Talk:Gary Hart/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Oxford D. Phil.

The Oxford D. Phil., like the more common Ph. D., is a 'Doctor of Philosophy,' but it does not necessarily have anything to do with the academic discipline of 'philosophy.' It would be interesting to know what academic discipline his doctor of philosophy was in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.114.60 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Stalking" vs. "Following" in reference to the Miami Herald's conduct towards Donna Rice

According to the account of the Miami Herald's employees, (Tom Fiedler, Jim McGee, and James Savage) Jim McGee had no picture of Donna Rice when he attempted to recognize her at the Miami airport. "The caller said she was blond, in her late 20s, with a rich Southern drawl. She was an actress with an appearance on Miami Vice to her credit. That was not enough to go on. And even if she is seen on the plane, what then?" So McGee was not following anyone, but simply stalking quarry. As they wrote, "McGee figured that either the woman with the purse or the younger woman was most likely to be an actress. He wondered how he would decide which woman to follow." http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/Hart/hartarticle.html This kind of unwanted media attention is known as stalking, "Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them." Stalking. It was unwanted group attention directed at a lady who was not running for public office, but simply had been interested in fund raising for Hart's campaign. Since they claimed they didn't know what she looked like, and had no photo, how could they "follow" her anywhere? Media stalking is not entitled to different terminology then unwanted attention from a former boyfriend, acquaintance, or admirer. They certainly caused her a great deal of mental anguish despite the fact that she had done nothing legally or morally wrong. Bai used the term stalking to describe the Herald's conduct towards Rice, "McGee ... spent the flight to Washington stalking his fellow passengers, walking up and down the aisle in search of women who looked as if they could plausibly be on their way to sleep with a presidential candidate." It is the appropriate verb to describe what McGee and the Herald were doing, i.e., stalking a woman. So they want to claim that they were following Gary Hart, when in fact, they were stalking Donna Rice.

As this is an encyclopedia, let's stick to the facts and avoid loaded words. The replacement of the original verb "following" with "stalking" in this context is a loaded term that violates one of Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral POV. This is the overriding factor in this case.

As for secondary factors:

• The very definition that anonymous user 213.189.38.62 above cites (Stalking) invalidates that user's claim: "Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time. Although stalking is illegal in most areas of the world, some of the actions that can contribute to stalking can be legal, such as gathering information... They become illegal when they breach the legal definition of harassment e.g. an action such as sending a text is not usually illegal, but is illegal when frequently repeated to an unwilling recipient."
• The presence or absence of a photo is irrelevant to the question of which of these verbs applies. Neither the definition for "follow" nor the definition for "stalk" requires the presence of a photo. We can probably agree that it's an unusual usage of "follow" (though this would be no less unusual with "stalk") in that usually someone sees who/what they follow. I'm all for suggestions for a verb to use that more clearly and elegantly conveys what "follow" conveys here. But as per the guidelines it needs to convey a neutral point of view. Thanks Seanjsavage (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of valid information re: Fiedler column that preceded tipster contacting Herald

We seem to be in an edit war, wherein a few (or a single, posing as a few) anonymous users keep removing valid information without stating valid reasons for doing so, and adding nonsourced and otherwise invalid claims and screeds. The following passage has been one of the particular targets of this vandalism. This passage is relevant and true and it's properly cited – and it doesn't even say anything that's been controverted by either side in the various books and print publications covering the Hart affair, as far as I know. If you know of a reliable source that disputes that claim, feel free to post that opposing viewpoint too and properly cite it. But don't just delete and disrupt without backing your edits with proof.

If you spot a factual error and can prove it wrong with proper citations, by all means do so. If you have any other positive contributions to make, do so. But don't resort to baseless edit warring – such changes won't stand and they only waste everyone's time. See WP:CCPOL for full descriptions of how to contribute properly.

"The Miami Herald published a news analysis questioning the media's ethics in covering unsubstantiated rumors of Gary Hart's alleged sexual daliances, and bemoaning the media's obsession with politicians' personal lives, and a lack of focus on politicians' ideas and work on the job.[21] In response to this analysis, an anonymous informant, now reported to be Dana Weems..."

Seanjsavage (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

much of that paragraph is unsourced. i just tagged it. please don't call good faith editing disputes "vandalism" Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, just added sources for all but the claim that the Herald reporting "losing" Rice at the airport. I haven't seen a source reporting that, the Herald reported a different story: in short that McGee wasn't sure at that point which person was Rice or whether she had been on a different flight to begin with. As for the rest of that graf, the lower half: I didn't write that part and I don't think anyone on either side of the story disputes those pieces, at least not on Wikipedia. That's probably why that portion went unsourced so long. As you can see from the edits, it's the top portion that has been repeatedly added/deleted by anons. Seanjsavage (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

rest of this article

the rest of this article, outside the 1988 campaign, is terrible. not nearly enough sources, funky things like inline hyperlinks to external sites. I wish the editors squabbling over the 1988 campaign issues would give your attention to improving this WP:BLP article that is about Gary Hart. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Citation made to back claim appears to invalidate it

A mistake seems to have appeared in the following paragraph on the Gary Hart page:

"Weems recently recanted her previous denials of contacting the Herald, but "repeatedly insisted" that contrary to the account of the Miami Herald writers, she did so only after reading Hart's "follow me around" quote which was subsequently published in an article by E. J. Dionne in the New York Times magazine."

