Talk:Israel-related animal conspiracy theories/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Shark rewrite

I have rewritten the shark material to reflect what actually happen and remove puffery restored recently with the sole purpose of making Egyptians in general look as stupid and "shiftily conspiratorial" as possible. The current section is a neutral summary of events, using non-partisan sources.Dan Murphy (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Except that it's anything besides a neutral rewrite. Firstly, it removes a whole ton of information. Secondly, WP:IDONTLIKEIT or trying to read the minds of others ("sole purpose of making Egyptians in general look as stupid") isn't a valid reason for this. Thirdly, it's anything but neutral, and contains a load of weasel wording ("squashed as ridiculous") and WP:OR ("scattered media reports") to minimize the conspiracy.

You should've at least discussed this at first, propose this version and discuss it... --Jethro B 21:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an editorial. Also, it didn't get prior consensus per the restrictions above. I'm going to restore the prior version. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

And so the edit warring goes on... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So now two full-time Wikipedia propagandists (dedicated to making Arabs and Muslims look as bad as possible) have edit warred an ignorant diver that no one ever heard off as the first opinion anyone reads about, exaggerated a conspiracy that very, very few people ever heard off let alone believed (I have many, many Egyptian friends and had an apartment in Cairo for years) and downplay official reaction that was quite reasonable. The flurry of idiotic news stories lasted 2-3 days. In Wikipedia, they live on forever. Why? To serve a political agenda. Of course!Dan Murphy (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Also, unfortunately, your personal statements regarding contacts in Egypt can not be taken as RS here. Also, consider examining the diffs again. There is no edit-warring here, there was a revert by 1 editor, from a version that was heavily biased and violated ARBPIA restrictions. I'm quite shocked that I'm being implicated as edit-warring here, where all I've done is discussed this on the talk page! That's besides the tragic insults hurled at me, which really don't contribute to a good, pleasant atmosphere and collaborative editing, and violate the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. --Jethro B 22:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear. "No more Mr. Nice Guy," your fellow ideological partisan who you often coordinate edits and reverts with, reverted me here [1]. I restored it and he reverted me again here [2]. So far you're just backing your ideological comrade on this talk page. But you stand at the ready with support. Y'all are masters at gaming the whole website to play a propaganda game. Good faith? I'm a grown man and I've observed your behavior long enough. Assumptions of good faith get replaced by reasoned and informed opinion.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait... So you already made this edit before, got reverted, and then thought it'd be OK to slide it in? And then, when you got reverted, it's all part of a grand conspiracy on Wikipedia? To top it off, editors aren't even allowed to say their opinions anymore, contrary to WP:CENSOR? This is interesting... Again, please stop alleging that this is part of some conspiracy or that there's a coordination of edits here - there isn't any proof of such, and you really have no basis for this defamatory, untrue claim through a single revert by 1 editor when you inserted material that was previously objected to and reverted... --Jethro B 22:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that a large part of your mission on Wikipedia is to spread hate. I'm saying the same thing about No More Mr. Nice Guy. And yes, I'm saying my edit was far more neutral, fair, and reflected by reality. I'm also saying that there is a large amount of coordinated reverting and associated shenanigans at arbitration enforcement and on talk pages. So it goes, so it goes.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you think this article is an op-ed page. That is not the case. Perhaps if you stuck with the sources rather than editorialize all over the place, it wouldn't be necessary to revert you. Considering the current text is supported by such sources as the BBC, Al Ahram, and Reuters, among others, your assertion that "very, very few people ever heard off" it seems like a lot of wishful thinking. Not that stuff you pluck out of thin air is really relevant here, but at least try to stick to something plausible.

As for your accusation I'm here to "spread hate", you might want to retract that before I'll have to do something about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please maintain primary sources, including highly partisan primary sources, where they are relevant. I am referring to [3]. To be clear, I am not saying that the Egyptian diving instructor is right. To the contrary, I think an Egyptian diving instructor might know that Elphinstone Reef, in Egypt, well within the Strait of Mandeb, is advertised as a good place for people to dive with Oceanic Whitetip Sharks, [4] quite a fearsome species. But people have to have access to the sources directly to take in the nature of the broadcast, the little digs like the diving instructor mock-defending himself for working with an Israeli and so forth, as well as to see for themselves the absurdity of the claim. If you're going to write an article about conspiracy theories you have to talk about some peculiar ideas and cite some peculiar sources.

