Talk:Military strategy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sun Tzu

This article betrays a marked Western and modern bias. Military strategy was carefully studied by the Chinese before and most definetely after Sun Tzu 's Art of War. The Art of War is still considered a classic book of military strategy today!

I also find it remarkably innocent that it is considered early empires, such as the Romans, did not use and develop military strategy. ChrisG 22:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Military strategy and military tactics are two different things. Sun Tzu's Art of War has little to nothing to do with the actual running of an army. It has some very generalized advice on manuever and the seperation of the military from the political, but little else. The reason why the Five Rings, The Art of War, and the Conquest of Gaul are so popular is because they are easy to understand, amateur works.

Although the Romans, Greeks, Chinese and others knew of military strategy, they did not study it in a fashion similiar to the intense degree that war colleges of the last three hundred years have. The best comparison would be merchant movement of goods. Simply because trade took place, it does not follow that the workings of the economy and capitalism were understood. Stargoat 00:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My idea is that the current content of the article regards tactics. Sun Tzu speaks about something different. One example regards intelligence, that Sun-tzu considers very important while here is not enough considered. Moreover diplomacy and logistic should be considered in strategy. But the strategy teaches that the most important battle is not on the battlefield.--Truman Burbank 16:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Gengis Kahn

We need something on Gengis Kahn, seriously. Cameron Nedland 02:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the section on Khan and the Mongols to make it more readable. I'm not entirely sure of it's historical accuracy, but the language used was very juvenile. If there's incorrect facts, please fix them. I only adjusted the style of writing. -Caligari_87

The facts should be accurate, I got that information largly from the History Channel. By the way I'm a juvenile, so I have an excuse. Cameron Nedland 02:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone add something about military strategies against terrorism? -Shevotniy

Principles of military strategy

This AfD for the above article has closed with a request that it be merged into this article. Babajobu 02:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Strategy and Tactics

"Military strategy in the Waterloo campaign" should read "Military tactics at the Waterloo battle." Strategy is much higher level than tactics.

this article needs ww2 strategy!

I hope you'll forgive me just adding another perspective than what seemed a very British orientated view of Strategy. Have just stuck to one section and added what i believe is a balancing view from German view point. Wasn't just Guderian but he was a very able developer of the central doctrinal approaches agreed by the General Staff. Not sure the Panzer Corps was his at time of France ?

Not very much on roman/ancient strategy

No mention of development of General Staffs after Napoleon by the Prussians, and then others, to develop doctrine and strategy.

Not much talk of guerilla strategies here (South Afria 1890's, Malaysia, Vietnam/Indochine, Algeria, Israel, Cuba, US Rebellion against Britain, Ireland, Finland)

Even when Napoleon made his name at head of 'Army of Italy' his armies lived off the land. So later reference to living off the land may be capable of creating false impression.

Not much here on important role of Fred the Great who was much studied and quoted by Napoleon on Strategy.

Not much here on standard Napoleonic battle plan and its implications for tactics in his army.

Happy to add but would like comments. Facius 17:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The current definition (US JOINT) of Strategy: The art and science of developing and employing instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives. I added the bold.

For comparison here is the current definition (US JOINT) of Tactics: The employment and ordered arrangement of forces in relation to each other. See also procedures; techniques.

You can see this is in keeping with Clausewitz's definition but has been more clearly seperated from tactics by the "National Interests" and the "forces". Strategy deals with the political aspects and the general response to them while tactics deals with the actual execution of warfare at army, corps, division, brigade, battalion, company, platoon, squad or the individual level.

With this in mind WWII strategy would encompass such subjects as the German use of U-Boats to interdict the logistics flow on the Atlantic, The German decision to defend the coastline or to invade the Caucasus. Likewise the Allied decision to invade Sicily then Italy rather than "Fortress Europe". The instant you go beyond the political decisions and begin to discuss the actual execution of these events you are into tactics.

