Talk:Mithraism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Pictish Mithraism

We're not sure what to make of this, and could use some eyes on it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

introductory section

I participated in highly fraught and now-archived discussions on this talk page, and in dropping by to add a minor link, I just wanted to comment that I quite like the current introduction. It strikes me as now neutral and well-balanced, and anticipates the questions that readers may bring to the article. (I believe there were some issues in the past of wanting to impose "scholarly correctness" in a way that simply excluded historically important scholarly views that are perhaps not now in the majority, but that readers might come here thinking about.) I haven't read the rest of the article, but well done in introducing the subject. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad you like the current intro, Cynwolfe. Thanks for letting us know! Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just found this

Mithriac mosaic

Intaglio of a tauroctony, evidently dated by the museum to the late 1st century BC

This article is thoroughly illustrated, but for the benefit of those who are interested, here's an image I just found on Commons. It hadn't been categorized as pertaining to Mithraism (as the category is called on Commons), so I thought I'd point it out. Especially since they give an Augustan date for it, which is bound to, er, cause some controversy among those who think Mithras coming into Rome with Pompey's Cilician "pirates" is hooey. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Good find! Glad you've added the category "Mithraism" to its page on Commons. One more piece in the historical jigsaw puzzle, anyway... Do you think the article can be improved in terms of how it deals with the role of the Cilicians? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't know! Can't really get into the subject at the moment, but have been exploring Commons. (And of course objects are notoriously hard to date.) Here's another interesting piece I found, since most of the Mithraic imagery I'm familiar with is relief sculpture. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm

I guess this wording has been here a while, but I'm just noticing the absurdity of Romans also called the religion Mysteries of Mithras or Mysteries of the Persians. Romans of course did not speak English, and it raises the question of what Latin word is supposed to represent "mysteries." Cynwolfe (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Latin word represented by "mysteries" is actually "mysteria". (See the WP page Greco-Roman mysteries.) So the phrases "Mysteries of Mithras" and "Mysteries of the Persians" are probably pretty close to the Latin. But perhaps it might be good to put in bracketed Latin versions of these phrases after the anglicized versions... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was more bemused by the logic of saying the Romans spoke English, not the use of the word "mysteries" to translate mysteria. And wondering what the sources were that actually used a phrase like "mysteries of the Persians," though that may be deeper in the article. BTW, although I haven't had time to fix it, the article on Mithras Liturgy is dead wrong to say that scholarly consensus regards this as a syncretic product that doesn't reflect actual Mithraic rites. Marvin Meyer just published an article (2012) that argues for that piece of the magical papyri as representing Mithraic doctrine. Strikes me as an example of manipulating scholarship to push a POV, or more charitably, not seeing the difference between working as a scholar (which means trying to find the "right" answer) and working as an encycopedist (representing the scholarship on the topic comprehensively). Cynwolfe (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know exactly which ancient writer used a phrase like "Mysteries of the Persians". Our statement that such a phrase was used in Roman times, does have a good secondary source in Roger Beck. I've just adjusted the footnoting to make that clear. I'd agree it would be nice to know the primary source as well... I tried googling "mysteria persarum", but didn't get very far... I agree that the Mithras Liturgy page would be better if it presented its material in a more neutral way, as we've tried to do in the short section about the Liturgy in this Mithraic Mysteries page... I'm glad you added in the mosaic image, it's a good demonstration that Mithraic art didn't consist only of reliefs. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Since writing the message above, I've found one third-century source for Greek phraseology which has been Latinized as "persarum mysteria": Origen, Contra Celsus, Book 6,

Chapter 22. "After this, Celsus, desiring to exhibit his learning in his treatise against us, quotes also certain Persian mysteries, where he says: 'These things are obscurely hinted at in the accounts of the Persians, and especially in the mysteries of Mithras, which are celebrated among them...' "

Chapter 24 "After the instance borrowed from the Mithraic mysteries, Celsus declares that he who would investigate the Christian mysteries, along with the aforesaid Persian, will, on comparing the two together, and on unveiling the rites of the Christians, see in this way the difference between them."

