Talk:David Trimble

Need to expand article

This article seems oddly short compared to the article on Ian Paisley. Trimble became leader of the largest Unionist part at the time, and won the Nobel Prize - all after a successful academic career. What about his passion for opera? What about Dean Godson's enormous biography of Trimble?

I have a copy on my shelf which I've recently finished and can have a go at expanding some of this. One point which is causing some contention is whether or not Trimble and Paisley actually walked down the road at Drumcree - according to Godson's biography it was only the actual regular members of the Lodge who did, not the many others who had come to support. The footage of Trimble and Paisley hails from a post march celebration.

good/bad?

What were Trimble's solutions to the Northern Ireland Problem? What were his thoughts or opinions on the problem?

Also, is Trimble considered a good guy or a bad guy, and in who's eyes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassassin (talk • contribs) 12:27, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

Trimble, like a lot of others, seems to have consistently sought a suimilar line through shifting circumstances/shown reasonableness/shifted ground/capitulated depending on one's point of view! It's difficult to give an objective assessment at this point but here are a few rough points of view:

• The statesman who led Unionism into an accord with nationalists, bringing peace and stability to the province. (Probably the Nobel Peace Prize committee's view.)
• A great statesman who under slightly different circumstances would have made a fantastic leader of the Conservative Party. (The opinion of many both in and out of that party.)
• The man who reinvigorated Unionism, giving it a strong voice on a UK wide and international stage, and who ultimately saved the Union by creating an internal settlement within the UK that was acceptable to almost all, including the removal of the Republic's constitutional claim to the province. (Very few seem to still fundamentally reject the reality of Northern Ireland's existance and Sinn Fein has participated in a "return to Stormont" - something it campaigned against only a year earlier. This aspect of the Agreement is hard to see as anything other than a triumph for Unionism.) (Probably the main Trimbleite defence.)
• A political chameleon who built his reputation and leadership bid upon his credentials as a hardliner, but once elected leader followed a course that did things that even Ken Maginnis (the candidate of the liberal wing of the party) wouldn't have dared try. (Probably mainly found amongst hardline Ulster Unionists.)
• The crap party leader who tried to run his party on the "50%+1 support is good enough" rule, who failed to sufficiently reform the party to appeal more to both Catholic and middle class Protestant voters, who failed to see off the challenge of Paisley, who failed to bring discipline and order to a deeply fractious party and who ultimately led the party to the point where many are now asking whether there is any point to its existance. (A UUP supporter point of view.)
• The "bastard [who] betrayed Ulster" who brought terrorists into government, including education, stood by whilst the RUC was disbanded, failed to deliver IRA weapons decommissioning and allowed the Parades Commission to undermine Orange culture. (A hardline Unionist opinion, both of elements in the UUP - the quote is from William Ross - and more especially the DUP line of attack.)
• The hardline Unionist who danced a jig after forcing an Orange march through a nationlist area and who continued to resist having representatives of a significant part of the population in government. (A hostile nationalist/Republican point of view.)

And no doubt several others...

I suspect that when the diaries, memoirs and papers are all available we will get a fuller picture of the Good Friday Agreement negotations - particularly the amount of pressure Trimble was under. Also for all the DUP bluster there are a number of reports by observers that a lot of the pragmatic wing like Robinson and Dodds were very unhappy with the decision to stay out of the talks at the end and would rather have had a say in whatever settlement was made - perhaps if they had been there then the course of the last seven and a half years would have been very different. Timrollpickering 18:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Traditionally, Unionist leaders who compromised with Nationalists/Catholics have been ousted as 'traitors'. The same happened to former Northern Ireland PM Terence O'Neill when he implemented "one man one vote" reforms e.g. removing the ban on non ratepayers from voting. Ian Paisley's "O'Neill must go" protests were instrumental in that regard. The same happened to Brian Faulkner over the Sunningdale agreement. So I would feel that the downfall of Trimble should be seen in this context. (Eamonn)

This is certainly the hardline Unionist view, but how widespread is it held in the Unionist community? Even at his electoral armageddon, Trimble's party still commanded far more support than Faulkner's UPNI did at their best. Are there any opinion polls showing just what the division of opinion amongst Unionists is on Trimble? Timrollpickering 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Vanguard

I think it is relevant for balance reasons to point out that Trimble was one of just 2 1975 Convention members (out of a possible 13) who backed Vanguard leader Bill Craig when the latter suggested voluntary power sharing with the SDLP as the previous version of the article implies that his career then was marked solely by a reluctance to share power with Nationalists. Valenciano 17:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Title