• A better option to neutralize a nutty theory here is to include one of our three excellent photos from the Oceanic Whitetip Shark article, all three of which were taken in different years, all well before 2010, in Egypt. With the right legend (based strictly on the original file description) you would provide an amusing juxtaposition for our readers. Wnt (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Usefulness aside, do you think MEMRI actually obtained redistribution rights for all those clips they post on YouTube? Contributory copyright infringement concerns surface in this case; see WP:ELNEVER. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Tell me why I should second-guess this particular source's copyright releases, apart from its viewpoint? It looks like a professional organization from the article. It certainly might have obtained a release for the clip. It may be even be that, to translate and comment on the brief excerpt shown, it is exercising Fair Use appropriately within the law. It is obviously not a pirate site, not some anonymous proxy posting stuff, not some teenager who doesn't know what he's doing. You might as well say that I can't link to a Google Maps view because they might have infringed the copyright on somebody's satellite photo. Either we reject every reference of every kind because it might be pirated, we accept every reference we can reasonably take on good faith as being legitimately licensed, or we reject only the ones we happen to disagree with for some ideological reason unrelated to copyright. I prefer #2. Wnt (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If Tom Friedman of The New York Times says that MEMRI is good and reputable enough for him, it's good enough for me. --Jethro B 00:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

another one

In Sudan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs)

whats the wacky rule again before it can be included? a 64% consensus over 4 days or 71%$ consensus over 6 days? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

48 hours, unless someone has many many Sudanese friends and had an apartment in Khartoum. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Snakes, pigs and rats, and another vulture

1. I can identify no specific source for the 2 paras below other than the Maan Palestinian-Arab news agency quoted in the first. The date of these allegations was around 2009-10. All species concerned are of course animals of low status and/or unclean to both Jews (making them a double insult) and Arabs. Samaria is part of what it usually called the West Bank.

A rumour among Arabs in Samaria: Israelis are training snakes to attack innocent farmers, according to the Bethlehem-based Maan news, associated with the PA. A snake bit a woman outside a village adjacent to the Jewish city of Ariel. Local Arabs said that after the attack, the snake “escaped” toward Ariel. The snake's movement was taken as a sign that it had been released from Ariel by Israelis intent on harming Arabs.

PA villagers in the same area were the first to accuse Israelis of using trained pigs to attack Arab farmers. Several such accusations have been published by PA media. In addition, PA media has accused Israel of unleashing “anti-Arab super rats” in Jerusalem.

2. An almost identical vulture story, this time set in Sudan, appeared in the New Zealand Herald, 13 December 2012. The item was not attributed, but was almost certainly from AP, which is almost the only agency the title uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.80.175 (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Dolphin

The paragraph about the dolphin that I contributed was removed unilaterally by Markowitz and I have reverted it. His reason for the removal was that dolphins have been trained on occasion for military roles. That is indeed true, but no evidence has ever been offered that Israel employs dolphins for military or espionage purposes. I have expanded the paragraph to include additional information published over the past several days, including the assertion by the highly-respected Foreign Policy magazine, that the dolphin story is yet another example of an animal conspiracy theory.Zozoulia (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Other mammals

I propose moving the dolphin paragraph to a new sub-section to be called "Mammals," which would also include accusations of wild pigs being used to destroy Palestinian crops and rats being introduced into the Jerusalem sewer system to chase Arab residents out of the city:

In several speeches, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has accused Israel of releasing wild boars to destroy agricultural fields in the West Bank in order to cause damage to produce and intimidate farmers. "Every night, they [Israelis] release wild pigs against us," Abbas was quoted as saying. An Israeli government official responded, "It's a pity the Palestinian Authority president chooses to propagate such rubbish, and it raises questions about his real position on Israel."

Palestinian spokesmen have also accused Israel of releasing rats into the Jerusalem sewer system as a weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the Old City. Israel's goal was to "increase the suffering of the [Arabs] in Jerusalem by turning their lives into a real tragedy and forcing them to evict their homes and leave the city," Hasan Khater, secretary-general of the Islamic-Christian Front in Jerusalem, was quoted as saying. Jerusalem Municipality spokesman Gidi Schmerling, however, replied that the report was "pure fiction" and had no connection to reality.

