Talk:Operation Sharp and Smooth

Timeline

Believe it began late on 1 August, check the military where I placed some details Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 82.29.227.171 16:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. 89.0.169.123 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

This story is narrated from Israel viewpoint.--Sa.vakilian 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's completely fucked. I'm in the process of neutering the POV right now.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Approximately 200 elite commando

Are you sure abount that? I seems like 200 troops took part in the operation, but there were much fewer comando troops... 89.0.243.231 13:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. For now I'm seeing news sources reporting it as "200 commandos," I guess we should try to find the original IDF press release for confirmation. --Bingman06 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It cant be 200 troops since they used only 2 CH-53 helos. Maximum 110. And also it officially claimed that Sayeret Matkal and Shaldag participated the raid. http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55483.EN - video. http://www.hnn.co.il/index.php?module=albums;task=view;id=993 - pics from IDF.

How do you know only 2 CH-53 helos were used? Also Sayeret Matkal, basically means Special Forces of the General Staff Unit while Shaldag is an Israeli special forces from the Air Force. Richardmiami 03:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fast-roped"?!

What does "fast-roped" mean? Especially as they seem to have done it over the Med while re-fuelling (or is that just poor sentence construction?)? Please refrain from military jargon. Best regards Thomas Blomberg 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fast-roped refers to the method of disembarking the helicopter when arriving at its destination. Rather than land the large CH-53 helicopters then open the rear door for the crew to exit, they helicopter hovers a a couple of feet off the ground and the crew disembark by sliding down on ropes from the side doors of these large helicopters. That way, the helicopter does not have to stay too long in a "hot zone" and can quickly exit without maximum speed. Richardmiami 04:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Caualities

This article is not NPOV, in the casualities box its mentioned that Hezbolla suffered 18 dead, however the only bodies shown on TV were those of civilians & chidren, how would the IDF be sure he killed 18 fighters, i doubt in a commando raid you have time to count the dead bodies, have a cup of tea may be, then withdraw before reinforcements arrive, as for the prisoners, Hezbolla announced that they were civilians & i tend to believe that for more than a reason: at the beggining of the war Israelis captured what they claimed to be 2 hezbolla fighters, hezbolla denounced that, 3 days later the 2 men were released & IDF declared they were civilians. In this raid, one of the captured is a 65 year old grocery owner whose name is Hasan Nasralla, that shows what kind of evidence IDF has against these ( hezbolla Fighters). so please stop refering to israeli figures since its all for propaganda purposes.

Both sides are engaging in heavy propaganda. In general when sources do not agree about something, we should put in both versions and be clear about who says what. Of course when something is retracted that changes things. Dsol 17:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, towards the end of the war, Israel announced that it was holding some lebanese civilians (snatched) during the conflict & that they are to be released, these might as well be the same individuals kidnapped during this operation, now i tried changing the wording in the casualities box & it seems somebody is changing it back.to those i say the following: If you are so sure that those killed & captured were in fact hezbolla fighters ( some of the killed are less than 5 years old & among the captured are above 60 years old elders) go ahead & present some facts other than biased IDF sources, if not, stop acting like a pigheaded, propaganda directed politician, your government already massacred these poor souls, have some decency & refrain from using their memory for showing off & covering your failure.

Success?

The operation objectives were: Assassinate Hezbollah Leader, and locate the arsenal, not capture someone by the name Hassan Nasserallah, who isn't THE Hassan Nasserallah. In my humble opinion, this operation was a complete and utter failure.

Sure it was a failure, though its funny to see that in every battle during this conflict propagandists on wikipedia are using the terms (israeli success) & (israeli victory) while the outcome of the war itself was an ( israeli fuckup)..of course the israeli fuckup was obvious for all observers except for Mr. Bush & equally intelligent species.

