Talk:Bruce C. Harris

Rise and fall

This article needs to properly acknowledge the beginning, rise and eventual fall of Bruce Harris. His achievements are thrown into sharp relief by his personal weaknesses that eventually led to his departure from child protection. The issue was not his sexuality but that he had presented delibrately as a "family values" proponent and the inappropriate power relationship that he had with the young man who he paid for sex.

The issue was his disgusting and hypocritical behaviour, believing he coulkd criticize others with much higher moral values than himself. He is Scottish so I have changed the spelling to UK English. I have also tried removing some of the POV. His outrageous accusations against Central America and its people and culture, during his tenure at casa Alianza should indeed be expanded upon. This is the man who wanted to bankrupt the Guatemalan government, no guessing who would suffer were he to have achieved his lamentable goal. His fat wage packet (typical charity corruption that does so much harm to CA should also be mentioned. El Rojo 01:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You clearly dislike the man, and that's fine. However, you need to keep your personal opinions out of the article. You can report the facts, and the statements of others, but don't add interpretation of your own. That's what Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy means. Superm401 - Talk 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont know Mr Harris, all I did was to reflect currently held beliefs around him. You'll find its Central Americans who hated him for his provocative statements (lets bankrupt Guatemala, etc) and that was before he proved himself a hypocrite by paying for sex with one of his boys. Someone who callas for the bankrupting of a state as a serious propostion is probabl;y very disturbed, and in this case that appears to be the truth. El Rojo 00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Harris

I would like to request other experienced editors of biographical articles to weigh in on this dispute. Nightngle (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I find myself compelled to take serious issue with the damning portrayal of Bruce Harris, the former director of Casa Alianza. Insult is added to unjustifiable injury by omitting the very real and lasting contributions this much decorated advocate has made to the cause of human rights in Central America.

I am a widely published veteran journalist and author. Since 1991, I have been on assignment in Central America where I cover politics, the military, human rights and various socio-economic issues. I first met Bruce Harris in Guatemala City in 1991. I have been closely monitoring his work on behalf of homeless minors and reporting on his successes, trials and tribulations ever since. I know him to be a fiercely dedicated, courageous, tireless advocate of the voiceless, whether they are street children, alleged "delinquents" or defenseless infants consigned to the auction block of illegal adoption schemes.

In answer to those who would whitewash Central America, I would point out that my own experience -- now in its 16th year -- bears witness to the colossal corruption, inept and corrosive governance, epidemic violence and blatant disregard for justice, particularly in Guatemala and Honduras.

I was with Harris when a teen was assassinated by agents of the state in Tegucigalpa for stealing a piece of cake. I was with him when he lobbied all night for the release of several minors who had been arrested without cause and illegally incarcerated with adult felons in some fetid dungeon without benefit of a hearing. One of the kids had been tortured with a cattle prod. Another had been raped by a policeman. I was with Harris when he forced the release of young kids -- 12-, 13-year-olds who were pining away at a prison in La Ceiba. And I chronicled the travesty of justice to which he was subjected in answer to his accusation -- with verifiable evidence -- that the wife of the former President of Guatemala's Supreme Court was engaged in fraudulent adoptions schemes.

Journalists and whistle-blowers share common traits: they are perceived as arrogant, insensitive and vexing. Their revelations are seldom appreciated, sometimes embarrassing, occasionally incriminating, always untimely and damn inconvenient. Both seek the truth, one in the interest of historicity, the other in the service of justice. Each is a vital cog in the vast and complex machine that energizes a democracy. They become indispensable in marginally democratic nations where the muzzling of the press reveals the repressive nature of government. Whereas the press is the unelected watchdog over those elected -- or self-empowered -- to run a country, human rights monitors and advocates are the gatekeepers of a higher moral ground upon which rests the very foundations of a free society.

Being the watchdog and message-bearer to the multitude is a tall order, especially for an institution as fragile as the press. The task takes on Herculean proportions when the truth is uttered, not by a credentialed journalist, but by an eminent and respected human rights activist. What is endured as “inauspicious rumor” by the first is branded as “seditious effrontery” when bared by the other.

