Talk:List of major opera composers

Proofreading of data

• Talk:List of major opera composers/ProofreadingOfData - my list of what I (think) is on the lists currently used, according to my spreadsheet, compared to what was actually on the list. Possibly with errors - we were rather being rushed at the time to make the first step. Note: The Rough Guide to Opera was not added to the spreadsheet - it was added manually to save me some data entry. I'm up for some more work after a break from that three-day data entry, so I'll fix things up soon.

The full bibliographic data for the lists used is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished user (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome new contributors!

Glad to have you with us. So, the problem of women in opera. At themoment, of the ten lists, two contain Ethel Smythe, four contain Weir, and, it should be mention, two cut off earlier than is ideal, and contain neither. It would be NPOV to cut those lists if you have a better, more comprehensive one.

Just give the names on the lists, or from the overview of opera of whatever source here, providing the source (try and include enough information for the bibliography section). It would be useful to try for something academic, peer reviewed, or a reasonably notable book.

If you're interested in the discussion that led to this, it begins in Archive2. However, as many of you will be new, I wanted to greet you at the top.

Thanks for helping us show women are important in opera - and prove it! Vanished user ^talk 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

New Contributor

Thank you, Vanished user, for your welcome to new contributors. As a new contributor, as a woman conductor who has conducted operas by men, as a musicologist, and as a Wikipedia fan, I would like to add a few thoughts concerning 'major opera composers' and women.

On your list, great operas by women are conspicuous by their absence, and their absence deserves comment. Under the Section 'Note' (or somewhere else?), one could insert a statement to the following effect:

First, music is a category of art with an extremely long selection and aging process. Even longer than great wines. Due to this, it may take decades for the 'great opera' that is written today to be recognized as such. And like the great wine, it may not start to be pleasing for years.

Second, as in many other areas, women were long denied access to musical institutions, and their entry into the field of music, specifically composition, has been recent and very slow. Even after World War II, rules still existed (e.g., in Germany) baring women from studying composition.

Third, opera is the largest common musical form presented regularly today. As such, it commands substantial financial and institutional resources. Until recently, many institutions have been hesitant to place such means at women's disposition. (When was the last time you saw a woman racing a Formula 1 car? The comparison has a certain validity...)

For all of these reasons, the 'great operas' as well as the musical 'canon' that validates them were formed at a time when women were all but excluded from the creative production process. And, although women are now composing operas, it will take some time for their young works to come of age and for the canon the recognize them.

This lack extends to other creative groups marginalized in the past by the Western art canon. But since the advent of 'new musicology' in the last 15-20 years (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/New_musicology), a broader view is taken in the search for and evaluation of operas, past and present, that formerly were not recognized by the canon. Moreover, music connoisseurs recognize attributes that might well point to the coming of a 'great opera;' and the serious musical press has generally been in agreement that women will be among future rare vintages, women like:

Kaija Saariaho (born 1952) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kaija_Saariaho

Adriana Hölszky (born 1953) http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Adriana_H%C3%B6lszky

Olga Neuwirth (born 1968) http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Olga_Neuwirth

losangelino 12:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC).

NB: In future you will find me as user LosAngelino. LosAngelino 06:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. So, basically, a section analysing possible biases? That makes sense. - there actually have been a few attempts to do so already, but they kept failing by perhaps trying to be too short and too early in the article.

But, forgive me: I'm due to give an oral report in ten minutes, and must head off. Vanished user ^talk 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome from me too. You make some cogent points. As you know, the landscape of the operatic repertoire is constantly shifting. Not so long ago, most people believed there was little opera before Gluck and Mozart worth performing. Thirty years back, most people in the English-speaking world would probably have raised an eyebrow at the inclusion of Leos Janacek, probably dismissing him as an "obscure composer from a backwater in Moravia". Thankfully, recordings and performances have changed this state of affairs, but it takes time for these things to filter through. In ten, twenty, thirty years' time, this list of major opera composers will undoubtedly contain new names and I have no doubt that some of those names will be women. As you said, women have traditionally had more obstacles than men to contend with getting their operas staged. Looking at the history of the genre, there have been several periods where the chief mission of the opera establishment seems to have been to resist the idea of staging any opera at all, no matter who wrote it. Even some of the famous male names on the list had a nightmare time getting their works performed and some had to wait years after their deaths before gaining the reputation they deserved. Berlioz is a notable example. There's a telling passage in the second volume of David Cairns's Berlioz biography where Berlioz attempts to stage an opera by Louise Bertin. The premiere of "Esmeralda" was, predictably, a disaster, partly because the composer's father ran a leading government newspaper, partly because the critics had it in for anyone associated with Berlioz in any case, but mainly because people found the whole idea that an opera by a woman (and a disabled one at that) might be any good ridiculous. (Berlioz himself would have to wait almost a hundred years for a proper staging of his masterpiece "Les Troyens"...)