How do you know what the objectives of the operation were? Are you a member of the Israeli General Staff? The Result as "Mission Failure" seems to be POV violation right now. It is not known what the mission was and whether the objectives were met. I suggest changing the Result to "Unknown". --68.161.176.76 (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the Result to "Unclear" which is what it has been for a while. --68.161.176.76 (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

2nd raid

Should the date, results and casualties from this raid be added to the infobox ?imi2 07:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I thinks yes, because the Battle of Montecassino where 4 or 5 waves of attacks and all pf them are in the same battlebox. Merge the 2 raids into one battlebox

The second operation took place 17 days after the first one, and they are not related. Rabend (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Result

The source for the result ("Raid failed to accomplish any apparent objective.") is not in English. Do you speak Hebrew? Can you provide a link to a translation , of the complete article? Jeff Song (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the formulation fit very well what we know: “Raid failed to accomplish any apparent objective.” As far as I know the Maariv article has not been translated to English. If it had I would prefer to link to it (since this is English Wikipedia). But twice when I have linked to translations of Hebrew articles I've had the links to the these removed because the translator was not considered WP:RS. I can read Hebrew but I'm not a native speaker.

The IDF never could explain what the target of the raid was. The Maariv explanation makes sense.

In the beginning the Dar al-Hikma hospital was described as “the place where kidnapped soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, were treated after they were abducted”, suggesting that the target was to bring the captives back or obtain information about their fate.

http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=30428

The captives were not located and - as far as we know - no information on their fate was gained.

The Lebanese where convinced that the aim of both the Baalbek raids (as well as an earlier bomb attack) was to kill or capture Muhammad Yazbak, a senior Hezballah leader. He escaped unhurt.

The IDF claimed to have killed “at least 10” Hezbollah fighters and have arrested “several Hizbullah officials”. In fact only 2-4 fighters were killed (as well as 12 civilians) and no Hezbollah official was arrested.

The IDF itself seems to have been quite confused about what was achieved:

"The end result of this undertaking is still unclear to us, because we collected a lot of materials and we still need to analyze them, to decipher them, and to understand from them what we brought with us," http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=788256&Date=8/3/2006

Former chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon later said: "I am not convinced that what was done at Baalbek was a success. And I am not convinced that what was carried out was justified in terms of risk, cost and benefit. There is a certain type of operation that carries a very high risk level. Therefore you attempt it only when the achievement it is meant to generate is of strategic importance. I am not certain this was the case here. I am not certain that the operation at Baalbek was not an adventure." http://www.haaretz.com/no-way-to-go-to-war-1.197210

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your personal analysis (e.g. 'The Maariv explanation makes sense. ' ) is not really what I am after, and the quotes you do provide from Ya'alon ("I am not convinced that what was done at Baalbek was a success.") are not the same a stating, in the encyclopedia's voice that the "Raid failed to accomplish any apparent objective." I ran the article through Google translate, and it appears to contain a statement form the IDF that contradicts the report: 'The operation resulted in a significant change in the nature of the organization's activities Bbkaa' - so I am removing your claim, pending some more definitive sources, preferably in English. Jeff Song (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

IDF is not a reliable independent third-party source. We have two independent sources showing that most of the casualties where civilian. First and foremost Human Rights Watch. Both the Interior Security Forces and al-Mustaqbal newspaper are controlled by the Hariri clan and thus no friends of Hezbollah. The claims of the IDF cannot be regarded as anything but claims.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

HRW is biased and present certain POV and thats ok as Lebanon sources and IDF. We should attribute the sources. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. As you reverted my changes and made the article factual incorrect and POV I will tag it accordingly.Shrike (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No its not OK, we should attribute views and not state HRW and Lebanon POVs in Wikipedia voice--Shrike (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If no one will answer in talk I will change the article to reflect all the POVs according to WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What have I done?

This article was created in August 2006. I started making my edits in December 2011 and I’m quite proud of my achievements. Up till then the article was dominated by editors whose main concern seems to have been to present the Baalbek raid as an unqualified Israeli success or victory and doing so by deliberately inflating Hezbollah casualties. Their claims were not supported by sources and a quotation from al-Jazeera was completely faked.

• How many Hezbollah fighters were killed in the raid?

The IDF claimed to have killed 10 Hezbollah fighters, as was reported by IDF itself as well as by Israeli media (see article for sources). Hezbollah did not publish any casualty number but denied this claim. Independent third-party sources however confirm only 2-4 killed combatants (2 of which were Hezbollah) as well as 12-14 civilians. None of these sources was quoted in the earlier version of the article.

That version of the article even claimed that 19 Hezbollah fighters were killed. But the alleged source said nothing of the kind. It discussed another raid on Baalbek several weeks later and did not discuss the number of Hezbollah casualties in either of them (or in the war in general). This nonsense claim – which not even the IDF was making – has been included in this Wikipedia article at least since Aug 7, 2006 with nobody – successfully – challenging it. Really a very low mark for Wikipedia.