What Weems "repeatedly insisted" was judged "obviously impossible" by the very source cited to back her claim here. If that claim remains in the article, I suggest adding this claim of impossibility to balance Weems' disputed claim. Here's the relevant sentence from the cited source:

"When I spoke to Dana Weems, she repeatedly insisted to me that she had only called The Herald after reading Hart’s “follow me around” quote, which was obviously impossible."

Thanks, Seanjsavage (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Here you are requesting that we include an editorial on Dana Weems's statement which disputes what the Miami Herald published in May 1987. Matt Bai considers that it was impossible for Weems to have read or known about that quote, but that is his opinion. How do we verify that her recollection is impossible? It is unlikely that she had known about that quote, but it remains possible that she knew somehow. Was she working for another campaign that wanted to discredit Hart? As a living person, Weems has a right to have her recollection of events noted, even if some find that embarrassing or disturbing. Of course, she would not be the first person to have a "refreshed memory" of events about that quote which is not consistent with prior published statements. Tom Fiedler's 2004 interview in Smithsonian Magazine is of course, another salient example this- http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/those-arent-rumors-32055044/Doctor Franklin (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not requested an editorial. Only citations that back the stated claims. This citation backs the opposite of the stated claim. Simple as that. As for how you verify the impossibility: the cited source verifies that, and the passage the citation points to describes why the impossibility is impossible in full detail. Thanks, Seanjsavage (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki NPOV means just that. We are even required to report lesser known or believed POVs. As stated on the main page: "Former National Security Council member Roger Morris suggests in his book Partners in Power, the Clintons and Their America that the alleged Hart–Rice sex scandal was really an intelligence operation to deny Hart the presidency. CIA agent Chip Tatum claims to have been tasked with "neutralizing" Hart. Hart's biggest offense, according to Morris, was his advocacy of "further investigation and exposure of the alliance between the mob and the U.S. intelligence community". Considering the claims of Roger Morris, Weems having prior knowledge of Hart's quote is not "impossible". There has never been an investigation of this claim by a U. S. government agency made public. The CIA never admits or denies anything.80.50.149.116 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. These claims about CIA conspiracies don't address the fact that this citation backs the opposite of the stated claim, that's the point. That CIA story sounds interesting, I'll give you that. By all means, feel free to submit it and cite it appropriately and in an appropriate place. But this section is for addressing the Edit Request above. Thanks. Seanjsavage (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't this level of detail is approprate for this article and took most of it out. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That solves the problem from my POV, thanks. Seanjsavage (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

BLPN notice

I posted a request for additional editors to review what is going on here at BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gary_Hart. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

IP editor

IP editor 83.16.13.64 inappropriately reverted my edits of last night in this dif, with edit note "rev massive collection of edits removing the work of many editors w/o consensus". I took four hours of my time and carefully went through the section sentence by sentence and source by source. deal with them on the merits. I added sources where there was none, formatted sources, and trimmed detail that doesn't illuminate what happened to Gary Hart, the subject of this article. There is now nothing in that section that is unsourced, the sources are very reliable, and in my view the discussion is WP:NPOV and gives appropriate WP:WEIGHT to elements of this aspect of Hart's life. If you guys want to write a separate article on the journalistic ethics that may have been at play here, or add a discussion about what happened in Hart 1988 to the main journalistic ethics article, please do so.Jytdog (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

also, IP editor, if you intend to continue discussing this BLP article, I suggest you create an account and clarify which of the IP addresses that have made contributions were being operated by you. If you will not create an account, please do clarify which of the IP addresses that have contributed are you, and please make sure going forward that you clarify who you are so there is continuity among your comments. When editors don't log in it becomes difficult to sort out how many voices there really are in the discussion and it becomes impossible to work out WP:CONSENSUS of the actual editors involved. That is why we encourage people to create accounts. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

we now have a second global reversion from IP address 80.50.149.116. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have requested that the article be semi-protected. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Note. I am considering these global reversions to be disruptive vandalism. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: article was semi-protected in this dif Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of Matt Bai

The New York Times pointed out that some work by Matt Bai they published and is in a book is quite likely wrong - or at the very least, contentious enough that the Times issued a correction. It explicitly points out Wikipedia already relying on Bai as a source as one reason they wanted to clean the air and make clear that Bai's claims are just that - claims. SnowFire (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Bai's account is consistent with the Miami Herald's account of May 10, 1987:

http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/Hart/hartarticle.html

Michale Calderone addressed the new controversy over Fiedler's attempt to now change the story years later:

“Fiedler, now the dean of Boston University's College of Communication, didn't object to the chronology during a 2013 interview for All The Truth Is Out or after seeing a galley of the book before publication. Fiedler only mentioned one correction to Bai on Aug. 27 after reading the book, according to an exchange shared with HuffPost. Fiedler pointed out that he once worked at The Orlando Sentinel, not the Sun Sentinel.“

