunning's perspective based on primary sources in use in the article, is a violation of that principle. Without that firewall, Wikipedia would be full of nonsense. Kintpuash (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

To follow up on Wikipedia policy - as stated by Kintpuash Wikipedia 100% allows primary sources. See But moving back to Dunning and his contradiciton of primary sources we as editors are also 100% allowed to question the reliability of a source or else Wikipedia would be filled with whatever anybody wanted. Let's take a few quotes from wikipedias Applying reliability guidelines: and Wikipedia's Reliable source guidelines by subject area - When looking at the criteria of the reliability of a source "the first criteria is that there is editorial oversight" Skeptoid fails this test as there is no indication that the website has editorial oversight. To be considered a reliable source they need provide information on how they go about their review process as is typically given in peer review journals and News organizations. Linking to page that shows the employees of an organization is not the same as showing editorial oversight or showing their process of editorial review. As noted in the second paragraph of reliability "What matters is the fact-checking process." And we have zero information of this process from Skeptiod ergo making them an unreliable source. OK but A source can still be considered reliable without revealing their process IF "Even if a source reveals nothing about its processes, a track record of issuing corrections is evidence that a fact-checking process exists and functions." Skeptoid does not have a history of issuing corrections. Following upon the same lines and within the same section: "This is particularly true if a source consistently fails to update or correct breaking news, while others do." The Dunning article has failed to update itself in the two years that new information has been available. Finally, "The overriding concern however is whether the source engages in effective fact checking." So, yes! Looking at an article and determining if it has engaged in effective fact checking is within the purview of an editor. Lets continue to the section titled Editorial Discretion: where it clearly states that "editors are meant to interrogate their sources. . .The best way to handle a dubious source is often to highlight contrasting information" And this is exactly what I did - I highlighted contrasting information. When statements from Dunning in article exist such as: "According to Brian Dunning no one has ever seen this diary, and there is no evidence that it ever existed" such a statement is an example of claims without support. Under conflict between sources (such as the conflict between what Dunning claims and what Ingram wrote) The kind of exceptional claims Dunning makes require exceptional sources (such as Ingram never spoke to anybody with firsthand or secondhand knowledge of the events, that the Bell Diary never existed, Ingram falsified documents, Ingram made up the story about Andrew Jackson, etc.). All of this points to Dunning not being a good source. Yes, there needs to criticism and skepticism of the events but such skepticism needs be backed up by facts and sources that meet Wikipedia's definitions of reliabilty. Bhutlah (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Skeptoid media, as currently configured, has an Advisory Council and a Board of Directors. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt they have an editorial process. How Skeptoid was organized in 2008 is unknown to me. As far as retractions, I think Skeptoid is on less sure footing. I'm aware of a couple of occasions Skeptoid has issued a correction, but I think an argument can made a correction is difficult to acquire. Let's say, for the sake of argument, Skeptoid is a dubious aource. Without removing the source, the best way to approach it is contrast. The article already does this, e.g. linking a reprint of a Saturday Evening Post article and providing identities of people alive at the time of the purported events. These sources are not contrasted in immediate proximity within the article, but that is neither a requirement not necessarily desired for narrative flow. Kintpuash (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Reading the argument here, I need to interject: as a regular listener of Skeptoid, I must point out that periodically Dunning does a corrections episode. In these he answers email about perceived errors in previous episodes brought to his attention since the episode was released. And when he admits making a mistake, or being unclear, he says that the transcript page has been updated to reflect the new info (though I believe the audio version remains unchanged.) RobP (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I don't think it is reasonable to expect correction in the audio portion which would be laborious and expensive. Kintpuash (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