A good link to Clausewitz if you would like to clarify or investigate on your own. http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/CWZBASE.htm paratrooper

It was mentioned vaguely above; but the distinction between strategy and tactics here seems to be confused. "Strategy and tactics are closely related. Both deal with distance, time and force but strategy is large scale while tactics are small scale" - this is vague, and the opening line to this section should really spell out the difference clearly...
Tactics describes the plans and arrangement of forces to defeat another.
Strategy is about how to translate military force into a political goal. Indeed, the Clausewitz quote of the definition of strategy should read more like "strategy is the use of force to achieve political ends" (I do not have the exact quote in front of me).
So tactics is about how to win a battle. Strategy is about how to translate military force - winning on the battlefield - into a political goal. This comment has been mentioned already; but the article seems to remain confused about the distinction - I may change this; I thought I would seek out other opinion on the matter first Mattimeus 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Found the Clausewitz distinction: “tactics teaches the use of armed forces in the engagement; strategy, the use of engagements for the object of war" (pp.128 Clausewitz, On War, 1976 translation) - bearing in mind, Clausewitz defines war as the extension of politics, when he says "for the object of war" - he means achieving political goals Mattimeus 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

I see the word 'manœuver' which looks like a hybrid of American/Canadian maneuver and Commonwealth 'manœuvre'. What spelling should we use?Cameron Nedland 16:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Just one question

Is it considered that Frontal attack is a bad or good tactic to win a war? Thank you in advanced.--Tones benefit 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no "good" or "bad" way to win a battle, let alone a war. It all depends on the circumstances. JurSchagen 11:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are far too many other variables to consider before anyone could give you a good answer.Cameron Nedland 20:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Invasion of Norway

The article states britain was removed from norway. however i firmly believe no british troops were deployed. please correct this or use a citation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.255.21 (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.magweb.com/sample/sconflic/co03wesc.htm

"After a long and arduous campaign the Allied Expeditionary Force succeeded in capturing Narvik on May 28. In addition to all the difficulties the Allies had encountered, a new and desperate problem had arisen: France, which had been invaded on May 10, was already near collapse. Since Allied troops were required in what was deemed a more important theater, Norway was relegated to the category of a secondary campaign by the Supreme Allied War Council.

Therefore, the British War Cabinet decided to evacuate all troops from Norway even before the final attack on Narvik. Before the Norwegian campaign was abandoned, however, it was decided to take Narvik, destroy the port facilities and disrupt as much of the rail line running to Sweden as time allowed; after this was accomplished all Allied troops would be evacuated. Once Narvik was taken and the vital ore carrying and handling facilities were destroyed, it was estimated that the Germans would be unable to use the port for a year.

This was small compensation for having lost Norway, but the recapture of Narvik was utilized for propaganda purposes by the Allies, who were in desperate need of a victory to bolster fading morale.

Narvik was evacuated in two stages. Between dune 4 and 6, 15,000 troops were embarked and brought back to England on a fleet of transports; on June 7 and 8 the remaining Allied forces, numbering 10,000 men, were evacuated. Except for scattered Norwegian resistance, the departure of the last transport from Harstad on June 8 left Norway completely in German hands. The one bright spot during the evacuation was that all Allied troops were brought back to England without loss. "

JurSchagen (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect assessment concerning modern strategy

It is stated in the article that, re: asymmetric warfare "This has led to large amounts of damage to non-targeted people and assets which undermines the attackers and is often used to bolster political support for the guerrillas and destabilize the politics of the attacker." I believe this is historically invalid and simply goes against the great trend away from large civilian casualties in more-modern war. The precision of military technology combined with operational constraints placed upon the combatants from the home command, for political reasons, has actually led to a dramatic reduction in "collateral damage". Gone are the days of massive carpet-bombing, or indiscriminate reprisals. The problem of occupation by a technologically and systematically superior force is not in the actual damage inflicted upon the general populace, but in the politically untenable position of foreign invaders, who either by misfortune, chance or incompetency suffer increasingly hostile reactions in a prolonged scenario. I will be taking this assessment out of the article, and more clearly stating the socio-political difficulties with asymmetric warfare, removed from any notion of extensive collateral damage. PRSturm (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Japanese strategy