The earlier version of the article made no reference what so ever to any civilian Lebanese fatalities in the raid in spite of many sources making this claim, such as BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5237098.stm

This is a disturbingly common pattern in Wikipedia articles on the 2006 Israel Lebanon war. Most of the articles on the individual battles in the war that I have checked, not only quoted IDF as the ultimate authority on the number and status of Lebanese casualties but on top of that substantially inflated IDF claims without any kind of sources backing this claim.

So where did the number 19 come from? I have of course no idea. But there were early reports that 19 civilians had been killed in the raid. See for example:

http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2006/08/20084916445795272.html

I decided not to use this item since two subsequent independent inquiries (HRW and ISF) both agreed to a lower number (16) of fatalities. It is quite easy that preliminary numbers become inflated when persons who are simply missing are assumed to be dead.

• Who were the five abducted Lebanese men?

The IDF incorrectly believed that they were related to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and/or where active in Hezbollah. There are clear indications that some of them were the actual targets of one of the two missions. The IDF eventually realized their mistake and released them three weeks later.

While this fact was admitted in the end of the article it was not made clear elsewhere in the article. In the infobox they were still counted as Hezbollah belligerents.

• Faked quote

The following quote supposedly from al-Jazeera was found in the earlier version of the article:

A group of Israeli commandos was brought to the hospital by a helicopter. Hezbollah fighters inside the hospital opened fire, but the commandos managed to get inside the hospital. They captured many Hezbollah weapons. Hussein Rahal, a hezbollah spokesman said that the commandos were trapped in the hospital and engaged in fierce clashes with hezbollah fighters. He also added that Israeli jets outside were attacking the surrounding hezbollah forces with rockets. "They entered the hospital and they are trapped inside."

The link to the alleged source is dead but I managed to find it here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060823080733/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DB65EDEA-76AC-4AC2-9ADC-8A0B14B9B587.htm

The “quote” cannot be found in this article. More specifically the formulation “Hezbollah fighters inside the hospital opened fire, but the commandos managed to get inside the hospital. They captured many Hezbollah weapons” is nowhere to be found. It is completely made up.

• Reliable sources

At least one editor user:shrike has questioned whether Human Rights Watch or the Lebanese Internal Security Forces can be described as independent third-party sources. I really cannot understand this position. If they are not considered reliable sources just who would be in the Lebanon war? They both carried out investigations on the ground, interviewing survivors etc. working independently of each other and came to the same conclusions.

I don’t mind including IDF claims of Hezbollah casualties in the article but these claims should not be put on pair with HRW/ISF. The IDF and Hezbollah are not third-party sources.

According to HRW most of the Lebanese fatalities was caused by missiles fired from drones or helicopters at night. The IDF evidently failed to correctly identify the five abductees in spite of being on the ground. The risk of doing so from the air at night is of course much higher.

• An Israeli victory?

The earlier version of the article described the result of the raid as an “Israeli tactical victory” but I found very little support for that. The IDF has not presented any evidence suggesting that anything was achieved. The targeted kidnapping victims turned out to be innocent civilians. Most of those killed turned out to be civilians. Hezbollah leader Yazbek survived unhurt. Since the actual aim of the operation is not known for certain it is of course difficult to evaluate whether it succeded. Perhaps the best explanation is that the raid was a PR stunt as Maariv wrote.

I think my formulation “Raid failed to accomplish any apparent objective” covers most possibilities. It does not exclude the possibility that the raid accomplished a less apparent objective. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edits have introduced radical changes into the article. You have deleted sourced material. Your personal views are not relevant and you have presented original research e.g. I think my formulation “Raid failed to accomplish any apparent objective” covers most possibilities. Please discuss the individual changes that you wish to make in the Talk section.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Your personal analysis is not relevant to this article, despite your insistent claims to the contrary. I suggest you find reliable sourcing for the changes you wish to make as opposed to mass reversions.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Been watching the argument on whether mission met objectives. First we have to know what were the actual objectives to make a determination as to success or failure of mission. I don't think anyone will ever know for certain what the operational objectives were. Some have speculated that the objective was to show that the IDF can land anywhere and reach Hezbollah with impunity, kill its personnel, capture equipment and obtain intelligence. If that was the operational objective, then it was a success. Others have speculated that the objective was to capture high level Hezbollah operatives. If that was the objective, then it failed. In the absence of a definitive answer, we should not even attempt to speculate and the results section should either be left empty or noted as "disputed." (So what else is new?)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

from WP:Vandalism: 'Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.' I advise you to pay very close attention to the section I have bolded. Jeff Song (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Latest edits