And there is no reason to attack me for this being a new account. My old account was through an .edu address I no longer have access to. For several years I have made changes without an account but thought it was time to get a new one. There are other pages I have helped curate over the years but this is where I started with this one. Due to the high level of contention on my replacing factually incorrect statements (such as the the song sung after John Bell's passing) and removing unreliable sources I have not had the chance to move on to those other pages yet. Creating new accounts and editing is a thing.Bhutlah (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There are sources that describe the witch as singing songs as in plural. I'll check to see if the text in those sections reflects the source used. If another source can used, we can change the source and text so they match. The Death of John Bell has a longer contrast section in the 1880 Centennial text. I'm not sure it is worthwhile to expand the Synopsis section to repeat the text later. The Synopsis section is the weakest, imo. A random assortment of sources are used to give the general reader a sense of the legend. The nature of a legend is resistant to factual checking as the story is dependent on the teller. Meanwhile, the legend is vast, and the section doesn't cover a fraction of the stories. It does however cover, imo, the main highlights and gives a sense of scale to what the spirit was capable. Kintpuash (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Made a preliminary edit to add the Brandy song within the Darden paragraoh. The link to "songs" within the Synopsis was dead. While I edited the dead link to replace it, the link is replicated in the external links section. This is bad form, I think, to link twice. Either a new source for that section of the Synopsis text could be found that replicated or expands what is there, or alternatively the external link removed. I think the TN government link is a fine addition as an external link, as it succinctly summarizes the legend and something of an improvement on current Synopsis narratuve with additional detail. Kintpuash (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

If Skeptoid isn't RS then why does it have it's own template? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Skeptoid?fbclid=IwAR014YLROx88PLKPnTOhrmEa32ocf_seSvvKSixEgO18SccOiFYUNXMMe3E Sgerbic (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree that Skeptoid is a WP:RS and quite appropriate for this article to cite. On Wikipedia, Skeptoid has generally been considered a WP:RS for articles whose topics fall under the WP:FRINGE guidelines (and claims that a witch with vast supernatural powers existed are definitely fringe). If the OP wishes to continue arguing that Skeptoid is not a WP:RS, then I suggest they bring it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Spirit Names

What is with the spirit names? Mathematics seems like a retarded name for anyone, let alone a ghost, and Cypocraphy isn't even a word.

Very nicely said!

Kate Batts was not the only spirit, but there were two others. Their names were "Blackdog" and "Jerusalem" 71.115.244.65 (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Naiki Dans

There were four other spirits - not 2. Blackdog, Mathematics, Cypocryphy, and Jerusulem. Bhutlah (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Tone

The general tone of this article is roughly comparable to that of a campfire story. This is an encyclopedia. Jaimetout 03:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then be bold and rewrite it. --Centauri 06:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I being from clarksville, TN which is right next to Adams finds this article to be fine and accurate with the History of the bell witch. I know the current owners and i have had errie occurences happen. This article shoud not de disputed.

A post by some random anonymous person on the Internet does not qualify as a reliable source. This article is certainly disputed.

"The Bell Witch haunting is the name given to a series of SUPPOSEDLY real events" Well i removed the disputed, because we are not talking about the existence of the ghost, but of the events as history knows them to be. Again the proof or existence of the Bell Witch ghost is not the debate.--Alembic 02:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"...supposedly real events" smacks of NPOV on the skeptic side. Better would be "reported events"; a report may or may not be mistaken. --Chr.K. 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I remove the "quotes" later today? They don't add any value, and in fact come across as a sneer.

Which quotes are you referring to? --Centauri 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "quotes" around single words / actions as they seemed to come across as a sneer.

Incomplete?

Yes, and? What were the events you mentioned?DS 17:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

holadiee

Repitition

This page is incredibly frustrating, the most noticeable problem being how many of the statements made in the Legend section are directly re-iterated in the Analysis section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.211.202 (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Skeptical analysis

The Middle Tennessee Skeptics analysis of the Bell Witch legend is based on actual research of the available evidence. Mis-labeling it as a "statement" or "opinion piece" is deliberately misleading POV. --Centauri 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