Obviously many American's feel that Pearl Harbor was a cheap shot on Japan's part, and myself, as an Australian whose parents and grandparents fought against the Japanese, feel this way too. But the Japanese strategy section is out of whack. The phrase "the USA wouldn't negotiate with an enemy that had back stabbed them in this way," is not a encyclopedic statement. I'm changing it to, "the USA wouldn't negotiate with an enemy that had struck them this way." The Bryce (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Soviet strategy

Four points:

i) the usual way of referring to the repression of party cadres, officials and officers during the Soviet 30's is purging' and not cleasing. While cleasing may be a "better" translation of the original Russian it does embrace the executioner's view of the purged human material as filth and ought to be avoided in an non-POV context, and

ii) the concept that the purges had weakened the army is a modern interpretation and not what the decision makers thought at the time and would be an inaccurate representation of the Soviet government's opinion since it considered the purges to have strengthened the army, and

iii) while the Winter War may have shown that the Soviet army was unfit for serious war (or not) it was not confirmation of the Soviet government's opinion that it such. If that had been the view of the Soviet government it wouldn't have started the war, and

iv) just before Barbarossa Stalin declared in a speech at a military academy that the Soviet army was the most modern army, which implies a completely different attitude to it.

I intend to edit the article accordingly.

Did some minor language fixes too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.146.131 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-American strategy

Just curious why this section is like that? The "Anglo" part is that of United Kingdom and the Commonwealth (and can include Australia which is somehow separated), but probably can be three sub-sections: UK and Canadian Strategy in Europe and the Atlantic, The Commonwealth Strategy in North Africa and The Commonwealth Strategy in the Asia-Pacific. The American part can be changed to the USA since North America also includes Canada that was a part of the UK strategy from 1939, and excludes Mexico which was never a participant. That can be divided into two sections: US strategy in Europe and the Atlantic, and the US strategy in the Pacific--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

French strategy

As a reaction to her WWI experience, France entered World War II with a purely defensive doctrine, epitomised by the "impregnable" Maginot Line, and were routed by the revolutionary German offensive Blitzkrieg.

Didn't France's loss have more to do with an inability to adequately control logistics (or prepare, but really its the same thing) rather than strategy? They outnumbered Germany on almost every level of war material, but still lost horribly. Stargoat 21:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And if you've got a better title for the first section, feel free to change it. "Relationships of military strategy" sucks but I wanted a section explaining how it fits with tactics, logistics, grand strategy, diplomacy, technology, etc. Geoff/Gsl 00:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point that France entered WWI with an offensive strategy and entered WWII with a defensive strategy and in both cases technology and tactics had made their strategy of choice ineffective. But, as you say, perhaps I shouldn't be claiming their defeat was due to their defensive outlook. Maybe ending the above sentence at the "Maginot Line" and leaving out the stuff about "Blitzkrieg" would do.

you can see how France screwed up in strategy for example their

tank brigades were scattered piecemeal along the Maginot Line instead of being grouped together ben (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually France didn't "screwed up in strategy" given that fortified lines and using tanks in infantry support was standard theory in operational and tactical thinking at the time. Each country had unique sets of criteria for their strategy. Germany had an offensive one due to the prevailing understanding that it would never be allowed to develop its economy unmolested, and therefore had to force France and the UK into submission. The strategy was not solely military, which is why Hirel was able to garnish support. Once the offensive nature of the strategy was realised, it was an easy step to operational mobility requirement, and hence mobile warfare rather than static for Germany. France on the other hand would have won just by continuing a defensive strategy. Don't confuse tactics (tank brigades), operational warfare (Army defensive posture) and strategy (Maginot Line)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Link?

The reference to the Battle of the Ten Kings (q.v.), in the first paragraph under "Fundamentals," seems to be for the purpose of establishing a putative end date for the origins of military strategy; sadly, the Battle of the Ten Kings article has no dating whatsoever ("unknown"). I have posted a (probably impolite) plea there for some indication of a date (e.g., Bronze age, first millennium BC, etc.). In the absence of some responsive activity there, could you perhaps find a better example, since I (and I suspect many others) remain adrift as to your intended dating. Amccray (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh?