Bai had of course interviewed Fiedler for his book, and issued the following statement by email to Calderone:

"I'm disappointed that Tom Fiedler and his former colleagues from the Miami Herald are now trying to reverse their own narrative of events in 1987, and that the country's best newspaper would assist them, even in a small way, by issuing a 'correction' that doesn't actually correct any facts," Bai wrote. "I find it particularly disturbing that Fiedler, someone I'd very much admired, has now invented a new version of events after repeatedly and recently reconfirming his own longstanding account, which is something we as journalists often condemn in the people we cover."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/10/gary-hart-correction-scandal-matt-bai_n_6134180.html

Fiedler's Miami Herald also published the January 20, 1988 story “HART CAMPAIGNS SECRETLY SUBSIDIZED” which was also not substantiated by the FEC. There are serious credibility issues with Fiedler and his associates.

The person who anonymously responded to SnowFire, above, erroneously interpreted and reported the facts.

• Bai's account is not consistent with The Miami Herald's account of May 10, 1987. That account describes Fiedler and Savage discussing the "follow me" quote on the plane, but it does not deny the fact that they had seen the quote and the article that it was in long before that flight. In fact it clearly contradicts the claim that The Herald had no knowledge of the article or quote until the flight – to hold a hard copy of the article on the flight, one of them had to have brought it aboard with them to begin with.
• Had Bai ever contacted those at The Miami Herald who decided to pursue the Hart story, perhaps he would have learned the actual chronology of events, which was not fictionalized until Bai altered it in 2014. Paul Taylor interviewed these people, verified the true sequence of events and published this in his 1990 book 'See How They Run: Electing the President in an Age of Mediaocracy,' page 28: "...the Herald political editor had an advance copy of the Times profile in hand when his paper decided to launch their stakeout..." Taylor's book wasn't as lurid as Bai's, but Taylor did his reporting and he got the facts straight.
• Nothing above implies that the "follow me" quote was the sole or primary trigger for the Herald's decision to pursue the story. As documented in Taylor's book and other publications, The Herald reporters and editors received a tip from a source in response to a column by Tom Fiedler. That column described how politics had gone tabloid and asked deep questions about the media's ethical responsibilities regarding publishing mere rumors of politicians' sexual improprieties. That column was published before what Bai's book title calls "The Week Politics Went Tabloid," and it invalidates Bai's central thesis. Seanjsavage (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The Miami Herald and its reporters are unreliable sources who repeatedly published false stories about Gary Hart, his relationship with a Phi Beta Kappa who was Don Henley's girlfriend, and also false allegations of improprieties with the financing of Hart's two presidential campaigns. The anonymous source, now reported to have been Dana Weems, had the kind of detailed knowledge of times, dates, and places of telephone calls from Hart to Rice. This is consistent with Rupert Murdoch's News of World phone hacking history in the U.K. Murdoch's New York Post was undeniably involved in attacking Hart's 1988 campaign, as detailed in Bai's book. Murdoch also received expedited citizenship from the Reagan administration and then V.P. Bush's regulatory relief task force. The story put forth by the Miami Herald isn't credible, regardless of how much the son or grandson of an individual involved in changing norms of journalistic ethics wishes to protest the matter. Senator Hart has a long and distinguished record of national service, and Wikipedia's policy for living people certainly applies to him here, regardless of the liberties taken by corporate media to defame and ridicule the man. [Edit to note that Paul Taylor is on record as the first reporter to demand that a presidential candidate address allegations of adultery. Taylor did not get the facts straight since Hart had already been followed by someone, and Taylor was part of the Washington Post team that was attempting to blackmail Hart with that report, while at the same time, they were actively suppressing reports of George Bush's relationship with Jenifer Fitzgerald. Taylor's account is unreliable due to his own, and the Post's, unprecedented conduct in the campaign. Richard Ben Cramer's What It Takes is the more accurate account of the 1988 campaign.]

The erroneous claims about "false stories" and "false allegations" put forth by the anonymous person above lack any citations or proof, and the rest of the paragraph devolves into nonsense. (What does the Weems sentence fragment mean? What has Rupert Murdoch to do with the Miami Herald or the Gary Hart story at issue here?) Technically the paragraph above should be removed as per Wikipedia's Verifiability and citation rules, but I will refrain from removing it, so as to avoid the appearance of being part of some grand Murdoch/Miami Herald conspiracy to whitewash those claims. Seanjsavage (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