The first line of the article "The Right Honourable William David Trimble..." is he still "right honouable" after losing his westminster seat? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.12.245.194 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That derives from being a member of the Privy Council. He would only cease to be Right Honourable if he resigned from the PC. Timrollpickering 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thought I read in the Paisley article that the "Rt Hon" and the "PC" are mutually exclusive? Sauce for the goose, etc! Jonathan3 00:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Peers are automaticaly always "Rt Hon" (I think) so "PC" is used to denote a peer who is a member of the Privy Council. However for non peers "Rt Hon" does the job. Using both is like using "Dr So and So PhD" - overkill. Timrollpickering 09:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Lord?

The UUP have begun to refer to David Trimble as "Lord Trimble" in correspondance, this is now what he is known as! The art. should mention this in the first line! (Couter-revolutionary 17:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

How nice for him. However, until he is actually created a peer he can't use the title, and I haven't seen any official source for his ennoblement. Choosing what title he wants is not the same as being given it. Proteus (Talk) 17:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your sarcasm clearly shows bias, everyone is now referring to him as Lord Trimble. Are you waiting for him to be in ermine before he can be known as Lord Trimble? (Couter-revolutionary 18:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Technically Proteus is correct. We cannot say he is a lord until he is a lord. He has been named for appointment as a lord, but is not yet one and can't be called one officially on the formal appointment. If he was to die today, he would not be regarded as a lord. Political parties use titles to push agendas. However an encyclopaedias have to be clinically neutral and only use the title when he actually is one, not when it is announced that he is going to become one. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 18:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)}

Let's not be daft about this, he becomes a Lord in 6 days - as does Eileen Paisley, and her atricle has been names with her title for weeks now!Traditional unionist 23:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

BBC say hes a Lord. Been saying it since 19 May See Real IRA death threats link here. Fluffy999 00:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing daft about accuracy, TL. Unfortunately re the BBC they have been making the elementary mistake of calling peer-designates peers for some time. They mix them up with people with honours who can use their honour before going to the Palace. Not so with peers. It is like someone with a rock solid safe parliamentary seat in a general election. Just because you know they will be an MP in three weeks, or three days, or even three hours, does not mean one can say they are one now. Encyclopaedias have to go for accuracy, TU, not media mistakes. Until Trimble becomes a lord he isn't one and can't be called a lord. It is that simple. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)}

David Trimble's correct title is Baron Trimble and not Baron Trimble of Lisnagarvey (Lisnagarvey is his territorial designation). It is also customary to put the peerage title after the person's name and not before it. I've therefore amended the article accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mprf06 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. All the media reportage (BBC News, Irish Times, UTV, etc) makes it explicitly clear he is Baron Trimble of Lisnagarvey. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)}

Since when have the media been a reliable source as to correct titles? Especially with territorial designations, which they're always wrongly including [1] [2] [3] [4]. The House of Lords [5] [6] says it's "Baron Trimble", as do both the reliable peerage creation websites [7] [8] — what more do you want? Proteus (Talk) 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously don't know much about parliamentary debate if you think that evidence. For a start that that isn't the official record. That's the blacks. If all media sources say one thing, and the blacks another, then the media have it. No-one with any knowledge of parliamentary recording regards the blacks as evidence of anything. They are simply a rough (and usually notoriously unreliable) draft that are issued to allow errors to be spotted and corrected. One set of blacks famously called Queen Elizabeth Queen of Ireland. Another set spelt Ronald Reagan's name wrong. A set from the House of Commons caused mirth once by replacing the words President Mitterrand with "the honourable member" (all thanks to some dozy notetaking). FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)}