Why is this word in the introduction?

Rainpat (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Waterloo

By definition the 'Waterloo Campaign' is not 'military strategy', it is the operational level.Nfe (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Great War

The article has this: "Attrition was time-consuming so the duration of World War I battles often stretched to weeks and months. The problem with attrition was that the use of fortified defenses in depth generally required a ratio of ten attackers to one defender, or a level of artillery support which was simply not feasible until late 1917, for any reasonable chance of victory." It seems to me that "victory" in attrition warfare comes from the exhaustion of the enemy, so the sense of the term "victory" in the quotation is inapposite since it refers to a decisive result rather than cumulative effect. Verdun the Somme and 3rd Ypres were costly and indecisive series of battles and were also strategic Allied victories.Keith-264 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Evitability

Given isolationism, & given FDR's hostility to colonialism, saying U.S. entry was "inevitable" is way too strong. Moreover, internal IJN/IJA politics had more to do with the decision to attack Pearl Harbor than the "inevitable" U.S. entry. And, looking at the sequence of events, it's clear avoiding U.S. interference would have been possible, perhaps even likely. (I'm also dubious about calling the Brits & Dutch "allies". Were there formal treaties of alliance? Or were they only friendly & in agreement on the approach to take?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Principles" section and Greene and Armstrong 2011

Reading Greene & Armstrong 2011, to check out this foolish edit by Mark Renier (It is not a quote from the source, of course.) I find that Greene and Armstrong aren't talking about the principles enumerated immediately preceding that paragraph, and do not put forward, as far as I can see, anything that can be reasonably construed as the analysis that the source supposedly supports. If you can show where in the source this analysis is, please give the specific page numbers for the benefit of readers like me. Because from what I can see Greene and Armstrong (a) only talk about the opinions of one strategist (Robert McNamara), and (b) don't say anything about flexibility and fundamental principles at all, their paper actually being about people placing themselves in other people's shoes. Uncle G (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncle G, you are quoting the edit out of context! First there was this edit, where the comment indicates that the reference which we editing over was in fact a quote from the referenced source. Review the edit timeline to see all of my attempts to resolve the ambiguity of this article. This edit, my edit, was necessary in order to show full due diligence in exploring all possibilities to resolve this ambiguity. I fully expected that edit would not survive, but in making it, I have exhausted all possibilities to resolve and edit out "some...others" statements from that section of the article. "Some say... Others say..." should be edited out for violating the following Wikipedia policies:

• WP:VERIFY - G&A can say what they want, but if it isn't in quotes, on Wikipedia we want it verified. If they didn't say it, why use it on Wikipedia? Be exact! Specify exactly who "some...others" are. How hard can it be? Why are editors obsessed with keeping ambiguous terms in the article? Is using "some" and "others" in this way is robbing me of the ability to assess the source of the viewpoint? The reference is included, yes. However, if it is a viewpoint then it needs to be quoted. If it is not a viewpoint, then we don't need the words "some" and "others" in there, do we? If it's an opinion of the reference, fine, then it has to be quoted as such. Why is there such aversion to removing those specific words?

  "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source."

• WP:WEASEL - Clear violation of "some say... others say...". As you yourself have pointed out, "some...others" is NOT in the source, therefore it is not a quote.

  "Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.[5] However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may employ so-called "weasel words" if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view."

• WP:EDITORIAL - If "some...others" is not a quote, not a weasel, and avoids verification, then it is editorializing.

  "editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources. "

• WP:GF - I have made every possible edit to resolve this situation, including exploring the fact that it was a direct quote from the reference, as another editor has stated in revert comments.

  "It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it."

I have three standard wiki policies here on my side that support my position. The other editors keep giving flimsy or changing reasons as to why "some...others" should not be removed. Please help me edit those words out of the article. The article should just state facts. On your side, all you have is a violation of WP:GF by calling this edit foolish.