This Wikipedia list is simply intended to provide a "snapshot" of expert opinion as it stands in 2006. The only way we could find of creating a reasonably neutral list that wasn't the result of our own personal choices was to take ten lists from widely known reference books and compare them. The big advantage of Wikipedia is that nothing is "set in stone". In five or ten years' time, we can do the whole thing again and come up with a new list. No doubt by then there will be some female names there. --Folantin 15:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: As for the idea of putting a note on the page explaining the absence of women composers, that sounds fine too. Maybe we could make the comparison to Janacek, say, and explain these things often take a long time to filter through. As I've said, the list is just a "snapshot", it's not even "our" list. Anyhow, I'm sure we can work something out along those lines. Cheers --Folantin 15:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We need to be careful here not to step over the line into affirmative action. We also need to be very clear on the reason why this dispute arose: an editor wanted to include a composer whose catalogue he publishes and solicited support both within and outside Wikipedia by mischaracterising the nature of the problem as Wikipedia bias rather than historical bias, in a way which is absolutely unacceptable. I suspect it would be much better to have an article on women in classical music and link to that, rather than give undue weight to a problem which is only tangentially related to the subject of this article, which is after all a list with well-defined inclusion criteria, not a philosophical discourse. The fact is, most reliable authorities do not identify any significant women composers of opera. It really is that simple, and we are really not here to fix that. Look at the composers on six lists: with the exception of Peri I wold not consider any of those truly significant composers of opera, despite their evident significance as composers in other genres. And Peri only really gets a mention because he started the ball rolling; neither Euridice nor Dafne was exactly a success. Guy 22:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, we need to explain what the list is and what the list is not. Explaining exclusionism in opera and how it affects this list, such as that of women, is a sensible way to go about this. The motives of Boisseau's actions aside, I think we agree that the lack of women is, at the least, unfortunate, and has nothing whatsoever to do with lack of talent in women, except, perhaps, so far as women lacked the ability to mature talent.

Giving an idea of the ephemerality of this list, noting the shifting sands, and noting, among other things, the oppression of women's effect on the list as it stands, will only make the article stronger.

Indeed, I'm rather tempted - If it hadn't taken me two days to spreadsheet the last one - to take all the Victorian books I have and make up a comparison list, to illustrate graphically just how much it had changed.

P.S. Have you heard Louise Bertin's opera? Is it good? Vanished user ^talk 22:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy's got a point. We have to stick to Wikipedia policy here, otherwise this list will be in trouble again. Some kind of (fully referenced) brief note with links to a separate article on the subject of women opera composers would probably be OK though.--Folantin 13:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome all to Wikipedia! Right. I agree that a note explaining the historical bias that means that women are excluded from the list is hardly unreasonable. The model proposed above is not a bad start, and I think the amendments proposed by Folantin are basically what is needed. Currently the following problems are present, but these can all be easily be removed with a little good faith and common sense:

• It's too long.
• It's unreferenced.
• And, (the big problem) it reads like WP:OR - but that can be fixed by referencing it.
• It must be WP:NPOV, i.e, it can't read like an essay. These are the problems as they currently stand, but I'm sure that they can easily be fixed. Moreschi 13:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps even an article on the "operatic canon", linked from this article, would be a useful article for Wikipedia. I have read other articles which have had debates, and it's clear that some of the content is coming from the debate, rather than a need for the information in that particular article. In addition, I think focusing solely on the lack of women in the list would also be giving undue weight, since I don't think anyone on the list is African or Asian (and there are more and more Asian composers who are writing Western-style opera). The problem with the Operatic canon is the same as the Western canon as a whole, only magnified by the huge amount of money, time, and people required for a successful enterprise.