It's quite clearly just Baron Trimble. It all depends of course on where the comma in the title comes, and in his case it comes AFTER the surname, followed by the territorial designation "of Lisnagarvey in the County of Antrim". If he was Baron Trimble of Lisnagarvey, then it would have to take the form of "Baron Trimble of Lisnagarvey, of Lisnagarvey in the County of Antrim", which it quite clearly doesn't, as the House of Lords website and the Times [9] (which takes the announcement straight from its official publication in the London Gazette) make clear. He would also only need to be Baron Trimble of "somewhere" to differentiate him from another Trimble with a peerage of the same surname, which isn't the case at the moment. As for the media, you're quite right, Proteus, they really haven't a clue about the complexities of peerage titles. They would do well to consult the Wikipedia article on the subject - [10]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.80.120 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not unknown for peers to get their titles wrong. Lady Kennedy of the Shaws calls herself (and is often called in the media and by private organisations) "Baroness Helena Kennedy". Some other life peers have called themselves "Lord Firstname Surname" when it should just be "Lord Surname" (the former is the style for younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses). Timrollpickering 23:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite right, except that it's "Lord Title" rather than "surname". The title could include "of Somewhere" if that's part of the title (unlike Lord Trimble's). Alternatively, the title could be after a place name, for example Lord Bilston. JRawle (Talk) 13:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, quite an interesting claim to accuse other people of not knowing much then citing the BBC as though that's an official source for the correct citation of titles. The Times above correctly quotes from the London Gazette which is the official source. The BBC is not official or that accurate with titles so stop reverting on that basis. If it floats your boat you can watch his introduction to hear details. The first section is the citation of the title with its territorial designation, the second his actual title. [11] skip to time 16:45 for title. He then swears in under his title David, Lord Trimble. If you still doubt it then view mondays introductions and compare Trimbles introduction with Baron Taylor of Holbeach of South Holland in the County of Lincolnshire. Note that "Baron Taylor of Holbeach" is given both in the citation with territorial designation (of South Holland in the County of Lincolnshire) and in the second instance of the title proper. He then swares in under his title John, Lord Taylor of Holbeach Alci12 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Especally interesting to cite the BBC after criticising them for making "elementary mistakes" just above! JRawle (Talk) 13:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And, as if there were any doubt remaining, the announcement in the London Gazette [12]: "BARON TRIMBLE, of Lisnagarvey in the County of Antrim". Proteus (Talk) 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the way Lord Trimble is referred to at the start of the article i.e. W D Trimble, Baron Trimble, correct? (Couter-revolutionary 11:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

The opening line William David Trimble, Baron Trimble is correct. JRawle (Talk) 14:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Should this article title perhaps be moved from David Trimble to Lord/Baron Trimble? I think it may well be a good idea, comments would be appreciated, however I shan't take any action myself on the matter.--Couter-revolutionary 15:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Defecting" to the Conservative Party?

I previously amended "defect" to "join" in describing Trimble's move to the Tories. I'm not going to start an edit war over it, but I suggest there is something slightly misleading about the use of the term "defection" since it is more usually applied to a serving public official or elected representative shifting allegiances in spite of earlier pledges (such as crossing the floor of the Commons in mid-parliament). Trimble, no longer a party leader or holding any office within the UUP, is quite free to change his political allegiance; additionally, the UUP and the Conservatives have been largely sympathetic, so it's not a defection of any significance across the political spectrum.

I just thought it might be useful to solicit some views and see if we can reach a general agreement on which term should be used. Peeper 10:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problems with using "join" or "switch" instead. --Kwekubo 11:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to think "defecting" implies a negative, clandestine, action. I think it merely accurately describes the factual occurance.--Counter-revolutionary 11:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I make no bones about 'seeming to think' that it has a negative connotation. It does, and I think that it is more commonly understood to have that negative connotation. Just look at the opening paragraph of the WP article that it links to:

In politics, a defector is a person who gives up allegiance to one state or political entity in exchange for allegiance to another. The term is often used as a synonym for traitor, in documents that support the act of defection/treason.

And, from the "Political party defection" section of the same article:

The term defection is also used to refer to the departure of a member from a political party to join another political party, typically because of discontent in his existing party.

In my view, the negative associations of the term don't do justice to the relatively undramatic nature of Trimble's decision or the general, if historical, alignment of the UUP with the Conservatives. These suggest to me that using "switch" would be a suitable compromise, since it makes clear that there is a change of allegiance but lacks the air of cynicism and treachery which seems evident in "defect". Peeper 11:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary definition of defect is to "abandon one’s country or cause in favour of an opposing one." That seems to me to be entirely accurate and informative in this case. But as I indicated above I would personally be happy with any of defect, join or switch. --Kwekubo 11:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Turns out that Traditional Unionist has made an amendment to "to leave the UUP and join the national Conservative Party", which seems more explicatory and accurate enough to me too. Are we there yet? :)Peeper 12:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually hadn't spotted this descussion prior to my edit, but I do feel that defect is much too strong.Traditional unionist 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Giving to traditional ties between the Unionist party and the Conservatives, it could hardly be viewed as a defection in any sense, I think its best to say he left the UUP and joined the Conservatives.--padraig3uk 13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Sylvia Hermon will welcome him if he goes campaigning in North Down at the next general election? Surely, when he's joined a party that puts up candidates against the UUP, it must be seen as a defection. --Cavrdg 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Trimble's correct designation