According to WP's policies on biographies of living persons, it is Fiedler, and company, (apparently including a relative of SeanJSavage above) who bore the burden of proving their salacious claim's against Senator Hart and Donna Rice, two people who have demonstrated a commitment to public service despite suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, and the defamation of the corporate U.S. media. Both denied their relationship was sexual. Both denied Rice spent the night in Hart's D.C. townhouse. Both denied spending the night together on the yacht in Bimini. (Unlike Tom Fiedler's recent flip-flopping, neither has changed their stories about these points since 1987.) Yet the character assassins at the Miami Herald persisted in reporting this as "fact". However, contrary to Tom Fiedler's cock and bull stories, that story didn't end his '88 campaign, since he returned to the field in December 1987 and again led in the polls nationally and in Iowa before Fiedler and company unleashed another false attack on Hart, that his campaigns had been secretly subsidized. That story, like the stories about Hart and Rice "trysting" on the yacht and at his D.C. townhouse, (while his wife who didn't live there wasn't "home"), was indisputably FALSE! Considering that Fiedler was in fact one of Bai's sources for the book, and that he declined to object to the substance of the work before final publication, Fiedler's subsequent revised history is not worthy of further consideration. Fiedler and company at the Herald simply are not reliable sources about anything pertaining to Gary Hart. In fact, they were the story about how they changed the rules for presidential election journalism, their cover story notwithstanding. Bai makes note of Murdoch wanting to make Hart "squirm" in his book, and it was Murdoch's NY Post which prompted Fiedler and the Miami Herald to start repeating that gossip and what develops from it, as if by a plan.

Like the Nazi comparison below, these are frenzied, irrational conspiracy theories lacking any citations or proof and boasting increasingly tenuous connections to reality. And they're anonymous. If you have anything helpful of substance to bring to the account of Gary Hart, please do so but do it right. Seanjsavage (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

To the anon: Do NOT change other people's text to invert their meaning. This is *extremely bad etiquette* and leads to immediate assumption of bad faith. I said no such thing as "Don't trust Tom Fielder", so do not put words in my mouth. Since you clearly disagree with the old title, I've changed the section title myself; please do not change again.

More thoughts to follow, perhaps. SnowFire (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue is the veracity of Tom Fiedler, and company. Remember that at the time nearly 2/3rds (64%) of Americans thought the media treatment of Hart was unfair. The strategy has been Goebbels's Nazi propaganda strategy to continue to repeat falsehoods hoping people will believe them. When that fails, they want to change their stories. The story that the MSM wants to repeat, isn't quite how it happened. That is Bai's point, and the institutional hostility towards him is perhaps, predictable.

Must we ALREADY sink into Godwin's Law quicksand? You and the other(?) anonymous user are the only people repeating falsehoods here. (Well, and Bai in regards to those factual errors that have been and are being corrected out in the open, not covered up.) If a single one of your claims is true, cite your proof. Seanjsavage (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Anon: It sounds like you're conceding that Wikipedia should ignore Matt Bai, then. If there's a conspiracy by the "mainstream" to say something is fringe, guess what, Wikipedia reports what the mainstream says. Even if it's "wrong" ("verifiability, not truth", WP:NOTTRUTH). If you want to convince us to use Bai's work for anything, you need to show that it's *accepted*, not that it's rejected. SnowFire (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't twist my words please. Sorry, but Mat Bai is the national political columnist for Yahoo! News, and formerly was with the New York Times. Yahoo! News is too big to ignore, and represents the new medium of the Internet in publishing news. Since leaving the NYT he is no longer bound by whatever biases that paper held of its own role in the 1988 presidential campaign. Bai, (Yahoo! News) and Michale Calderone (Huffington Post) are relevant news media for consideration as RS. Fiedler and company are clearly not RS, since in this case, they were the story. The Europeans all thought this kind of reporting was crazy, and irrelevant. (These sources can also be cited.) Of course, it was necessary to change the rules to elect George H. W. Bush president in 1988. [Edit to note that other sources are available and cited on the main page which contradict Fiedler's claims that the Donna Rice story killed Hart's '88 campaign. Richard Ben Cramer's What It Takes is also recommended as an accurate account of the 1988 campaign.]

"Twist"? You realize that "MSM" stands for "mainstream media", correct? *YOU* are saying that "The story that the MSM wants to repeat, isn't quite how it happened." Aka "I know that the version the mainstream gives is Wrong (TM), and I know the Truth (TM)." Which... is fine, of course. Just understand that Wikipedia is going to report "the story the MSM wants to repeat", and you'll need to convince them otherwise first, and then Wikipedia will change to reflect the consensus naturally.

In short, I pretty much agree with Seanjsavage's reverts. SnowFire (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is going to follow Reliable Sources, not whatever large corporate media, like the NYT, want us to believe. In identifying reliable sources "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." This is particularly true when discussing history, which the 1988 presidential campaign now clearly is. [Reliable sources]] By this definition, Mat Bai's work qualifies as a history of events in 1988 and is academic and peer reviewed. He actually gave Fielder the opportunity to review the work BEFORE publication. Fiedler reviewed it and only suggested one change, which was made. Bai produced the exchange of emails to prove it, as reported by Calderone on Huffington Post. Huffington Post, as an online publication with a reputation for accuracy, is not disqualified as RS because it is an electronic publication as you wish to purport, and clearly is now a rival to the NYT. The funny thing is that it was the NYT which disproved the myth that Hart had caused the problem because it was the NYT, as cited on the main page, which exposed that Ben Bradlee and the Washington Post got that report showing that Hart had already been followed before he was ever interviewed by E. J. Dionne. Now, the present group running the NYT may not want WP to remind them of what they printed years ago, but the record is undeniably there. We are obligated to use our common sense when editing, which you sadly have omitted. Fiedler has a history here of printing things which were not verified about Hart, and when Fiedler verified his version of events to Bai, he now wants to change his story after publication of Bai's work. That is simply the latest in Fiedler's unreliable history in which he was the story in 1988 as reported then by the strong public disapproval of the media towards Hart in the Gallup poll. Lastly, the person who wants to claim to know the truth, contrary to RS, is you.