False. If you read it, the person did zero research. They read other peoples books and then made statements about how they didn't like what they read. They have no credibility, they are not published. Its a personal website nothing more. Its the work of one single person. This is not a WP:RS. Wjhonson 07:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove links that you don't agree with. The site represents a valid analysis of the legend, and shows that the ludicrous claims made by supports are false and almost entirely without foundation. --Centauri 08:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat myself one more time - do not persist in removing valid links from this article as a way of insidiously promoting the witch legend POV. --Centauri 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with WP:RS please cite where the work of this skeptic (or group) has been published or noted in some previously published, third-party, reliable source unaffiliated with the skeptic themselves. If it has not, then it's not a valid source for wikipurposes. Wjhonson 02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making specious, nonsensical statements and vandalising the description of the link you disagree with. It's a perfectly reliable external link that has direct relevance to the article - particularly as it constitutes the only reasoned opinion to balance the "woo-woo" paranormal gobledegook that forms the basis of all the other links currently listed - and I don't see you getting too hot under the collar about those. --Centauri 11:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the Middle Tennessee Skeptic site and I think it is a valid link to include in the "external links" section. I do not believe it is notable enough to warrant it's own section in the article. The research seems to be woefully incomplete, having relied on only one source, the Fitzhugh book. Additionally, Wikipedia states that original resarch is not a valid source for articles on this site. nut-meg 00:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dunning article should not be used. He claims all published accounts have their roots in the Igram book. The wiki article list multiple sources going back more than a quarter of the century before Ingram ever took up looking into the Bell Witch. Dunning states that Ingram's book is based entirely upon the diary of Richard Bell and this is not the case. There are at least 2 direct eyewitnesses Ingram spoke to and at least one of these conversations is back up via a third source The Leaf-Chronicle. Dunning states, "every person with firsthand knowledge of the Bell Witch hauntings was already dead when Ingram started his book; in fact, every person with secondhand knowledge was even dead." This statement is demonstrably false. He received the diary from the son of Richard Bell. Allen Bell was a second hand witness via his father. He then attempts to discredit Richard Bell, Allen Bell and Ingram without a shred of evidence to base his claims on. Yes, the diary might not have existed but what is the reason to doubt the story. He states Ingram had every reason to falsify the diary but fails to give a single reason why? I would challenge Dunning to give us every reason. One of Dunning again attempts to discredit Ingram by stating that the Saturday Evening Post article Ingram references never existed but surprise! We now have two sources where the article was reprinted in other newspapers and the retraction from the Post. Dunning goes as far to say that Ingram "falsified" this source based on the fact that one other researcher, Jack Cook, failed to find the article when he went through Saturday Evening Post archives. It should be mentioned that not all articles of the Saturday Evening Post have been preserved. He states that only one other source predates Ingram's but I can find at least three (four?) referenced in the Bell Witch Wiki page as it now stands. Dunning also criticizes the Andrew Jackson story without taking into consideration that the name of the general's name may have been changed in the 70+ years later when Ingram did his research. He claims that all of the significant facts of the story have been falsified but upon closer inspection it is his article that is full of holes and inaccuracies.Bhutlah (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Time for a major overhaul

At the present this article is little more than a totally uncritical, slack-jawed and rather confused retelling of a well-known ghost story - and I make that statement as the original creator of the article. In order to ensure this article complies with Wikipedia WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V policies a major re-write is called for, and central to that is a proper relation of the legend as it is told by Pat Fitzhugh, who is the leading supporter of the "paranormal" origins theory. I've now started adding this, and invite other thoughts and contributions that will help in this process. --Centauri 01:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And whenever anyone criticizes your style which is completely and totally lacking in citations for one thing, you revert them. Nice double-standard. Wjhonson 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to persist in attempting to insidiously vandalise the article by removing or adding POV comments designed to suggest that no explanation other than the paranormal is an acceptable inclusion, then you are naturally going to find that people will revert you. Welcome to the real world kiddo. --Centauri 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you have no concept of what I was or wasn't doing. I'm trying to get you to cite your sources and use WP:RS instead of personal websites. Wjhonson 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a very clear understanding of what you are trying to do. The Tennessee Skeptics website is a perfectly valid reference site. Whether it was written by one person or an army of worker bees and a dancing iguana, and whether it is itself referenced in other sources is irrelevant and entirely beside the point. Your argument that it must somehow be held to a different - and frankly, bizarre - accountability standard than the other linked sites promoting the paranormal POV, is entirely specious. --Centauri 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you shouldn't worry about putting in the skeptics link. Let the reader decide. (Plesmond)