Per the official announcement in the London Gazette [13] , Trimble is Baron Trimble, of Lisnagarvey in the County of Antrim He was so described earlier but his title description was changed with a non working link to House of Commons website by someone without discussion. I have reverted the caption on his picture accordingly. 194.46.252.120 00:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"of Lisnagarvey in the County of Antrim" is the territorial description, not part of the formal title. His title is just "Baron Trimble" in the same way Margaret Thatcher is "Baroness Thatcher" not "Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire". Timrollpickering 07:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

His formal title is inextricably bound to the location, while he may not use it in everyday parlance, it remains his official designation. The reference to the London Gazette [14] is the Official Promulgation of his title. 194.46.227.92 00:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Gazette is the announcement of creation but that it not the style. This point has been gone through umpteen times. Timrollpickering 02:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Trimble's title is what was published in London Gazette. It must be so cited in an encyclopedic article, which will be historically accurate. If Baron Trimble wants to be called Lord Homer Simpson Trimble among his peers (no pun), that is OK, but it does not redefine his assigned title to other than that propagated in the official announcement in the London Gazette. His designation in the article must reflect reality.

00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The title in the info box should be the standard title style which is the title and does not include the territorial description - note that Thatcher's says "The Rt Hon. the Baroness Thatcher" without "of Kesteven". That's because her title is "Baroness Thatcher", no more. In the same way Trimble's title is "Baron Trimble", no more. To show how stupid writing on the territorial description is, consider James Molyneaux's title+territorial description - would anyone seriously double up "of Killead" in an info box or captions?! Timrollpickering 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User Counter-revolutionary is incorrectly reinstating Trimble's title. Trimble is described in the article, per the official promulgation in London Gazette, as Baron Trimble. This is the title that must appear over his picture.

194.46.232.81 (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're just embarrassing yourself now! I'm not denying Baron is what's on the letters patent, but the style is always Lord; in writing and in conversation. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Title of article

According to WP:NCROY lords who are primarily known by their ordinary name should have this as the title of their article, this often applies to politicians who only received a title after they retired. There could be an argument that his title is useful for disambiguation, but he is clearly the primary meaning over the US politician, so this does not apply. The article should be moved to "David Trimble". PatGallacher (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Support in this instance, by analogy with Peter Mandelson. Was mostly active - and won the Nobel prize - under his former name. JRawle (Talk) 23:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

David Trimble, Baron Trimble → David Trimble — He carried out most of his political activity before he got the title, so it should not be used, see WP:NCROY and Talk:Catherine Ashton. PatGallacher (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support and these titles are getting in the way of following policy per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• This will be moved when the target, which is a redirect, has been deleted. I will nominate it for speedy deletion. Kiko4564 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Moved as per the speedy request. The Helpful One 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Trimble. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100620003852/http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/jerusalem-post/mi_8048/is_20100531/aznar-trimble-launch-pro-israel/ai_n53871053/ to http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/jerusalem-post/mi_8048/is_20100531/aznar-trimble-launch-pro-israel/ai_n53871053/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 19:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Trimble. 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/20111003065655/http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf to http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on David Trimble. 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/20070703082821/http://www.davidtrimble.org/latestnews_joinstories.htm to http://www.davidtrimble.org/latestnews_joinstories.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622080542/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Cabinet_to_approve_independent_public_commission_13-Jun-2010.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Cabinet_to_approve_independent_public_commission_13-Jun-2010.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207043926/http://davidtrimble.org/ to http://www.davidtrimble.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725045832/http://www.davidtrimble.org/publications_toraiseup.htm to http://www.davidtrimble.org/publications_toraiseup.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207043926/http://davidtrimble.org/ to http://www.davidtrimble.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218125134/http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/members/biogs/dtrimble.htm to http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/members/biogs/dtrimble.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041214041209/http://www.nobel.no/eng_lect_98t.html to http://www.nobel.no/eng_lect_98t.html

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) 11:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Trimble. 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/20120308181855/http://www.warwicklawsociety.com/obiter_dicta/obiterdicta_v4_2_2003-2004.pdf to http://www.warwicklawsociety.com/obiter_dicta/obiterdicta_v4_2_2003-2004.pdf

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) 09:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)