More convoluted and overheated expressions of emotion. This uncited falsehood, in particular, needs to be highlighted: "Fiedler has a history here of printing things which were not verified about Hart." Fiedler and his colleagues were sticklers for getting the facts right, I haven't seen even Bai dispute that. If the anonymous writer of that claim failed to cite it due to sloppiness and poor reporting rather than with the intention of libel, now is his/her chance to correct the error. Seanjsavage (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Belatedly in response to the anonymous comment: Actually, Wikipedia does in fact report what the "large corporate media" says. Sorry. That's just how Wikipedia works. You're correct that academic sources would take precedence here over casual news articles, but Bai's book is apparently quite contentious to the degree that a source no less than the Times has claimed he failed to at least interview key players. You are surely joking if you claim that "Huffington Post has a reputation for accuracy", it features tons of crap written with no editorial oversight. All your other arguments are attempting to prove the "truth", not what is and isn't a reliable source. You simply can't say "The Times & the Herald are wrong"; if they're wrong, so will Wikipedia. And that's okay.

If you'd like to claim that Bai's work is accepted and mainstream, you need to have a better source than the HuffPo. SnowFire (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

this is WP:NOTFORUM. Please focus discussion on our article. I checked the ways we use Bai and none of them relate to the issues being disputed in Bai, as far as I can tell. If anyone thinks that any content supported by Bai relies on something disputed in Bai, please say so, simply. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog:: As long as the material stays out of the article, I'm happy. If you check the history, you'll see some rather questionable claims *were* added, so I considered having this debate as relevant to defending my revert. SnowFire (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

great, was just making sure that whatever issues were being raised here about the article, are resolved. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

paragraph on Clinton/Hart meeting

In this dif I removed the following:

With Hart leading in the polls, Bill Clinton, whom Hart had introduced to national politics by naming him as the McGovern campaign's coordinator for Texas and Arkansas, was interviewed as a possible running mate at the request of media producer and consultant Ray Strother, whom Clinton had hired after the success of Hart's 1984 campaign. Following that interview Hart rejected the idea by stating that Clinton had no political "core" values, and "doesn't believe in anything". (James Carville, who also had worked with Strother in Hart's 1984 campaign, would later use an almost verbatim quote about Clinton, but attribute it to Whitewater special prosecutor, Ken Starr.)

The last sentence is not sourced and is not about Hart, so should have been deleted anyway. But as for the rest, the only place i have found this sourced is to Strother, whose book is basically political gossip. There is no page number given (it is p214). This conversation happened sometime in 1987 - the book doesn't say when. But clearly this was in the context of some speculative long term planning for something that never came to be (Hart was never faced with the choice of actually choosing a VP). I don't see how this bit of content has much importance in the story of the 1988 failed campaign. Sure it is juicy gossip that is not what WP is for. That is what people like Strother sell books for.

I wrote this note because the IP editor objected to this deletion over at BLPN in this diff, and also pointed up that my userpage says I am a "Clinton Democrat". (which it does; that does not mean I worship bill clinton; it means i like the New Democrat policies he represented. I actually agree that he was pretty flip-floppy, politically!). anyway, very open to discussing whether this should be kept or retained. The question is - is this report of gossip relevant to an encyclopedia article on Gary Hart? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I also want to note that paragraph was added in Oct 2014 in this dif and is copy/pasted from here, which dates from Sept 2011. (nand in turn cites Morris' Partners in Power... which I am not going to waste more time tracking down). The content was WP:COPYVIO. We of course can paraphrase and it back. But why? that is the question. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

question to IP editor

This is something I would usually write on an editor's talk page, but since you are using a dynamic IP there is no way to do that. So i'll ask here. I have read your comments carefully and it is hard for me to understand what is important to you. It is very clear that you don't understand how Wikipedia works very well. Your comments tend to be very general, and very emotional. I cannot figure out what, specifically, is actually important to you. Would you please explain, briefly? Please don't write a long emotional note. Please just say what, specifically, is important to you. Some specific person? Some specific event? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove semi-protection

This page was semi-protected after a false claim of vandalism by Jytdog. As posted on the BLB noticeboard: "The above editor carried out a massive overhaul of the work of many editors of the page without a consensus for anything:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=634669164&oldid=634647954