Let me ask you, what is your aversion? Why is it that you cannot let go of these words? Why are they so vital to this article, that they cannot be replaced with more unambiguous terms? "Some...others" is not specific enough for wikipedia. If they are not ambiguous, then they are direct quotes. If they are not direct quotes, they are editorializing. Wikipedia has standard policies that apply to all articles. If the source does not specifically say "some...others", then help edit the usage of these ambiguous phrases out of the article. //Mark Renier (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Aerial Warfare...?

Shouldn't there be a section on aerial warfare in the "Weapons" tab?

Anyway, even if you guys disagree, could someone point me to a Wikipedia article that goes into detail about some of the different types of soldiers/weapons/vehicles used in a average, conventional, modern day army (in the US, for example), and maybe equivalent articles for navy and aerial warfare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.188.41 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Revolutionary War Strategy

I would think that a section covering the strategy related to the revolutionary wars between 1960 - circa 1980 would add value. Many of them were fueled by the Cold War as part of the bi-polar world choosing sides, but many were localized conflicts with specific anti-colonial, ethnic, economic or territorial objectives and conducted according to clear (Marxist) strategies. Revolutionary strategies of this era were frequently documented by the likes of Robert Tabar (The War of the Flea), Carlos Marighella, Che Guevara, Mao Zedong. Views? Farawayman (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry folks but I see this article as pants

By all means shoot me down in flames - I have broad shoulders - but what I see on the current Military Strategy page is a list of various strategies employed by different forces/nations/leaders at different times. I'd argue that this makes the article almost unreadable and I'd further argue that what's needed is a complete re-write exclusively focusing on the theory of military strategy. How strategy differs from tactics, or doctrine - not specific strategies.

I'd argue that the description of the the implementation of the various strategies (as described on this page) are best rendered as part of the subjects they describe ... that is, if we have an article on a general and leader then that is where a description of his strategy belongs. If we have a description of a war or campaign, again that's where the description of the strategy employed is best presented.

Anyway's that's just my 2ps worth.

Chris (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article is dominated by history, that's for sure. We could probably spin some of that off into history of strategy (or whatever) and settle for a summary here. I don't think a reorganization will solve much, especially not whisking stuff away to articles on individual strategists. Histories are perfectly valid sections, after all...

I think adding content on strategy vs tactics and doctrine and various theories on what strategy would be a great improvement, though. Don't hesitate to be bold.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course dividing into strategy and tactics is woefully out of date. Even NATO has adopted the notion of 'operational' between the two, having nicked it from the Russians.Nfe (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That's also a very relevant aspect of the topic worth mentioning if reliable sources can back it up. We won't define an article like this strictly by modern military terminology, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

3 levels, not 2 (Strategy > Operations > Tactics)

Right now, this page (using unreliable sources in the lead) is only differentiating Strategy and Tactics. There are 3 levels, not 2. Strategy, Operations and Tactics. See source below:

• RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS: NEWSLETTER OF THE DIRECTORATE OF ARMY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS, no.10, OCT 1996. (Land Warfare Studies Centre).http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Dunn.htm

cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's the view of the modern US Army. Does this apply to all of military history and the entire world as well?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The journal source provided is Australian, not American. And the concept itself comes from Clausewitz, who's influence is very wide, just like Sun Tzu and John Boyd's OODA loop etc. These are fairly general concepts taught in all military academies all over the world. I doubt any military thinker from Eastern traditions would mind. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 00:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Military strategy. 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/20100527200503/http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/NPR%20FACT%20SHEET%20April%202010.pdf to http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/NPR%20FACT%20SHEET%20April%202010.pdf

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} 21:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Origin dates

Military_strategy#Antiquity says the first strategy is traced to 250 BC. Mesopotamian military strategy and tactics (an unsourced article) indicates that it may date back as far as 2500 BC. Any comments? ~Kvng (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military strategy. 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/20130724060741/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-07/politics/37535039_1_nuclear-weapons-jewish-leaders-president-obama to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-07/politics/37535039_1_nuclear-weapons-jewish-leaders-president-obama

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) 07:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)