If we, collectively or individually, decide that we really want to raise the visibility on Wikipedia of Women in Opera, I think we should make a separate list of women opera composers and all of their operas (because there are certainly women composers of opera who are themselves notable, as are their works), and work really hard on including them in all the places they should be included, and make sure all the redlinks turn blue. For instance, Thea Musgrave's Harriet, the Woman called 'Moses' could certainly be a blue link, La liberazione di Ruggiero could be more thorough, and contain more about the feminist themes in the opera, etc. I only suggest a separate list because it makes it easier to focus, and really see progress, redlinks turning blue, how far there is to go, etc. Mak (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Female opera composers as the Opera Project's next composer of the month? Groups have been done before. Vanished user ^talk 16:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That could be a good start, although I think there are enough that that won't be sufficient. Mak (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but it would be better than it is now, which is a good thing. Vanished user ^talk 19:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Louise Bertin

P.S. Have you heard Louise Bertin's opera? Is it good? (Vanished user's question above)

I've never heard Louise Bertin's "Esmeralda" (as you might have guessed from the title, it's based on Victor Hugo's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"; I think Hugo himself might even have written the libretto). I don't think it's ever been recorded. Since I like a lot of French opera of that period, it sounds intriguing.

This is what Berlioz writes in his memoirs (and you have to remember Berlioz was an extremely exacting critic who didn't flatter people he didn't think deserved it): "Mademoiselle Louise Bertin...has been remarkably successful both in literature and music. She is one of the ablest women of our time. Her musical talent, to my mind, is rather rational than emotional; but it is a real talent notwithstanding, and, in spite of a certain want of decision, and of the occasionally childish form of her melodies, her opera of 'Esmeralda', to Victor Hugo's words, is of great interest, and certainly contains very fine passages...Several pieces...were warmly applauded at the general rehearsal. Nevertheless this work, by a woman who never wrote one word of criticism on any human being, good, bad, or indifferent, and whose sole crime consisted of belonging to a family that owned a powerful journal...this work, I say, so far superior to many that succeed daily, or are at any rate accepted, broke down utterly. It was received at the Opéra with unexampled hisses, groans and cries. At the second attempt, indeed, they were obliged to drop the curtain in the middle of an act, and stop the performance." --Folantin 07:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Arr, pity there be no recording. I wonder if the score's readily available? Vanished user ^talk 12:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about the score, but check this out [1]. It's a lengthy review by a Donizetti fan of a performance of "Esmeralda" at Besancon in 2002. The opera was given in the piano reduction by Liszt (I think). The reviewer admits it was difficult to judge properly without hearing the full orchestration, but reckons it sounded most like Offenbach (in his "Tales of Hoffmann" style).He concludes the piece "rewards those that seek it out". (And it appears it is the only opera Victor Hugo ever wrote a libretto for).--Folantin 12:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Newest edits

I moved the references to the bottom of the article, which is the way most wiki articles are structured and helps the article by moving up the the description of how the list was compiled. I also made some copy edits to the Women's section and the description of the compilation methods that I think add to clarity and accuracy. -- Ssilvers 13:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

is it worth separating the list by century?

Would it be worth separating the list by century or similar chronological unit? The reason why I ask is because the current list is very long, and reads like a long list of names. It is a list, after all. I'm merely thinking in terms of readability, and I thought that some section headers would help in that aspect. Thanks. --Kyoko 15:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Moreschi 15:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

However, do we go by year of birth, year of death, or year of first opera? Vanished user ^talk 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just like at List of important operas. Moreschi 15:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The list is already organized by birthdate. Why not just add these headings:

• 1500 – 1699
• 1700 - 1799
• 1800 - 1899
• 1900 - Present

-- Ssilvers 16:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this. List of important operas is easy to sort by century, because every opera has a specific date. As Vanished user says, with opera composers do we go by year of birth, year of death, or year of first opera? Or century of the majority of their operas? On the other hand, since this is just a convenience for making the list more user-friendly, maybe we shouldn't agonise too much over the method we choose. Do it by birthdate if that's easiest.--Folantin 16:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Folantin - do it by birthdate, this isn't a big deal. We're hardly trying to slice up into Baroque, Classical, Rococo, Modern, etc. Moreschi 16:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be coming late to this (and for being out of Wiki-action during the great NPOV brouhaha and other carryings-on), but I think that if it's going to be done by birthdate, then the headings should be entitled "Composers born nnnn-nnnn". Even then, the arrangement seems rather preposterous, with (for example) Bellini appearing in a later section than Rossini. I tried rearranging the composers by date of death, and by midpoint of their lives (info available on request - I am emailable), and either produces a better result than the current one. I favour the midpoint option, but it'd be more difficult to explain to the readers. I can't help feeling that slicing up as mentioned by Moreschi above would actually produce the best result, if we could agree on broad terms. Then the composers could be arranged alphabetically within categories. --GuillaumeTell 18:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not have any alphabetical arrangement at all. If we have an alternative chronological version, maybe by the century in which the bulk of the composer's major operas were written. Someone will have to figure out Scarlatti and Puccini (and possibly others) for this though. On the other hand, this shouldn't be a big deal. The only real point in the section breaks is to make the article more user-friendly. Birthdates were chosen for their "objectivity" rather than informativeness. In other words, we don't want another POV war to break out! --Folantin 18:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the current arrangement works O.K. Anything to avoid further POV problems - this page has had more than its fair share of that over the past months. Moreschi 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Musgrave?

Thea Musgrave isn't on any of the lists? She's way better than either Ethel Smyth or Judith Weir. Dybryd 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth that surprised me too. Mak (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Let me check - Musgrave may not have been a name I'd identify as a woman, without the first name. Vanished user ^talk 00:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Not on any, unless she's on Folantin's last list... not there either. Did a quick scan of the ones listed at Opera corpus, and am sad to say that there don't appear to be any others. Sorry! Vanished user ^talk 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, she wasn't on any of the lists. That's the thing about this neutral list: there's something to disappoint everybody. Never mind, in ten years' time we'll do it all over again and see what happens. --Folantin 08:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Aye, No Sullivan, no women, yes Tippet... at least we can agree that we didn't obey our own biases. Vanished user ^talk 10:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

I like the work being done to add images. I was wondering whether it would make sense to add sound files where possible? Also, how do people feel about using all the images possible of the composers vs. cluttering up the page? There are rarely truly iconic images of composers, but we could easily pretty-up the page with tons of images of the older composers, and just make them a bit smaller. I don't tend to have a good eye for these things, just thought perhaps we should think about being representative vs. cluttered. Mak (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My plan was for one composer image per section - two at the most is probably enough. That's now done. How about one sound clip per section, if possible? The composer of the sound clip should, IMO, be different from the composer in the image, otherwise we might be viewed as over-promoting one composer. I'll have a hunt around and see what I can find. Cheers, Moreschi 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We've now got 3 sound clips, but I shouldn't think it'll be easy to find any more. We're probably going to have to upload some stuff under fair use, I'm afraid. Best, Moreschi 16:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a little Gershwin? For the not-so-modern composers, though: I am considered quite good at making midi files of reasonable quality. Though we'd have to change them to Oggs. Vanished user ^talk 17:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a bit difficult to adequately claim fair use for this particular page. In fact, I would not support fair use images or sound clips for this page. Mak (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Weel, Gershwin comes out of copyright (in Britain) in another month (or is it a little longer?) in Britain, at least. If there's a problem with fair use mmusic, though, I'll happily midify any out-of-copyright score you care to send. Vanished user ^talk 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it, the first few music bits are perfectly fine. The Wagner is *not*. Janacek, Berg or Debussy are probably the best choice for the 1850-1899 section, having major operas out of copyright both in America and for life + 70 countries. We MIGHT be able to get America-free midis for the 1900- and Women sections. Vanished user ^talk 18:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Major women opera composers

Opera, with its high cost of production and high status, has historically been very difficult for women to break into, and no female composer made the cutoff for inclusion on the main list. However, two women composers who were named by a some authorities as worthy of inclusion among the rest of the great opera composers are:

I don't like this. It's just a random statement, and implies POV selection. Vanished user ^talk 22:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I slashed the POV bits. We don't have to apologise for our sources' choices. Just making a note that only two women composers were on the lists consulted is enough. People can draw what conclusions they like from that.--Folantin 11:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But we weren't opposing our sources, more explaining why few women appear in opera at all. Anyway, the objection was to the part you *didn't* cut, which made that change a bit useless. Vanished user ^talk 23:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