Central American nations' insistence that the truth "is not a legitimate defense" and that freedom of expression excludes the right to speak up against crime and injustice bodes ill for a region whose somber and violent past continues to be the subject of scrutiny. Underlying the Harris case, and regardless of the outcome, is the nagging reminder that in Central America, despite claims to the contrary, transparent politics, justice and a respect for fundamental rights is a nebulous objective, not a priority.

One last thought. I have reason to believe that the brief, singular and uncharacteristic aberrant episode for which Harris continues to be crucified in blogs and other self-serving venues, was a clear case of entrapment. Harris' engaged and combative style, his unbending belief in the rule of law, while paving the way for much needed reforms and resulting in the indictment of scores of child abusers, rapists and murderers, also earned him enemies, some in the countries in which he worked, others within his own organization. The latter, I am convinced, engineered his demise because his uncompromising style brought undue negative attention upon Casa Alianza by the host countries. In parting, I can say without fear of contradiction that since Harris' unceremonious dismissal, Casa Alianza has lapsed into inertia and obscurity. As for Harris, he has been indelibly and painfully marked. I hope content providers bent on blind revenge have the gallantry and moral honesty to redress the wrong their write-ups have caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sighet (talk • contribs) 08:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all just your opinion and I question its relevance here. he got paid a vast fortune to attack already weakened Central American institutions while having sex for money with the very people he claimed to help who wont have wanted sex with him but will ahgve wanted some of the endleess dollars he earned each week. Thank God Casa Alianza has gone back to its role of rehabilitating children rather than being an organization for the political agitation of Bruce Harris. As an encyclopedia we are duty bound to present both viewpoints, ie the CA viewpoint of him as a scoundrel as well as the view that he was a fallen Angel who somehow did some good. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this article as being neutral at all, nor presenting both sides of anything. The first statement is not that the charges against Bruce were "alleged", but rather that he was "disgraced". Hardly neutral. While I do feel that this article should be marked for not showing a NPOV, I won't be working on the article since I knew Bruce and have a positive bias in his favor. I find the statements from those who would forbid anything positive to be written about Bruce to be hyperbolic and highly opinionated, having convicted him when a court did not. Nightngle (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think if you want to add material that shows him in a positive light you should do so. Before 2004 he clearly had his supporters & I am sure positive stuff can be sourced from then in order to satisfy neutrality concerns, including sourcing some of the unsourced material I removed. I think disgraced is appropriate given what happened in 2004 and how this contradicted what he had claimed to stand for till that point. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, this is troubling. A 19-year-old person is not a child, is not even a minor. So Harris had sex with another man, so what? Lots of people do that. So he paid for it, so what? Lots of people do that. While obviously the incident needs to be addressed in the article body, I don't see at all the need for the term "disgraced" in the article lede. Also what is the deal with "Harris was paid $129,000 a year for his work for Casa Alianza" in the article lede. Salaries are not usually mentioned in biographies, is there some significance to this amount that I don't understand? Is it unusually high or unusually low or something for someone in his post? I know exactly zero about this person, but this article is mess. There is no context and doesn't give me much idea of what the man actually did. We need to have a main body that describes his work in a neutral manner before we get into sections on "Disputes with Central American governments" and "Sex scandal accusations". Herostratus (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Herostratus. This article has a very nasty whiff of a hatchet job about it (by the way, we don't even have a reliable source for the $129,000 salary figure), and "disgraced" certainly doesn't belong in the lead (not on the evidence we have, anyway). This article needs someone willing to spend the time to find, and read, reliable sources on Bruce Harris, and re-write the whole thing in a neutral fashion. --NSH001 (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The salary was extremely, unbelievably high for a country like Honduras where the minimum wage was $150 a month at the time, and given he was a "charity" worker. Harris was a very controversial figure with his detractors and his supporters. He then sullied his reputation meaning that there is very little positive available currently said about him. If he wasn't disgraced I cant think of anyone who was, he was about as disgraced a public figure as has ever existed. It seems that neither of you are very well informed about Central America (do correct me if I am wrong) but this article certainly reflects how he has been seen here since his fall from grace. But I look forward to you adding more positive material about him, well sourced of course. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, his salary would be compared, not to the average salary of a Honduran, but to a typical salary of a director of an aid agency in a country. Most such people have advanced degrees, special skills, or special experience, so they get paid professional-level salaries. What is the salary of (say) the director of Doctors w/o Borders in Haiti, or the director Oxfam in Bangladesh, etc. etc. I have no ides, but these are the types of salaries to which his would be rightfully compared, I guess. As to the other, from what I can see from the article and other sources (again, never having heard of this person before) it looks like he was was unpopular mainly with corrupt Central American government officials (of which there are surely many) rather than with regular people. IIRC correctly, for instance, the governments of both Guatamala and Honduras have been noted, at least at times in recent times, for being corrupt, evil, and terroristic quasi-Fascist military oligarchies. A person who was hated by these governments would be, in the minds of most reasonable people, more probably heroic rather than controversial. He's dead, so you can speak freely: what am I missing? Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you should be careful before calling Central American officials corrupt, remember BLP, and assuming these views werent held by regular central American people is quite possibly plain wrong, and I would argue so, so I think your argument, ie that these democratic countries are evil, is so poor that it doesn't rate inclusion or even a response, and certainyl doesnt help justify a POV tage. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Efforts to make this article NPOV have been removed?