The page deals with the biographies of several people, and previous editors made an effort to be fair to them all, as was discussed on the talk page. The above editor claimed vandalism when his work was reverted for lacking any consensus and lacking NPOV in what he drastically edited, including his POV deletions especially regarding Bill Clinton's failed interview to be Hart's V.P., which was properly sourced to Raymond Strothers book, Falling Up. (The author notes on his page that he is a "Clinton democrat".) The page got attention due to the citation of Matt Bai's book All Of The News Is Out. Bai had relied on former Miami Herald editor Tom Fiedler as a source, and that proved controversial after two of Fieler's former colleagues disputed his memory, and eventually Fiedler reversed his position. The son of one of those involved, Sean J. Savage then began aggressively editing the page with a POV favoring his father. The above editor then arrived and decided, rather than come here first, to delete what he just didn't like, take ownership of the page, and call anyone with a different opinion a vandal. The page needed some attention due to the COI POV corrections and needed some help with readability, but the above editor actions and comments have been overly dramatic, and perhaps even manic.83.16.13.64 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)" Also, Edit warring, which was claimed, does not apply to contentious edits regarding BLB, which the above editor was referenced for doing in the last edit that he complained about.83.16.13.64 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

since the article is semi-protected, why don't you open discussions on specific edits i made, with which you do not agree? I opened one such discussion for you below. please feel free to open more. you will get more traction if you discuss specific changes, and make specific arguments grounded on specific aspects of policies or guidelines. i am happy to discuss differences. that is what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

by the way, the policy is "Biography of living persons" or BLP. You would do well to actually read it, and cite specific sections when you want to advocate for a specific change. Content you have added to the article and tried to restore has, for example, had no citations, which is always a problem per the policy WP:VERIFY and is especially problematic in BLP articles. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point it should be noted that there were many citations in the material which was deleted. It also appears that there is someone here on a power trip.80.55.8.138 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• This was an unlikely request to be followed in the first place, but after the IP editor's post on my talk page there's no way in hell I'm lifting semiprotection. IP editor: if you post disruptively in the future on this talk page, I have no problem semiprotecting it too. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure of family connection

I'm the son of James Savage, a (now retired) editor who was involved in The Miami Herald's 1987 Gary Hart coverage. I'm here to contribute information that will improve the quality of Hart-related pages.

I'm aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I will abide by them, with special care given to ensuring my contributions closely follow the neutral point of view content policy and that they are cited and verified by reliable sources.

As a family member of someone involved in the news coverage of Hart, I will restrict my edits from now on to talk pages, and I won't directly edit any Hart-related page (with the exception of adding citations to already-posted material, which is allowed as per Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy). Instead, I will volunteer information on the talk pages, and ask for Wikipedians' help. If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page [3], or e-mail me here: wikipedia@placesite.com Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanjsavage (talk • contribs) 03:41, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC)

This is also a single purpose account and should be tagged as such. The single purpose being to defend the role of the Miami Herald and its staff with regard to Gary Hart and his presidential campaigns.80.55.8.138 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Seanjsavage (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Add citation request

I respectfully suggest adding a citation needed tag to the "allegations were never substantiated" claim in the following sentence.

"With Hart at 31% in the Iowa caucus polls the Miami Herald reported in headlines on January 20, 1988 "HART CAMPAIGNS SECRETLY SUBSIDIZED",[36] although the allegations were never substantiated by the Federal Election Commission."

Thanks again, Seanjsavage (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is covered in What It Takes: The Way to the White House by Richard Ben Cramer. However, there is the logical problem of proving the negative here. We can clearly confirm that the Miami Herald published this story. Where was the Herald's story confirmed and verified by a court or administrative agency or tribunal? This should be a matter of public record. Perhaps Sean can ask his dad for some help with this point?Doctor Franklin (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

if by "asking dad" you are trying to obtain information for this article, that would fail WP:RS. if the "ask dad" comment was sarcastic, that would be out of line. Either way, not helpful. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to your beliefs, but here we need to deal in facts. If this claim is backed by What It Takes: The Way to the White House, why haven't you cited the backing? If that's true, please point out the source, quote and page number. Thanks Seanjsavage (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Franklin's point was to obtain a reference to an official U.S. government court, agency or administrative decision related to the Herald's story about financial irregularities in Hart's 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns. Surely if that story had been legally and factually correct, then we should find an FEC complaint or investigation, right? If the FEC didn't find a problem based upon the Herald's story, then we would expect a reputable newspaper to have published a clarification or retraction of the story. If there was no clarification or retraction in the latter case, then the Miami Herald should not be considered a RS as SeanJsavage clearly wants. SeanJsavage says he is here because he wants to try to be neutral, and he has been given a chance to do just that. Let's see how helpful he is now.80.50.149.116 (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a point where we can set our differing POVs aside and rely on the facts. The claim referenced above is a controversial claim that's completely unsourced and it was made in the biography of a living person. As per Wikepedia policy (see link following) it should be deleted immediately. To show good faith I'm stopping short of requesting a deletion and instead requesting a citation. If you can back the claim, you are free to cite it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed Thanks, Seanjsavage (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