• Ok. I will see what I can do about a rewrite. The article is a real mess. nut-meg 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links

According to WP:External Links 3. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.) 4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

For those reasons, I believe that http://mtskeptics.homestead.com/BellWitch.html is worthwhile keeping in the External Links section. Englishrose 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And those sites should not be cited as sources. Wjhonson 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless they happen to agree with Wjhonson's POV, of course. --Centauri 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a POV. I'm like a blank slate. Doesn't change the fact that the skeptic site is a personal webpage and as such not a WP:RS. Wjhonson 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to update my outside link to http://bellwitchlegend.blogspot.com/ in order to present my updated paper, "The Spirit of Red River." I have been researching the historical data on the legend since 1980, and I can say with almost 100 percent certainty that this is a very cleverly written fiction using some very believable references to real people and events of the time. I must admit that the actual historical events and documents were more interesting than the book written by M. V. Ingram once I became aware of how those events actually related to Ingram and the Bell family. My wish is that this wikipedia article had more relevant information rather than being a promotional of the witch legend. It has improved over time, but needs lots of revision. The MT Skeptics link is indeed one of the only outside links that details some of the reasoning behind a good, healthy skepticism over this story and I have spoken with the author, who is very versed in the real history behind the legend. You'll find my work on that web site as well. I'm very happy to see an entry of the legend on Wikipedia. If anyone needs more detailed information, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks! (Jcook56050 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

This article tells the story of a legend. Whether or not the events actually happened is not provable and not really relevant. Since it is classified as mythology, legend, and folklore, most people know to take it with a clear head. Whether or not people choose to believe it is not the concern of this article. A while back, this article was riddled with weasel words. Every other word was "allegedly" and "supposedly" and yada yada yada. It was one "skeptic" attempting to convince everyone to believe as they did. This is not the point of the article. The point is to tell the story. It took some work to get it back to an acceptable quality article. There can certainly be a "criticism" section. However, it cannot be original research. This is not my policy, nor is it the policy of anyone else that edits this article. It is a Wikipedia policy. A skepticism or criticism section should have some point besides just debunking the obvious. Otherwise we'd have to do the same to every other article on mythology and folklore. Are we going to go to the Paul Bunyan article and insert disclaimers and skeptical analysis and "proof" that he never existed? No. That would be stupid. If people believe the legend that is their business. The business of Wikipedia is to inform people of the legend. nut-meg (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I do see your point. But, if you approach this from the viewpoint of an historical researcher, the "spirit events" as related by Ingram are not actually provable at all since 25 years of research by some very dedicated people have revealed no first hand documents or verifiable evidence. And, Ingram challenges us by asserting these events were real. However, that is simply part of the legend, and plays a large part in why it has remained so popular after so many years. I'll admit that Ingram's book is a very addictive narrative and quite fun. Good luck! (Jcook56050 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

A bit unclear on the publications...

In the Analysis section, one of the sources is Our Family Trouble, written by Richard William Bell. Later, we are told that this book was written thirty years after the events described, which puts it at 1858 or so. But we are also told that an 1886 book is the earliest publication of the Bell Witch story.