You need to bring your claims about neutrality efforts being removed if you want to see your tag remain. I have to say I find a persistence in tagging the article as POV while refusing to edit it is not acceptable, whatever you may claim about your refusal to edit while tagging is irrelevant. Says who?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The non-Neutral POV tag will remain until the article is no longer merely a slander against Bruce Harris. Trust me, I'm just as persistent as you, and the fact that I'm declining to do the edit is irrelevant to the fact that the article violates this Wikipedia standard. Nightngle (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Slander does not apply to dead people; what you mean to say is you want the pov tag to remain until... as you are not in a position to dictate. The speedy delete tag was entirely inappropriate, I have to say. We are an international encyclopedia and so even apart from the OBE Harris has clearly easily surpassed the notability threshold for non-living (and indeed living) people. He is an important and historical figure in recent Central America history and so we absolutely should have an article about him. I await some additions from you to address the POV issues. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are not willing to engage in discussion we can make no progress and so I am removing the tag. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not time-frame required to respond to your opinions. This is not a neutral Point of View article, as evidenced by the very first line. I would be interested to know what your personal vendetta is against Bruce Harris, but you seem to be determined that this article remain as negative as possible, and that is what I find inappropriate. You can make no logical explanation as to why this article, one that practically every line starts with a negative, is balanced. Until you can do that, I will continue to add the NPOV tag. I will again ask other editors to weigh in, but we've heard from a number of folks who agree this is a NPOV issue. Nightngle (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The content of the article must accurately reflect what reliable sources say about the subject of the article. As such, even the sources cited for the worst of the allegations have been cherry picked for negative content. Clearly inappropriate. Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources given in the article had both positive and negative statements in them, but only negative ones were used - clearly it had POV issues. I think it's in a better state now, but for sure there is a lot more that could be written to expand this into a nice article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The POV issues have clearly not been resolved and cherry picking by those who support Harris is a problem. This ref is clearly not in any way neutral, this kind of allegations need balancing with material that doesnt think this individual was ahero or a protector of children. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources that came up in my search of Google news support your claims of POV bias in the article at all. (speaktruth.org is something that we need to deal with on its own) We report what the reliable sources report in proportion to the weight they provide. WP:UNDUE. Active Banana ( bananaphone 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Google news. You do realize googling is original research? As if we define how the world is through google.com. The only think that should guide us is neutrality which means presenting both sides in a case like this where there are 2 sides. While a lot of Westerners think he was great a lot of Central Americans think he was not good and both views must be presented in a balanced way. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to read up on WP:OR. Using google news to find sources is perfectly acceptable. Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't, of course using google to find sources is fine. What isn't acceptable is drawing conclusions based on google searches and then presenting these conclusions as fact, such as concluding from a google search that this article isn't biased, that is the OR, and that is what you were doing. If you did a google search limiting your results to Spanish you might, for instance, draw a different conclusion. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE it is clearly necessary for editors to make judgments based on what the sources say so that the article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". When none of the sources in the first 5 pages of a google news search on the topic cover a point, that is fairly obvious that the point is a minor fact. If you have reliable sources that show otherwise, bring em on. Active Banana ( bananaphone 17:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You have no right to draw such conclusions because there may well be good sources not nin the 1st 5 pages of a simple google search. More complex google searches will often draw other conclusions. If you only search for articles in English you are likely to get a one-sided viewpoint in this particular case (of an Englishmen working in a Spanish speaking part of the world) and to assume that a simple google search will magically produce all likely results is indeed OR as well as having being unrealistically optimistic about google's capability as a search engine. We simply cannoit draw conclusions based on google searches due to it being OR. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT Active Banana ( bananaphone 17:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Prove what exactly?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That there are other reliable sources that cover other aspects of Bruce Harris that need to be included to provide a fuller picture of the subject of the article. Active Banana ( bananaphone 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already restored 2 sentences you removed (presumably as unsourced) with new refs, that's 3 new refs. We will get the balanced article I have been seeking all along in the end, giving due weight to Central American sources. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