extraneous detail. i removed this as I was working over the section. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That solves the problem, thank you. Seanjsavage (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The editorial policy of the Miami Herald towards the Hart campaign is more than relevant for perspective when discussing the other more unprecedented conduct of its staff in reporting salacious details about the relationship between Hart and Rice which both denied at the time and have done so since. The Herald went far beyond what any other newspaper in the country did in reporting 2 contributions to the '88 campaign which Hart promptly returned. The Herald alleged that one Dennis Walto was subsidizing the campaign with money from a donor for various things including transportation. They ran the story on the front page for two consecutive days (Jan. 20-21, 1988) with the Headline "Hart's Campaigns Secretly Subsidized". Yet when the Republican U.S attorney's office investigated, it could find nothing to substantiate the Herald's claims about the Hart campaign or Dennis Walto. (New York Times, June 10, 1988). The effect of this unsubstantiated story shortly before Iowa had more affect on Hart than the Herald's previous stories did, but is clearly less remembered. It needs to be here to avoid telling a false narrative of why Hart's 1988 campaign failed.Carpo- Rusyn (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please write more concise comments. here is the NY Times article from June 10, 1988 that you mention. A guy named George Stuart Karl Jr was supposedly paying the salary for a Hart campaign worker named Dennis Walto. The article reports that Karl was indicted by a federal grand jury for illegal campaign contributions. grand juries are convened by prosecutors. I have no idea now what to do with your comments above. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"reported to be Dana Weems..."

I removed this sentence "reported the following month to be Dana Weems, but then denied by Weems,"and its source (which I will not replicate here) because:

• what the source actually says is "Donna Rice has said another Miami model, Dana Weems, was the source of the information..." and later says ""Donna's gut instinct," said another source, "is that Weems herself didn't call the Herald, but that somebody she told did". The content did not reflect the source.
• if you read the source, the identification of Weems is all speculation
• the source itself is a copyright violation and we don't link to copyvios. It is on the website powerreporting.com but says very clearly at the bottom "Copyright 1987 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution" and there is no indication that powerreporting.com has permission to use it. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking to repost the content of that sentence, and I'm not advocating NOT posting it either (although I recommend clearer prose if we do post it.)

But FOR THE RECORD, in case this is revisited for the article: That citation is not a copyright violation, it was posted to the site powerreporting.com by the article's author, Bill Dedman. I understand how it raised copyright concerns, because the link didn't lead to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution where it was originally posted. NOW Dedman, the article's writer, obtained official permission from the AJC to republish it, and he added notice of that permission to the top of the page, to clarify this and assuage copyright concerns: http://powerreporting.com/files/gary_hart.html

ALSO: We don't need to rely on that citation – you may use the original citation: It ran May 17, 1987 on the front page of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, By Bill Dedman. (Though I don't know of anywhere else to view it directly online). Thanks Seanjsavage (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

you are actually right on that, http://powerreporting.com/files/gary_hart.html does give permission at the top. and I was wrong to cite COPYVIO. Nonetheless, the identify of the caller remains irrelevant to Gary Hart, per se, and the note in which I formatted the identity of the caller remains true. Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Remove editorialization

I suggest the removal of the word "Allegedly" that was appended to the front of this sentence:

"Allegedly in response to this analysis, an anonymous informant,[22] reported the following month to be Dana Weems, but then denied by Weems,[23] contacted The Herald."

Reasons:

• It's used here as a Weasel Word that editorializes and verbally injects bias. (By contrast, "alleged" as used in the sentence above is valid and is not a weasel word, because it describes non-cited and unsubstantiated rumors of wrongdoing.)
• If "allegedly" belongs here, wouldn't it also belong in almost every phrase on the page?

Thanks, Seanjsavage (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This page is about Gary Hart, a living person. As such, facts about his life and career need to be verified. Since the Herald's editor and writers decided to engage in unprecedented "gonzo journalism" which was quite controversial at the time, and its published reports about Hart and Rice were met with denials by both, everything which the Herald reported needs to be verified before it can be reported here as Wiki Fact. Without verification, or where there is controversy, its reports need to be qualified as simply their contentions, not facts. Furthermore, Sean's decision to edit the Herald's POV into the page is questionable, since it could confuse the reader. This is not a page about everything about the Miami Herald. The facts that have been verified are that other news organizations started publishing rumors about Hart, and that the Herald repeated those rumors and expanded upon them. Why it did so is open to interpretation.Doctor Franklin (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This fact is already verified by the footnote #22 above, which leads to page 28 of Paul Taylor's book. Here's a scan of that page: http://postimg.org/image/8e66naisn/ Matt Bai also verifies it. (The three corrections added to that Bai article reduce its overall credibility, which is why I cited Taylor instead, but neither of those corrections disputes whether the tipster responded to the Fiedler article.) Has that been a point of contention for anyone on any side of this story until it became so for anonymous editors here? Both sources published the tipster's quote: “You know, you said in the paper that there were rumors that Gary Hart is a womanizer... Those aren’t rumors.'” Please stop wasting everyone's time: If you have a claim to make, back it. And please refrain from the vitriol and the personal ad hominem attacks and editorializations about gonzo journalism et al; they're not helping your case anyway. Stick to the point please. Thank you, Seanjsavage (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