Comments? Zozoulia (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Heavy insinuations, pro-Israeli position throughout

In the "commentary" section, not a single Palestinian or Iranian voice is provided, despite Palestinians and Iranians being the primary witnesses of such events. The whole article weighs heavily in a bias in favour of Israel (for crying out loud, the article even has some Israeli bird specialist working for the government who no one ever heard of dismissing the claims--of course Israel will dismiss the claims!), and I agree with the above assessment that the article was written in such a way so as to ridicule the opposing argument, while heavily insinuating that these "conspiracy theories" have no merit.

One way of making it more balanced is to have an "Israel response" place to put all of the pro-Israeli spin that inundates this article, and another for the accusers.

Otherwise, this entire article seems like it could have been written by IDF (Not saying it was, but one wouldn't be able to tell the difference). Solntsa90 (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Severe revisions without justification

In response to the above, while Solntsa90 may have never heard of the Israeli authority on birds quoted in the section he unilaterally removed, the man himself is widely known among avian ecologists and is the author of several books on the subject(probably a few more books than Solntsa90 has written). If his claims have not been dismissed by reputable Palestinians, Lebanese and Iranians, then he is invited to find one. The absence of such quotes does not prove a pro-Israeli bias, only that either there are no Palestinian, Lebanese or Iranian avian experts or that such experts who do exist will not deny that these reports of birds being used as Israeli spies are ludicrous. And no, I'm not an IDF representative not have I served in the IDF. That accusation, however, does shed some light on the long list of unilateral reverts made by Solntsa90 to articles involving Israel and Jews in general. Zozoulia (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Why should I respond to some ad-hominem/personal attack-filled rant against my character? Solntsa90 (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ridicule article

Seriously? This article is meant to mock the idea of such methods of spying, which is entirely unencylopedic. Never have I seen a documentary, report or other prominent outlet report on "Israel-related animal conspiracy theories". It appears to entirely be original research and synthesis of material composed by those who wish to make fun of reports of Israeli spying accusations. Why the hell does this exist? Should we have an article on AI militarization or data mining "conspiracy theories" next? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with this. I'm going to recommend this article for deletion. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This difference, Bataaf van Oranje, is that conspiracy theories such as these are propagated not just by the uninformed but by government officials as well and thus affect public policy. Zozoulia (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I see that now. But it's just so weirdly specific. It's like the major contributors want this out in the open to set things straight or something. Not to mention "conspiracy theories" would be a weighted term if highly ranked political figures are involved. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to Vanamonde93

Thank you for offering to adjudicate this dispute.

Solntsa90 decided to unilaterally delete several sections of the article in question without any proper discussion on the article's talk page. That itself is a violation of Wikipedia policy. This is apparently not the first time that he has unilaterally made deletions from an existing Wikipedia article that relates to Israel and/or Jews. I therefore request that his deletes from this current article be reverted until a proper Wikipedia review process takes place.

In his initial response to me he made several claims that belie a NPOV. The following are, inter alia, some of his reasons for unilateral deletion:

1. "In the "commentary" section, not a single Palestinian or Iranian voice is provided, despite Palestinians and Iranians being the primary witnesses of such events." This is simply untrue, so much so that one ahs to question whether Solntsa90 bothered to read the article in its entirety. The article quotes five Egyptians, one Saudi, one Lebanese, the president of the Palestinian Authority, two Palestinian news agencies and an Iranian one as well. The article also quotes Irish, British, American, and Canadian journalists. I have mentioned to Solntsa90 that if he can find any Palestinian or Iranian authorities who should be quoted he is welcome to add references to any relevant comments that they have made.

2. "The whole article weighs heavily in a bias in favour of Israel (for crying out loud, the article even has some Israeli bird specialist working for the government who no one ever heard of dismissing the claims--of course Israel will dismiss the claims!)" The Israeli "bird specialist" (the proper term is "avian ecologist") is quoted in 947 news accounts that I personally have found online in languages using the Latin alphabet (i.e., not Hebrew), including, for example, in Italian, Romanian and Indonesian. He is a published author as well. Yes, he is an Israeli, but that does not impeach his authority on the subject at hand, unless one assumes all Israelis should automatically be disqualified from being quoted in Wikipedia. It should also be noted that he is quoted as the expert that he is, and not as a spokesman for Israel, which Solntsa90 assumes he is without offering any evidence.