One should be careful in using sources. This (be careful if you go there, google's labeled it a malware attack site) is an editoral, and as an opinion piece, we must exercise caution using it. But that source praises Harris, and the way it's used now in the article violates WP:UNDUE. First, we should determine if we can use this as a source, and if we can, really use it fairly. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont know what google are playing at because it has only said this very recently and I have been using this site safely for years, but google don't dictate what is safe or appropriate for wikipedia anyway. We dont use refs to either attempt to praise or denigrate individuals so I see no undue having been violated here (and disagree with your statement that the HTW article "praises Harris" or that the statement ref denigrates him; failing to provide criticisms of Harris would certainly be undue weight. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. The google warning doesn't have anything to do with wikipedia--my firefox is configured to check for malware via Google. Google has a program that checks web sites for malware, and that web site has had malware on it recently. So if you use windows, esp if you use IE, you should make sure you have all of your A/V and antimalware software up to date before checking out the site.

As for the site, the article is clearly an editorial. Generally speaking, we avoid editorials. But if we are to use it, and I'm not saying at this point we should, we have to present the material therein in a balanced manner. Currently the article uses this ref for the line "In 2000, Costa Rican president Miguel Angel Rodríguez accused him of plotting to damage that nation's reputation regarding its alleged child sex trade," and I'm sure that's true enough. But the next paragraphs suggest that this charge was due to Harris making waves. The article also contains this: "I have reason to believe that the brief, singular and uncharacteristic aberrant episode of which Harris was accused was a clear case of entrapment. Harris's engaged and combative style, his unbending belief in the rule of law, while paving the way for much needed reforms and resulting in the indictment of scores of child abusers, rapists and murderers, also earned him enemies, some in the countries in which he worked, others within his own organization. The latter, I am convinced, engineered his demise because his uncompromising style brought undue negative attention upon Casa Alianza by the host countries." It also says "Bruce Harris left Casa Alianza after unsubstantiated allegations of sexual indiscretions. The Honduran special prosecutor's office for crimes against children investigated the claim and, lacking sustainable evidence, dropped the charges and closed the case." So the bulk of the article casts doubt that Harris was actually guilty, and was perhaps railroaded by powerful officials. Is that true? I don't know, and this is an editorial. So as I said, the first question is, should we use an editorial in this article as a reference. But if we do, we must include the positive comments as well as the negative. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Harris admitted his guilt. But its certain that he had not committed a crime as homosexual acts between adults (over 18) is not a criminal offence in Honduras. What he did was bring enormous shame on himself and Casa Alianza but that was not against the law. What he was guilty of was hypocrisy, not any criminal offences but even though he hadnt broken the law he did make his position untenable given this sex act negated everything he claimed he stood for and thus its hardly surprising that he has been so heavily criticised. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs15:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