The justification was already given in this original edit [1] before any sock edits.So justification of the reverts is not according to policy.--Shrike (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The "original edit" that you cite was reverted by another editor with an explanation for the revert. This was then reverted without explanation by a sock who had no right to be editing the article. The sock was reverted in line with policy. If anyone wants to re-add the edit they must provide appropriate reasons for doing so. Are you of the opinion that if an original summary is provided for an edit then all further edit warring of that material into the article can be done without an appropriate edit summary comment? Dlv999 (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am in the opinion the original edit summary is ok policy wise and can be used for revert justification as there is no rule that says that the same justification can't be used numerious times in the article.--Shrike (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I find this behavior extremely tiresome. I made some long over-due changes to this article and actually spent several hours trying to get a more nuanced article. As exemplified above the previous version of the article contained faked quotes and made-up numbers. The so-called sources were often dead (or had never existed?) or referred to completely unreliable sources (such as homepages dedicated to the fight against “Islamofascism”). It completely disregarded important aspects of the raid such as the majority of the victims were civilian (according to RS). It stated that the raid was “a tactical Israeli victory” without ever trying to explain what was achieved. The “Hezbollah prisoners” and most of the “Hezbollah fatalities” were later proved to have been civilian. The raid was later criticized in Israel for being an “adventure” or a “PR stunt” that achieved nothing.

Then AnkhMorpork (talk) comes along and deletes everything that has been added to the article since months back. He had not previously contributed with a single word to the article itself or to the discussion on the talk page. He did not feel any need to explain his behavior. He could not identify a single specific problem with the additions. He just deleted them. He then introduced me to a Wikipedia policy rule that I was not aware of. Also expressed above but stated more clearly here: One needs to “achieve a consensus piecemeal for any contentious edits prior to making these mass changes” Talk:Roi_Klein. I have not been able to locate that rule. If somebody can direct me to that I would be grateful.

It appears to me that AnkhMorpork himself does not adhere to this policy himself. I’ve had the questionable pleasure of meeting him in other places. In the case of the Roi_Klein article he made two complete reverts of all my additions within 1,5 hours and thereby contravening WP:1RR. There was apparently no need for prior consensus in this case. Everything questioning the official Israeli version of Roi Klein's heroic death and any mention of the fact that he lived on an illegal outpost in contravention of a court order is quickly removed. See article's talk page for details.

My detractors seem to work in groups. In the case of this article AnkhMorpork (talk), Jeff Song (talk), Jabotito48 (talk) and Brewcrewer (talk) have completely removed every single word I have added and none of them have discussed the reasons for this on the talk page.

Many of them seem to be “professional” Wikipedia editors working full time on their project. I have no idea who is sockpuppet and who is not. New usernames appear and then disappear. What they have in common is an extremely narrow political perspective, which they are pushing aggressively everywhere. In the case of the second Lebanese war their main concern seems to be that it should be portrayed as a smashing victory for the IDF. This seems to me to be a very difficult task if one feels constrained by what reliable sources say. My impression is that even very few Israelis adhere to this extremist narrative.

I am grateful for the intervention in this silly edit war.

Could we then perhaps proceed and discuss how we can improve the article?

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You have a history of making substantial changes to articles that are replete with OR and POV violations. Most of your edits are generally reverted. Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN you are required to substantiate your edits on the talk page if they are opposed. You have to understand if you make mass changed to an articles full of errors and policy violations all your edits will simply be reverted. Especially with your history, editors cannot be expected -- nor does policy require -- that editors search for the one or two valid kernels from your mass changes to ensure that they stay in the article. With your history, it would be most prudent if you make piecemeal changes to articles, make sure there is no opposition or policy violations before making more changes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I now actually checked your edit and my suspicions were correct. Your version cites to Human Rights Watch more than 20 times. This is unacceptable. HRW is an advocacy organization, not an independent news source. They can be cited to of course, but they cannot be used to create an entire narrative, per NPOV. You also cited to this god knows what seven times. This is unacceptable. Please cease this type of behavior and I would also hope that your reverting-threatening enablers would also stop with their nonsense lest this end up at AE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

BC, your latest edit has removed all material which was properly attributed and referenced to HRW, whom it appears you accept is a significant opinion ("They can be cited to of course"). Meanwhile, you have introduced this POV statement "As all troops later returned unharmed and with captured prisoners, this report appears to be one of various other fabricated public relations claims made by Hezbollah during the war as quoted by Jihad Watch." cited to "Jihad Watch"[2] and "hyscience" [3]. Dlv999 (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

NOW you actually checked my edits?! I can't believe this.