References

Criteria

I added a composer who I knew would probably be removed right away. Sorry if this has all been hashed out already, but am I correct that it is not possible for any composers to get added to this list? The criteria seem mighty restrictive to me... I am totally aware that everyone would just add their favorite composer to the list if there weren't criteria, but limiting it to a set of static resources, only one of which was published in the last 10 years, might not be the answer. If the NY Times published an editorial tomorrow declaring Steven Paulus to be the most important living opera composer, wouldn't it be weird for him not to appear here? --Dmz5 08:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. It depends on the way the list is compliled. Please see the The opera corpus which is an inclusive list. That is the best place to start . . . - Kleinzach 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For example. I read the thread above that deals with this subject, more or less. There are other such lists (major X, most important Y) that have criteria such as "every entry must have at least one (or two!) footnotes supporting its inclusion here." Any footnote, presumably, will do, but also presumably those footnotes are examined pretty intensely. It occurs to me that that might be a process worth considering rather than saying "isn't it a shame we can't put Thea Musgrave on the list? I guess we'll have to wait another 10 years until a new Rough Guide comes out."--Dmz5 08:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is actually a bit more complex than that. There are about over 400 opera composers listed in The opera corpus. - Kleinzach 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry to drag this out) otherwise why not rename the list "Major opera composers as defined by a certain set of textbooks as of 2006"? Not to be snide about it, but that is very accurately what this list is.--Dmz5 08:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. School text books are not being used. Our main resource at the Opera Project is the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. - Kleinzach 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been so hashed out (read above and archives). As you say, the alternative is for individual Wikipedia editors to use their own personal standards of notability. This approach was brought in to stop a couple longish battles over inclusion/exclusion of particular composers. Dybryd 08:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Improving notes section

I'm a bit crap at the code thing, so couldn't find a way to do this myself:

With the notes now in a scrollable box, shouldn't they be in one column with normal sized text, rather than small? Lethe 13:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'm responsible for the box but I'm lousy at code too (I just copied it from another page). Ask Jay if he can help - he's our technical expert. --Folantin 13:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

I just wanted to say what a great list this is, and how much more useful it is than the vast majority of lists of artists and the like on wikipedia. Using a variety of reference sources together to create a consensus list of important people in a given field is a great idea, and one that ought to be applied more broadly to other comparable topics. Anyway, well done. john k (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Verdi

I just wanted to let you know that, in my opinion, Nabucco should be added to Verdi's masterpieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.25.5.144 (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

20th Century

I was thinking of suggesting inclusion of Harrison Birtwistle in this list, but then I found the 20th century section of this article already extremely biased towards English/American composers (8 out of 10 !). This might be a consequence of the sources the list was compiled from, but I find it very hard to believe that only Shostakovich and Henze made significant non-English contributions to the operatic repertoire in the last century.--Francesco Malipiero (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's actually by birthdate so there are a lot more famous 20th-century composers of opera who happened to be born in the 19th century there - see the section 1850-99 (Janaček, Puccini, Debussy etc.). That section is in fact quite heavily Germanic (Strauss, Pfitzner, Schoenberg, Berg, Schreker, Hindemith) and only contains one "Anglophone" composer (Gerswhin). As I've said before, this list is kind of objective because it's got something for everybody to dislike about it. I think it under-represents the Baroque, for instance. But that and the Anglo bias in the last section are a reflection of the sources. List of important operas is wider ranging and more satisfying, I think, though still not perfect.--Folantin (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

21st Century

The problem with this approach of only using a set of 10 books is that there is no way that major breakthrough composers can get on this list no matter how they are heralded. I am thinking of George Benjamin (composer), whose opera, Written on Skin, has been staged 8 times already in the 12 months since its premiere and has been claimed by some critics as the best opera written in the last 10 years . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.126.196 (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091005195649/http://education.yahoo.com:80/reference/encyclopedia/entry/opera to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/opera

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of major opera composers. 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/20060530111810/http://www.wwnorton.com/classical/composers/berg.htm to http://www.wwnorton.com/classical/composers/berg.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)