2 malware links

Just a heads-up that two of the cited links are reported as malware by Google, Avast! and Avira antivirus. These are no joke, and really are attempts to attack browsers and infect machines. IMHO Wikipedia editors should act (within reason) to answer obvious threats. In some cases, it's incredibly easy: the 1997 cite is available at archive.org (safe copy). The 2010 obit is NOT safe, and no safe archive is available, so I delinked it. Another source would be good to find, to support any claims left unsupported. I left links in place to the Google reports about the sites. --Lexein (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So what. If they are malware according to wikipedia that would be a different matter but we do not allow google or other 3rd parties to define what we do or do not use on wikipedia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We have no reason to link to sites that are going to infect our readers computers. Active Banana ( bananaphone 15:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You have no evidence to back up your claim. If you want to get the link banned there is proper procedure. We do not allow google to dictate what is malware on this site (if you think differentlty dont forget to link to the relevant policy or guideline). Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Content must be verifiable as having been published in a reliable source, but there is NO requirement that we link to a source. And if linking to a source is bad for our readers, we shouldnt. Active Banana ( bananaphone 15:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur in general. It is sufficient to cite the source without using a url. I would like to leave the url in the citation but commented out, so we have a record of same, but don't lead users to the slaughterhouse. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconmplete

The article seems to hold little information about his life and achievements, but a large section about the scandal- not that it could be pared down much. It's undue weight, but it looks like what ought to be done is to expand the other sections. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we in that process now, fwiw. Nuujinn (talk)

What achievements? His only achievement was becoming director of Casa Alianza and gaining an OBE and these have always been mentioned. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, cause they give OBE just for nuthin. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation format

This is a vote, directly calling on the most interested editors' talk pages, based on article edit history. I prefer cites in

vertical

format

to ease editing and addition of prose and cites, since this seems to be a relatively active article. There was no opposition in Talk or in edit comments. Which way do people want citations, vertical or compacted ? Vote & concisely discuss below. Tallied on September 8, 2010. I will abide by the consensus. --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Vertical - Does visually separate prose from citations. --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• weak Vertical To go with the majority so far, I really don't care :P BE——Critical_{__Talk} 14:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• weak Vertical is my personal preference, since it does allow one to more easily work on the prose. However, my feelings on this issues aren't very strong. Nuujinn (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• weak Vertical as per Nuujinn. I am greatful for anyone who does the full citation in any method, I usually just slop the info in from whatever comes easiest from a cut and paste. So my thanks to the diligent Wikignomes!Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tweaks

I have tweaked the article which is, now I have tweaked it, looking like a neutral article; well done those who actually edited rather than sniping from the sidelines. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you pushed it a bit too far in the direction of making it negative again. Although most of the edits seem fine, you're removed some source material that is positive. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed no. I moved some sourced material from the opening cos I dont think we should have material of the "this website states..." in the opening but the material is very much still in the article, I just checked the diff. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're absolutely correct, I misread the diffs. Please accept my apologies! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Accurately citing sources

The prior revision of the lead paragraph asserted that Harris made a specific admission; that assertion is not supported by the two cited sources. The sources both assert accusations, but no direct admission by Harris, or conviction. The organization stating he made an admission is NOT the same as Harris making an admission - it's hearsay. Further, the organization states he admitted only "acting improperly"; no mention of anything about sex or money. We can quite legitimately state that the accusation was made, and that he resigned. The letter of the sources rule here. --Lexein (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I have rewritten the passage to use phrases lifted directly from the sources, OK? BTW I have no idea who Harris is and it doesn't sound like his actions were all that terrible, granted that it would require firing and investigation (which found nothing, I gather). We are all human especially when it comes to sex and the whole thing is too bad. I'm not sure that half the lead needs to consist of this incident, although it should be mentioned. That being said, it's not credible to maintain that the impropriety for which he was fired was not the incident with the 19-year-old man, nor that he didn't actually do it. "We are all human and I regret my actions" is effectively an admission (not even considering that Casa Aliente said he admitted it to them, and there's no reason for them lie about that and plenty reason (libel etc.) not to.) Herostratus (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that the entire incident is detailed representatively, and fairly (IMO) later on, the lead should be left at the bare minimum to summarize the whole article, per WP:MOSLEAD. So, left office (doesn't have to say fired or resigned) after allegations(doesn't have to go into admissions, who said what, investigation or dropped). In my opinion. --Lexein (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruce C. Harris. 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/20090620082953/http://archivo.elnuevodiario.com.ni/2004/septiembre/24-septiembre-2004/nacional/nacional-20040924-03.html to http://archivo.elnuevodiario.com.ni/2004/septiembre/24-septiembre-2004/nacional/nacional-20040924-03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100630022552/http://academic.udayton.edu/HumanRights/romero_award.htm to http://academic.udayton.edu/HumanRights/romero_award.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) 08:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)