If you want to look at this text in Greek and Latin, it is online here Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at fixing up the introduction, so as to afford giving the impression of English-speaking Romans... Please have a look, Cynwolfe -- do you think this solves the problem? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Cross

In adding some content to Great Ludovisi sarcophagus, I found more than one source saying that a Mithraist might be marked with an X (they call it a cross) on the forehead. I didn't find anything about that in the article here, so I just thought I'd mention it in case anyone found it interesting and wanted to keep an eye out in the sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Origins

I keep dropping notes here in lieu of editing the article, but it's in such a state of advanced development I feel that any content needs to be added with care. So someday when I have time I'll try to take a more integrative approach. For now, I found this to be a clear and useful statement:

"A few years ago it became briefly fashionable to argue that the Roman cult was created in Italy (Vermaseren 1981; Merkelbach 1984; Clauss 2000). The early archaeological finds do not support this claim; neither do they point to an origin in Anatolia. However, the fact that key terms of Mithraic language are Greek and were translated into Latin implies an origin somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean."<ref>Richard Gordon, "Institutionalized Religious Options: Mithraism," in ''A Companion to Roman Religion'' (Blackwell, 2007), p. 397.</ref>

I think we imply this in the section on the archaeological evidence, but in that section we may get a little bogged down in overly technical details that could be placed in the footnotes, instead of offering this kind of overview for the general reader. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The statement is clear, useful and certainly relevant. Still, it is one scholar's opinion on a much-discussed topic. I'd agree it is important as a further reminder that the debate about origins didn't end at the conference in 1971 where lots of people (including Richard Gordon) strongly criticized Cumont. Anyway, I think you're quite right that the article gets a little bogged down in technical details. The question is how to provide more of an overview without compromising neutrality... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a classic case of taking a quotation out of context, and not knowing what the author is referring to.

To fill you in: As always, Gordon is criticizing the postulation of hypothesis without having any evidence to back it up. Although he is specifically referring to one particular "origin" theory here, Gordon is quite rightly critical of *ALL* hypothesis pertaining to the "origins" debate, not just those mentioned above, since *NONE* of them have evidence to back them up. -- 95.116.186.1 (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Article needs attention of an expert

This article needs attention from someone who knows what he is talking about. At the moment it's a terrible article. I don't know the tag for expert, so I've stuck the pov tag on it (because it has that problem too!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.89.13 (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

What specifically do you think is "terrible" about the article? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The problems in this case are the so called "experts". Because they get payed for inventing unreal stories about hypothethical Roman cults. The only question remains why don't they just play Ping-Pong instead? --178.197.224.190 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think what 178.197.224.190 is trying to say is that this article is terribly naive, reads like it was written like a 15-year old, with no real understanding of the material, and no respect for sources (littered with the usual "I use google books" approach). If that is what he/she is saying, I agree completely. :-) -- 95.116.186.1 (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Mithras - the bull slayer

While not being an expert in Roman history, it's still clear that "the bull" stands for the Canaanite Baal god. Therefore anybody should know what Mithras slaying the bull means, since you all know what the Romans did in Jerusalem. However, the Romans weren't the only ones slaughtering Caananitans, the Persians and the Egyptians started with it. --178.197.227.178 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

a) Aurochs and bulls were symbols of power throughout the Middle East and a specific association with the Phoenician Lord is very far from clear. Rather, the widespread success of Mithraism speaks to a more universal message than a strongly tribal or historical one.

b) I don't know what you're talking about with regard to the Romans either. The Israelites were the ones who (were reputed to've) slaughtered the Canaanites; the Romans never touched them. In the context of mystery religions, "the Romans in Jerusalem" brings to mind Pompey in the Temple. I think you were aiming for Masada. — LlywelynII 15:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard Noll's take on C.G.Jung: is this the right page?

A couple of sentences were recently added to the Mithraism and Christianity section, about the relation of C.G.Jung's school of depth psychology to Mithraic and other classical mysteries, and to theories of difference between races. The source given was an online text by Richard Noll.