3. "The article was written in such a way so as to ridicule the opposing argument, while heavily insinuating that these 'conspiracy theories' have no merit." I challenge anyone to find any term in the text that could be described as "ridicule," but yes, conspiracy theories such as these are absurd, even if they are widely believed in the Middle East. Indeed, the article quotes Saudi prince Bandar as dismissing the claims, and a Lebanese journalist who tries to explain why conspiracy theories thrive in the the Arab world and help define its political culture. Which, by the way, is the reason why this article is important to retain in Wikipedia.

4. "Otherwise, this entire article seems like it could have been written by IDF (Not saying it was, but one wouldn't be able to tell the difference)." Well, first of all, I am not employed by the IDF and never have been. Neither I nor my wife nor my children have served in the IDF. And anyone who is truly familiar with the IDF can readily tell certainly tell the difference between a legitimate military document and this article. But what on earth does the IDF have to do with this anyway? This assumption, like many others, is most revealing.

5. Solntsa90 unilaterally deleted from the text a reference that one of these conspiracy theories was repeated on a neo-Nazi web site. Removing that indicates a desire to whitewash the severity of the conspiracy theory itself. Its inclusion in the text is vital because it indicates a possible source for these conspiracy theories, as well as the existence of a ready audience for them.

I could go on, but these are the main points I wish to raise. Zozoulia (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"Palestinians" don't exist. 121.219.225.3 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Full protection

A request for full protection was made at requests for protection, which i declined for now as discussion seems to take place. All participants should refrain from (hothearteadly) revert back and forth. Please discuss and find hopefully find consensus. I have watchlisted and will fully protect it this gets out of hand. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Thank you Zozoulia (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ad-hominem/personalattacks

Let us wait for a senior editor to review our respective comments and our respective talk pages and judge for himself who's engaged in an "ad-hominem/personal attack-filled rant" against whose character. Zozoulia (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

3O Request

• A third opinion has been requested on this page, but right now the page history is a mess of reverts, without any real discussion here. What precisely is the dispute? Which of the many reverts do you want a third opinion on (or is it all of them?) Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Zozoulia, thanks for your response below. First, a clarification; I am not here to adjudicate, but to offer a third opinion, which is non-binding. My word carries the same weight as that of another user. I would be willing to offer further comments if Solntsa90 has anything substantive to add to the summary of the dispute; however, in light of what has been said below, and looking at this diff, here are some thoughts. The main applicable policy here is WP:DUE. In that edit, Solntsa90 removes five separate bits of content. The first removal, "These conspiracies..." etc is justified; it is a statement that carries a certain POV connotation, and requires a source to remain in the article. The second removal is also justifiable for the same reason; unless a reliable secondary source mentions that particular fact, it is irrelevant. The third removal is not justified; this is a statement reported by a reliable secondary source, and as such, should be included. The removal of the neo-Nazi website is quite necessary; it is not a reliable source, and including constitutes undue weight. If, however, a secondary source is found mentioning the fact that this conspiracy is referenced by neo-nazis, then that could be included. Finally, the image of the Mossad seal does not seem very relevant, but is quite a trivial issue. TL;DR: anything added here of a POV nature needs to be supported by a reliable, secondary source, else should be removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93 Adjudication or not, I welcome your input however it may be defined, and, because I respect Wikipedia procedures, I am willing to accept your third opinion as binding in order to put this matter to rest. I trust that Solntsa90 will now revert his third removal and await his confirmation here that he has done so. If it remains un-reverted, I will revert it myself and expect him not to delete it again.

Regarding deletion of the quote about bird tracking devices: I propose quoting instead the article quoted in the Wikipedia article entitled [Bird ringing#Leg gague], which is as follows: The band size is determined by using the leg gauge. A leg gauge is placed around the bird’s leg which determines the circumference of the leg. After identifying the size of a band it is then placed on around the leg with the help from the banding pliers. In Australia, band size range from 1 to 15, plus special sizes for birds whose leg shapes require special bands, such as parrots and pelicans.

Regarding deletion of the statement "These conspiracies are often reported as evidence of a Zionist or Israeli plot" (which Solntsa90 incorrectly calls a "boilerplate"): There are a plethora of quotes from respectable sources (who aren't Israelis, so don't worry Solntsa90) that can be offered to justify retention of this statement. For example, from Foreign Policy magazine: [5].