Now maybe Bell's diary was never published, so that the later book really is the first published account. But if that's the case, it would be nice to explicitly say so. As it is, I found the text confusing. Phiwum 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've researched the Bell Witch for years and I have never heard of the 1887 publication. I'd like to find a copy of it and have a look for myself. The earliest publication I know of is the 1894 M V Ingram book, which I have a copy of. It is curious that the 1887 article calls John Bell "Garry Bell". I have to wonder if it isn't a fake. nut-meg 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

This page is extremely biased, and the worst part is it seems to be biased towards different opinions in different parts of the article. While I agree that the paranormal should not be given as the "true" conclusion, the article actually has bias towards saying that the legend is a fabrication. The tone is more or less that of "a lot of people believe in the bell witch hauntings, but it is simply superstition." It should be given more or less as "Group A believes that the Bell Witch Hauntings actually occurred, while Group B believes it is a fabrication and/or superstitious," with Group A and Group B being defined explicitly, and not simply "some people say this and others say this." Although some science minds might believe that a scientific view of the topic should be viewed as fact the truth is many people believe that the legend is true and therefore we must assume a NPOV. Irregardless, the bulk of the article should be giving information about the legend, and not arguing with itself about whether the events actually occurred. As far as this content is concerned, I do believe that it gives good information but the article should touch on other versions of the legend. Finally I must say that the link in question that has created a sort of edit battle is a valid link, since it is accepted by some people as fact and therefore constitutes a valid opinion, although I wonder whether a website that advocates a NPOV would be better served linking to pages that also hold a NPOV.

• No. The point of the links are to display what can not be on the page. Such as original research, or a non NPOV.69.213.70.93 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki clearly asks us not to cite original research.

• The problem is that this page should not be about whether or not the hauntings really happened. It should be about the legend itself. There is really no reasonable question that something happened. What caused it is where the debate should be. I've heard a lot of interesting skeptical theories, as well as a lot of wonderful stories about the legend. There is no reason for this article, and this talk page to be so contentious. nut-meg 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please Name Specific Person or Group Tags appear several times, even when a person or given or when it makes no sence. I am removing these, as I believe they are vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Overhaul In Progress

I've removed a lot of the weaselyness in the "Legend" section. I've also temporarily removed the "Skeptical Analysis" section until I can find better researced articles. nut-meg 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Hmm, my revert note didn't seem to go through to the history page, but I did revert it. There's a series of three edits in a row from the same IP, all vandalism, so the version from before that has been restored. The Nixinator 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bell home?

I've read the Bell property is still intact and now owned by a trust, and the Bell home is still standing. Anybody else know more about this? Where does it stand? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The home was a log home and it is not standing. There is a replica of the Bell home near Bell Witch Cave. There is also a house nearby that is a small cabin that was originally on the Bell property, but I can't remember if it is a replica or not. That one is in front of a commercial property. I haven't seen the replica house. I think it has been built since I went there several years ago. I'm pretty sure when I went the property was divided up and owned by several families. I know the cave is now on the National Register of Historic Places. Some of it could be owned by a trust now but I kind of doubt all of it is. nut-meg (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson?

An IMDb page (not the best source!) says "Andrew Jackson is quoted as saying, "I would rather take on the entire English Fleet than stay one night at the Bell House." He later formed a group of men to test the rumors of the Bell haunting. Their findings are documented in M. V. Ingram's 1894 book, An Authenticated History of The Famous Bell Witch." This article states "No mention of the Bell Witch was ever made by Jackson in any of his letters, journals or papers, however." Which is correct? Шизомби (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer: Researching the history of Andrew Jackson, you will find the following: (quoted from my paper, "The Spirit of Red River") 'The information on Andrew Jackson given in the "Authenticated History" is incorrect. It is well written and very entertaining, but incorrect. Simply put, in 1819 Major General Andrew Jackson accompanied President James Monroe on a tour of the Western Armies of the United States that ended in Lexington Kentucky. This tour occurred during the period in which Ingram tells of Jackson's encounter with the Bell Witch. (Ingram never actually revealed the date, but we must assume by real history that it was in 1819). Despite his public popularity, Major Jackson almost failed to make the tour due to a major illness and declining health. He had recently escaped official censure by the United States Congress for unauthorized actions he had taken on a military campaign, and was advised not to accompany the President through the state of Georgia where he was not welcome. Jackson had also admonished the President to allow him a peaceful retirement. Monroe declined. Upon returning home, he remained bed ridden for some time in recovery. At no other documented time from 1814 to 1820 was Jackson in the Springfield area for any reason (even though records from the clerk reveal that he did indeed own tracts of land in Robertson County as did many absentee speculators of the period). Actual letters and documentation freely available from the Library of Congress and several published histories, especially those of Congressional Historian, Dr. Robert Remini, verify these events. The only major event in Robertson County that happened during Jackson's return to Nashville was the dedication of the new courthouse in Springfield. There were no newspaper accounts that Jackson was present for that event.' Having read through all of President Jackson's papers for the period in question, I found no record of any visits to the Bell Plantation nor any quotes as mentioned above. (Jcook56050 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)).