Jungian interpretation of religion is a big topic — a large number of books and articles have been published about it. Richard Noll is one notable writer about Jung, but a controversial one. If Noll's views are to be presented, I'd suggest Noll's name should be mentioned inline, and other sources consulted.

In any case, is this Mithraic Mysteries page — which up till now has focussed on Roman history — the appropriate place to engage in controversies about Jung? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Not only is Jung not qualified to have an opinion on the Mysteries, and his work is over 100 years old, and his theories of a "universal subconcious" have long been dismissed. -- 95.116.186.1 (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. We don't want UNDUE treatment but a sentence or two and links to Mithraism's treatment by Jung is not out of order in the least. — LlywelynII 15:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What a mess

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. As PatGallacher points out, there isn't even a definite proposal on the table here, so maybe take this one step at a time, and at least come back with a proposal that people can decide upon. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Mithras (name) → ? –

1. There is absolutely no treatment of the figure of this religion at Mithra, where it belongs;
2. Mithras unhelpfully redirects generically to this page on his religion, which doesn't have any thorough treatment of the figure himself; and
3. there's a stubby POVFORK at Mithras (name) that doesn't deal with the linguistics—it doesn't even mention that Classical Greek theta was not a /θ/ but /tʰ/ sound—but seems to dwell on the figure and his appearances, doing worse at both the linguistics and the treatment of the figure than this page does.

I understand that modern scholarship now separates this religion from the religion in Persia, but Mithras the figure is simply the Greek and Roman form of the other god's name. There is already a treatment of the Manichaean figure of Mitra on the Persian god's page and there's no reason his Roman form should be handled differently, unless we really have so much material that a split becomes necessary. At that point, there should still be a section on the Persian god's page linking to a content fork at Mithras (not Mithras (name)).

Mithras (name) I don't know what to do with. The useful bits should be merged back here or to Mithra's #Etymology section. The name in and of itself is completely non-notable as a topic; for better or worse, it's simply the Greek and Roman form of Mithra. The further etymology of the name in Hittite, Sanskrit, and reconstructed Proto-Indo-European has absolutely no relation to the Greco-Roman name Mithras, which was just picked it up from the Persians; it belongs on the Persian god's page and nowhere else. --Relisted. Sunrise (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)  — LlywelynII 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This may indeed be a mess, but we are in dangers of getting into even more of a mess. I don't like these move requests to move to "?". This looks like a confused mixture of merge requests, requests for expansion, and vague move requests, I suggest taking them one at a time. PatGallacher (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dacian/ Thracian influence?

There are similarities to the Thracian/ Dacian mystery cults, as well as the Samothracian cult of the Great Gods. Here are some points:

• The Thracians were exposed to both Greek and Persian culture over the course of years. Dacia, the northern Thracian kingdom, was conquered by Rome in 1st century AD, and many of the Dacians have been moved to various regions of the Empire. The cult appears in Rome around that time.
• The underground temples, stone-birth, and bull-sacrificing: We know from various sources, that the Thracians set up temples and shrines in caves, associating underground caverns with the Mother Goddess' womb (at least as far as the 4th century BC), later also creating mountain-top temples and shrines, to worship the sky/ sun 'son god' Zagreus (later replaced by the Phrygian Sabazius), with the advent of Orphism. The Samothracian cult of the Great Gods (assuming it was of Thracian origin) placed initiates in small cave-like rooms within the temple, where the revelation was bestowed upon them. Bulls, pigs, goats, or sheep were sacrificed to the Great Gods. In Roman times, the cave-like room was altered to be able to fit the bulls for sacrificial purposes (although the later may have been a conversion of the temple into a Mithraeum).
• The depiction of Mithras: Mithras was depicted as a youth wearing a Phrigian cap (a common piece of attire with the Thracians), slaying a bull, being accompanied by a serpent, a dog, and a couple of men who carry torches. The Thracian Horseman, who is believed to be a depiction of Zagreus or Sabazius, was also depicted alongside a serpent and a dog, slaying a boar. The torch-bearers could be linked to the Greek athletes participating in the Bendidian torch-race. Bendidia was a festival dedicated to Bendis - a Thracian/ Dacian moon-goddess (this might also explain the appearance of Luna (Bendis) and Sol (Zagreus/ Sabazius) on the reliefs)

Thracian Horseman for comparison Alternatively, Mithras could be identified with either Orpheus, Rhesus, Strymon, or Zalmoxis, who brings sacrifice to the gods.