Regarding the neo-Nazi website Stormfront (website): it, of course, is NOT referenced as a "reliable source." It is cited to identify the type of audience that believes in and propagates Israel-related animal conspiracy theories. I would also note that a link to the Stormfront website appears in its own Wikipedia article. Nonetheless, if it is required to provided another link to another neo-Nazi website in order to retain the reference, the Internet (regrettably) is full of them. Here's another: [6]. Is that sufficient to retain the original reference?

I was not the editor who added the Mossad seal and personally think it's irrelevant. I have no objection to its removal from the article. 07:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 07:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I restored some of the information that was removed on spurious grounds. I think the Stormfront info would require a third party to mention that these things were mentioned there before we could include it here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is any source here that address the topic of the article rather than particular events. I'm too lazy to look at all of them. If there is no such source, then I don't know why this is not a massive example of SYNTH. Zero^talk 07:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You can start with the article Conspiracy theories in the Arab world, which contains 34 footnotes (and no, I didn't write or edit it). The subject is dealt with in a New Statesman article at [7], in Al Arabiya at [8] and in The Huffington Post at [9]. This is only a small sample. 09:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that the Stormfront reference is gone, the pointless Mossad seal and quote by a minor figure being reiterated is gone, and more diverse voices have been added, I have no problem with the current edition as it stands except for one thing: The commentary section could use some points of view from the Iranian and Palestinians who are the ones behind these claims. So far, all of the 'commentary' is under the guise of making this look like a conspiracy or as if it is driven by anti-semitism, when there is not really much evidence for the case. Solntsa90 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No additional "diverse voices" were added until after the above comment was posted. Since then I have added quotes by a Turkish official and a Palestinian activist in Jerusalem who made the original accusations about the bee-eater and the rats, respectively. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and Iran's Fars News Agency were quoted earlier in the original text and their quotes remain. Once again, I invite Solntsa90 to go beyond criticism and deletion and instead contribute to the article by finding additional quotes from reputable sources. Very frankly, however, for reasons that are irrelevant to our discussion, conspiracy theories are popular in the Arab world and many of them are indeed driven by antisemitism. Among these are the popular medieval accusations that Jews bake Passover matzah with Christian blood [10] and poison the wells of non-Jews [11]. From there it is a short hop, skip and a jump to conspiracy theories about sharks, birds, rats, and dolphins. See [[12]], written by a journalist from Al Jazeera. For a book-length discussion, I would recommend [13]. 10:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for discussing, everybody. I have no intentions of being dragged into this dispute, so I'm not going to participate further here after this comment. What I want to reiterate that you cannot provide information as commentary without the support of a reliable, secondary source. The stormfront website does not qualify, and that sentence should be removed until a reliable secondary source making the connection is found. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I've no further complaints with the article as it stands. If I find more opinions that support the opposing viewpoint, I will be adding them in, however. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Thank you for your service. Once again, however, I wish to clarify that mentioning that Stormfront publicized the accusation that Israel let loose "supernatural rats" in the Old City of Jerusalem to scare away Palestinian residents was not providing "information as commentary." It was mentioning a fact, i.e., that neo-Nazi audiences readily recycle such absurd allegations. I will revert upon finding an appropriate secondary source as you suggest. Solntsa90 As for "more opinions that support the opposing viewpoint," that shouldn't be difficult. The Palestinian and Iranian media regularly publicize the most vile allegations about Israel and Jews (see the links above). But since their media is state-controlled, there is no critical discussion of statements such as these, because doing so would cast aspersions on the officials who authorized their publication in the first place. Zozoulia (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Scapegoat

How does this page omit a discussion of the tradition of punishing scapegoats? --Dystopos (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Because no one (as of this date) accused Israel of re-instituting a Biblical practice that hasn't been performed for over 1,900 years. Zozoulia (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israel-related animal conspiracy theories. 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/20130516080936/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/01/vulture-saudis-nabbed-was-third.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/01/vulture-saudis-nabbed-was-third.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.turkishweekly.net/2014/11/22/news/abbas-accuses-israel-of-using-wild-boars-against-palestinians/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713181353/http://lahona.com/show_files.aspx?fid=441123&pg=1 to http://lahona.com/show_files.aspx?fid=441123&pg=1

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) 15:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)