The reason why HRW was referenced to is because it is a reliable third-party source. It provided the names and status of the 16 fatalities of the raid. That explains 16 of the 22 references. If it makes you happier I could merge these 16 footnotes into 1, reducing the total number of references to 7.

"God knows what" is al-Mustaqbal, a Lebanese daily newspaper affiliated with the Hariri clan. Maybe you should familiarize with the subject of the article before making your sweeping deletions? This is an article about an attack in Lebanon leading to the death of 16 Lebanese citizens. It would be very strange if Lebanese sources somehow were banned from such a subject. Most of the sources to the article are in fact Israeli. I would not have used a Non-English language source if that information was available in English. In your preferred version of the article there are two references to Italian La Republica containing no information that is not readily available in English-language newspapers. The article refers to an official investigation by by the Lebanese Interior Security Forces, a security outfit likewise controlled by the Hariri clan. 5 of the 7 references to this report are individual footnotes to the identities of the 5 civilan abductees. So I could eaily reduce it to 3 references if you prefer that. I consider both these sources ro be RS as opposed to the warring parties' (Israel and Hezbollah) official statements. Not to mention the anti-islamofascist homepages.

A question: Why do you repetedly reintroduce the faked quotations and made-up numbers of Hezbollah casualties that I have already - long ago - exposed? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Time for a more constructive approach?

As far as I can see I have just added well-sourced RS material, vastly improving the article. But of course I could be mistaken. Others claim that my contributions are "full of errors and policy violations". Could you pleae be a little bit more specific about what the main problems are with the article as it now stands (that is, before the next total revert...)? If you have any constructive and specific suggestions for improvements, I might be able to accomodate you. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Shrike's recent edits

Shrike, please, now you are being plain silly. There are good reasons to put Israel's "terrorist" terminology in brackets since it is not a terminology that Wikipedia adheres to. Besides, it was you yourself who introduced these sentences as well as the brackets. You could have used more neutral terms, such as "Hezbollah members" (without brackets). Please remove the brackets from "civilians".

Your reference to Shelach and Limor is OK but please specify whether it is the the authors' or the IDF's analysis that you are referring to.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I will change it to militants.Instead of "terrorist"?Do you agree?--Shrike (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Its the authors.

Thanks, Shrike.

I think it is OK to use "terrorist" when you are quoting Israeli sources using this term. But then you need to put it in brackets, to distance Wikipedia from this terminology. I prefer the neutral "Hezbollah member" (without brackets). As some clever guy said: just because Wikipedia chooses not to call somebody a terrorist doesn't mean that he is not a terrorist. I don't particularly like your term "Hezbollah militant" but I will not make a fuss about it. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Results

Having reviewed this more carefully and after reading both Israeli and HRW reports, I’ve come to the following conclusions. HRW confirmed the deaths of at least 2 Hezbollah members. Three other militants belonging to the LCP were also killed. An additional two armed men, referred to by HRW as, “hospital security guards” were wounded. HRW further acknowledges that the IDF recovered AK47s and other weapons from the hospital. According to the IDF, 10 terrorists, armed and wearing flak jackets, were killed. The IDF provided footage of the operation. There were no IDF casualties. The IDF succeeded in landing in the heart of Hezbollah land, inflicted enemy casualties and succeeding in leaving without incurring a single casualty. However, the raid came up short in that it did not succeed it catching the "big fish." So in one sense it is tactical victory by drawing on the brute statistics of war but in another, it came up short. Therefore I propose the following language for the "Results" section, "Israeli tactical victory though no senior militants captured."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is OR and therefore a policy violation. I have removed it. The "Results" section doesn't have to say anything but its contents must comply with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Sharp and Smooth. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/mideast.main/index.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)