• The Mithraic mosaic representing one of the degrees of initiation clearly depicts a spear, a Phrygian helmet and a sica (the one-handed Thracian sword), which were all used by the Thracians.

Of course, it all sounds rather far-fetched, but it's still something to think about.92.114.148.141 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but on Wikipedia it would be called original research. See WP:OR. In order for material to be included in an article, it must be from reliable, usually secondary, sources. See WP:RS. If you can find reliable sources that say these things, and you can paraphrase the material and provide the source, you might be able to add to the article. Corinne (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: move section on Classical sources

The section on Classical sources doesn't fit well where it is now, in the section (currently 4.3) on the history of Mithraism. I propose it be put into its own section. Thoughts? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

the thracian thing is surprisingly spot on

the reality is that the roman cult of mithras correlates perfectly with the movement of sarmatian tribes (most notably the alans) into europe. perfect timing. perfect geography. there's consequently truly no mystery to it's origins, there's just a comical missing of the obvious: this iranian religion was brought into europe by iranian migrants, much as the "gypsy" religions moved in centuries later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.80 (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Our articles are based upon what reliable sources say about the subject. Where are yours? Doug Weller talk 14:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Similarities with Hindu God Vishnu especially his avatar Narasimha

There are Quit a Lot Similarities between the Hindu God Narasimha and the Lion Headed figure as both have lion head and a human torso. Mithra is said to be born from rock and Narasimha is also born from rock. Also Mithra is Another name for Hindu sun god Named Surya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya ॐ मित्राय नमः Om mitrāya namah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narasimha 117.207.154.151 (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lord_Narasimha_statue_on_walls_of_Simhachalam_Temple.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.154.151 (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC) 

Hi. Thanks for your observations, but Wikipedia does not use original research. If you can find a professionally published, mainstream academic source that discusses these ideas, we might be able to include this information in this article or a related one. Wikipedia does not consider itself to be an academic source, or professionally published, so articles on this site do not count as acceptable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the edit warring by the IP editor

I've left a note about reliable sourcing on their talk page, because that was reason enough to revert. Going over them individually:

• Richard Gordon's remarks might be acceptable, if they were relevant, not taken out of context, and not used in an original research argument that goes well beyond the scope of what he meant.
• The Existence of Christ Disproved by Irresistible Evidence is written by someone who can't even admit who he is. The title alone is apologetics, even if it is by a New Atheist apologist. That's honestly no better than citing some preacher, imam, or yogi. Also, the link provided was WP:REFSPAM plain and simple.
• C. Boyd Pfeiffer's A Cure for Christianity is also New Atheist apologetics, not history. What's more, his credentials are for fly-fishing (see the Examiner, which is blacklisted and so not linked), not for any field of history. That's no better than citing one of my uncles. Hell, at least most seminaries want you to take some kind of course on ancient history, even if they are biased.