Hey buddy...hate to be the one to break it to you but noone cares that you "wrote a paper" about the legend...so have many other college students. We have all read the same "documents". Your paper proves nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.35.40 (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose the Andrew Jackson story be approached from a different direction. Jackson was extremely popular in TN at the time and Ingram wrote his book some 70+ years after John Bell Sr. passed away. With that in mind, it is possible that the name was changed at some point in time and it might be worth looking into other Generals, Officers, etc. that came through the area at the time. It is noted in several sources that predate the Ingram book that people were coming from far away (25-50 miles) to see the witch and would not be surprising if at least one retinue of soldiers passed through the area during that time.Bhutlah (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed quote

I have removed the contents of the following box:

“ A remarkable occurrence, which attracted widespread interest, was connected with the family of Garry Bell, (Note: There was, of course, no "Garry Bell" in the family, there was, however according to some research, among the others who emigrated with John Bell to Robertson County a Jerry Batts, who may have been related to the "Kate Batts" who figured prominently in the legend) who settled near what is now Adams Station about 1804. So great was the excitement that people came from hundreds of miles around to witness the manifestations of what was popularly known as the 'Bell Witch.' This witch was supposed to be some spiritual being having the voice and attributes of a woman. It was invisible to the eye, yet it would hold conversation and even shake hands with certain individuals. The feats it performed were wonderful and seemingly designed to annoy the family. It would take the sugar from the bowls, spill the milk, take the quilts from the beds, slap and pinch the children, and then laugh at the discomfiture of its victims. At first it was supposed to be a good spirit, but its subsequent acts, together with the curses with which it supplemented its remarks, proved the contrary. A volume might be written concerning the performance of this wonderful being, as they are now described by contemporaries and their descendants. That all this actually occurred will not be disputed, nor will a rational explanation be attempted. It is merely introduced as an example of superstition, weak in the minds of all but a few in those times, and yet not wholly extinct. ”

It is not acceptable in an article in its current form. It is introduced with a citation for a specific work, to wit:

...earliest written account is in the Goodspeed History of Tennessee published in 1887 by Goodspeed Publishing. No author is given. Page 833...

That citation may only be offered by an editor who has seen the work, and for a direct quotation like this, copied it verbatim et literatim (or correspondingly compared someone else's transcription against the work).
The passage as quoted clearly has two voices, the predominant voice and voice of the italicized and parenthesized portion. There are three obvious interpretations of this:

1. The quoted passage was corrupted in a WP edit different from the one that introduced the quote into the article (and misrepresents the source). If true, that can be determined from the edit history.
2. The passage is not drawn from the stated source, but from a secondary source based on the stated source, which presumably says (of the "main voice" text) that it came from the stated source. In that case we have a false quote, falsely attributed.
3. The quote accurately represents part of the stated source's text, which is incoherant (by not explaining what it means by using two voices), or explains the two voices but has been effectively misquoted by omitting context necessary to preserving its meaning.