Given that the addition starts off with "you can't trust Christian apologists," I find it ironic (if not hypocritical) that it follows with two blatant apologists. This article should stick to historians, not apologists of any sort. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the IP editor is inserting apologetics into the article. None of the above problems was addressed in the slightest in the edits. No part of the addition can be defended with policy without complete misinterpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As for Pfeiffer, the Amazon page on the book says he's self-educated, and you can see the list of fishing books he's written by clicking on his name there. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Now I'll grant that "self-educated" is probably sufficient to be an authority on fly-fishing (at least, in comparison to me), but that just about puts him on my level with regards to history (if we don't count any classes I took in college), and I sure wouldn't want anyone to cite me on the matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And the IP hopper is now disruptively editing, at first removing a random portion of a sentence and a reference, reverting the article to an outdated version that contains a variety of problems, twice. Were they not an IP hopper, I'd've filed a WP:3RRNB report by now. It's 1 am where I'm at, can someone else handle it? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We appear to have a strong consensus that Mithraism is the more common name. After completing the move I'll also take a stab at the intro to clear up some of the confusion below; editors knowledgeable in the subject should also take a crack at it. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Mithraic mysteries → Mithraism – The article is descriptive of a set of organized religious beliefs popular within the Roman Empire and to an extent practised today. My problem is that the title does not reflect this. While the article does comment on the inadequacies of our knowledge of it's practices, it is not the primary subject of the article. I might also point out that another article exists on Wikipedia entitled 'Mithraism and Christianity'. If one article refers to it by it's proper name and the main article does not this can easily lead to confusion. If people want to do a write up on the gaps in our knowledge of Mithraism then a second page must be made, because that is not the subject of the article. This article was called Mithraism initially and through looking at the archives the only reason for a change to 'Mithraic Mysteries' is due to a popular book called 'Mithraic Mysteries. This makes no sense. BrookDaCow (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Support - While the 'Mithraism and Christianity' article you're talking about is actually listed under a different name and 'Mithraism and Christianity' just leads to the article, I agree that the title as it stands does not reflect this article accurately. I second the suggestion. AlistairClassics (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems good. I could see the argument that our articles on Greco-Roman mysteries include the Dionysian Mysteries, Mysteries of Isis, and Eleusinian Mysteries but we do have Orphism and most of the other mystery religions are lumped into the article on the deity. Also, the article admits that most modern scholars just call it Mithraism (and per WP:COMMONNAME, so should we). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Support - I have never heard anybody refer to Mithraism as 'Mithraic Mysteries' outside of the context of this article. I don't understand why the name was changed in the first place or how they reached a consensus. I support the move. 86.181.77.225 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment We need to follow WP:COMMONNAME. Here's an Oxford University book The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries[1] Found it with this search.[2] Doug Weller talk 16:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Cambridge University Press book Mithraism and Christianity [3]. Also the book you source uses the word 'Mithraism' throughout. BrookDaCow (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't care which it is so long as we follow WP:COMMONNAME and not our preferences. I've removed the bit about modern historians from the lead because it wasn't backed by the source. And adding "primarily" seems to be pure original research which we don't allow, something I wouldn't expect a new editor to know. We would need several sources saying what modern historians call it if we want to do that, maybe attributed. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Preference? The Encyclopaedia Brittanica[4], Stanford University[5] and Cambridge University Press[6] all refer to the religion as 'Mithraism'. As do multiple academic studies[7][8], Religious study sites[9][10], and the original wikipedia article. [11] (archived). What I prefer is irrelevant, the community-at-large commonly uses Mithraism. The book you sourced also used the word Mithraism more commonly than Mithraic Mysteries if you discount the headers. BrookDaCow (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I support the move. I do recall the reason for the article being named 'Mithraic mysteries' originally; as 'Mithraism' was asserted by some eidtors as properly being specific to the cult of Mithra within Persian religion. TomHennell (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. Yes, I support the move if that was the original reason. But not a statement about what the majority of historians call it unless it's sourced to people saying that. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mithraism. 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/20110517075732/http://www.uhu.es/ejms/ to http://www.uhu.es/ejms/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121161617/http://www.irisnoir.com/Zeke/HarmoniousOpposition.pdf to http://www.irisnoir.com/Zeke/HarmoniousOpposition.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Funicode%2Fv5f1%2Fv5f1a033.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100928222225/http://www.uhu.es/ejms/Papers/Volume1Papers/ABGMS.DOC to http://www.uhu.es/ejms/Papers/Volume1Papers/ABGMS.DOC
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722104134/https://www.rosicrucian.org/publications/digest/digest2_2010/04_web/ws_01_campos/ws_01_campos.pdf to https://www.rosicrucian.org/publications/digest/digest2_2010/04_web/ws_01_campos/ws_01_campos.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121222221402/http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/069/Ant0690358.htm to http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/069/Ant0690358.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) 20:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)