Each of the three would violate our standards. This needs to be explained, and fixed, before the hole i left can be filled.
--Jerzy•t 08:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I think there is an issue with one of the links. The first link, to the site maintained by the Middle Tennessee Skeptics review of the legend, is a good site to have, in theory. I think having a good site that can delve into the legend to try and verify it, rather than assuming it is true, is an important asset. However, after looking through it for several hours, the author/s psychoanalyze and diagnose the people involved in the legend (something which cannot and should not be done by a layperson, and especially not 150 years later), the author/s make hard statements of falsehood based on a variety of erroneous assumptions and "investigation" (for example, it is stated that there is no media reporting of this widely known event, yet the author/s fail to note that the one Tennessee paper, published in the adjoining country, that was publishing at that time rarely reported local events - The history of the Leaf Chronicle), and then, the least significant issue, but still important in a site such as this, is the poor writing, i.e. there is a lot of misspelling. So, I don't know if it should be deleted (and perhaps a new investigative site found) or if there should be a warning of non-impartiality. Thoughts?? Kkiely (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Animal Cruelty

This article is tagged as an article about animal cruelty. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorhook.thepirate (talk • contribs) 07:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The link is original research, and not really suitable for a wikipedia article. However, we've been back and forth with the author for a few years now and it seems to just go round and round. nut-meg (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cave mentioned in Travel Channel show?

I remember watching a Travel Channel television show titled "Night Visitors" that included the Bell Witch as their starting story. It talks about a cave near Adams, TN where people say they hear strange noises and feel demonic/evil presences there yet today. The show calls it the "Bell Cave" currently owned (well the land the cave is on) by a couple that claims they hear growls, screams, and evil noises from the cave. The show also said that during the time of the "Bell Witch" haunting the Bell family, a little boy accidentally got his head stuck between two rocks in the cave (which was located on the northern end of the farm). After the boy had yelled for some time, the entire cave lit up and invisible hands tugged at his legs. His head was freed and he was pulled all the way back to the cave entrance by the witch. How true this all is I can't say but it was on that Travel Channel show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.71.195 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Time for a rewrite

Reading through all the comments here on the talk page, it is obvious that the page needs help. I've been doing some research and think there are a lot of new good sources that have been published since the talk page comments from 2007-2009. There is a single-source flag from 2010 here also.

In case someone is going to be adding anything in the next day or so, don't please. Let me have my way with this page (as my user page) and hopefully everyone will be happy with my revision. If not you can always discuss the changes here. Sgerbic (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm done with it. Happy Halloween all, tweak it to your hearts content. Sgerbic (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is incorrect

There are many references in the special collections library (rare books) at the University of Tennessee that are not included in this article. Among them are the first telling of the story by Harriet Parks Miller in 1859

The Bell witch of Middle Tennessee Harriet Parks Miller 1852 or 3-1935. Clarksville, Tenn., Leaf-Chronicle 1930

Available at Special Collections (UT) Rare Books (BF1578.B4 M5 )

As well as (and I can not believe it was not included in this article) the book by Charles Bailey Bell,

A mysterious spirit, Charles Bailey Bell 1869- Nashville, Tenn., C. Elder 1972

Available at Hodges Library Stacks (BF1473.B37 B4 1934a )

Brent Monahan's recounting:

The Bell witch : an American haunting : being the eye witness account of Richard Powell concerning the Bell witch haunting of Robertson County, Tennessee 1817-1821 Brent Monahan 1948-

and Gladys Barr (1905) Add to e-Shelf The Bell witch at Adams, Gladys H. Barr (Gladys Hutchison), 1905- Nashville, D. Hutchison Pub. Co. 1969 [1st ed.].

Available at Special Collections (UT) Rare Books (BF1578.B4 B3 )

This article needs serious updating. Soswalt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.4.173.229 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bell Witch. 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/20130704095636/http://www.bellwitch.org:80/biographies/johnbell.htm to http://www.bellwitch.org/biographies/johnbell.htm#ftn2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041217031633/http://www.bellwitch.org:80/ to http://www.bellwitch.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bell Witch. 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/20041217031633/http://www.bellwitch.org/ to http://www.bellwitch.org/

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) 12:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)