From your cited source, Paul Taylor, (who has his own issues of bias in the matter), “The press, Hart said, had more to answer for than he did. He accused the Miami Herald of shoddy journalism, not for having placed his townhouse under surveillance the previous weekend, but for mucking up the job.” The fact that the Herald team isn't denying that Weems was the source for its disputed stories (which it has never corrected or retracted) about Hart and Rice when Weems was neither on the yacht for the trip to Bimini, nor in Washington, D. C., at the times issue, and the fact that Weems contradicts Fiedler's published account of events from 1987, supports Hart's 1987 claims of the Herald's “shoddy journalism”. Therefore, the Herald does not qualify as an RS for purposes of this page. 80.50.149.116 (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I trust that any dispassionate third party editor who examines this will conclude The Herald is as reliable a source as Hart and certainly as reliable or moreso than Weems or Bai. But that's note even the point: The Miami Herald is not one of the sources cited to prove the fact we're discussing. Now I've listed TWO sources, Bai being one of them, that back that statement of fact. Please stick to the point. If you have a reliable source that disputes that fact, cite it. This baseless invective may confuse readers in the short term, but in the long run it's only wasting time. Seanjsavage (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

simplifed this also. guys, this is an article about gary hart. Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely: as you say, what stands there now very well sourced. That's why the word "allegedly" here is a textbook example for the WP:Avoid Weasel Words page – the point is not controversial. It's a fact that Bai's and the Herald's accounts plainly agree on, that not one of these sources cited by either editor denies. And Bai, The Herald and every other citation that mentions it explicitly, affirms it. Thx. Seanjsavage (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Issue resolved, thanks. Seanjsavage (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Carpo- Rusyn there are two sources directly after that phrase and both of them unequivocably make it clear that the call was in response to the article. One of the sources reports on the one who received the call, the other (Bai) provides information directly from the caller. There is no source that supports "allegedly". Stop edit warring over perfectly supported content. Make any arguments you have here. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The second source contradicts the first, and the accuracy of the first source had now been disputed by Gary Hart, Donna Rice, and now the Herald's source, Dana Weems. What Weems said speaks for itself.Carpo- Rusyn (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

no.

• Herald source reports what Herald editor heard:"The voice on the other end of the telephone was strained with a nervous jocularity. “You know, you said in the paper that there were rumors that Gary Hart is a womanizer, ” he woman told Miami Herald Political Editor Tom Fiedler. “Those aren't rumors. How much do you guys pay for pictures?”"
• Bai article does two things:
  • reiterates Herald report: "The woman on the phone had apparently just read it. “You know, you said in the paper that there were rumors that Gary Hart is a womanizer,” she told him. “Those aren’t rumors.” And then a question: “How much do you guys pay for pictures?”"
  • It then reports Weems' motivation as described by Weems: "It all made Weems sick to her stomach, especially this idea of Hart’s getting away with it and becoming president. “What an idiot you are!” Weems said, as if talking to Hart through the years. “You’re gonna want to run the country? You moron!” And so when Weems read Fiedler’s story in The Herald, she decided to call him, while Armandt stood by, listening to every word." (emphasis added)

Carpo, please present whatever contradictory evidence you see in these two sources or elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Note, I just removed all reference to what motivated the call, in this dif. This removes what I understand Carpo's objection to be (as he expressed here). Per my edit note, with respect to Gary Hart, all that matters is that call was made. The motivation of the caller, would be a matter for an article on the caller; it doesn't matter here. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog: Thanks but to clarify: the passage about what motivated the call is directly relevant to Gary Hart. Here's why: the sequence of what happened (and everything I say here was documented by multiple primary sources cited here including Bai and The Herald) was: 1) blatant rumors swirled around Washington about Hart allegedly womanizing/having extramarital affairs, 2) Newsweek and other high-profile news outlets publish said RUMORS, without substantiating them, 3) Fiedler writes column, specifically re: Gary Hart's campaign, pointing out that #2 is happening increasingly and introduces ethical issues, and that high-profile journalists should seriously examine their ethics around this. 4) In response, tipster contacts the Herald. Yes that all involves media ethics issues, but it also very directly and deeply involves Gary Hart and his campaign. I invite you again to peruse the column in question – I think it will be clear to any disinterested editor from its first paragraphs that it is relevant specifically to Hart. Seanjsavage (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Carpo: The sources do not contradict each other about this as you claim. Are you sure you're not thinking of the sources contradicting one another about other questions (whether the reporters saw the "follow me" article before they got on the plane, for instance?) Here we are specifically addressing the Fiedler column which preceded all that. As said above and cited, they all *agree* with one another on this point. If you do see a contradiction, please point it out. As far as I can see we are disputing something that none of the sources contradict one another about. Thanks Seanjsavage (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

seanjsavage, I 100% disagree. actually all that matters for Gary Hart, the subject of this article, is the fact that the two articles published on Sunday, that became part of the public conversation. we do not provide the backstory on how the NY Times article came to be; it is kind of off-kilter that we only provide background on how the Miami Herald article came to be. We can of course go many steps back in how the Herald article came to be (or how the NY Times article came to be), but every step we go back, gets more complicated and involves more and more people. Carpo has raised issues about the backstory for the Herald article and it is absolutely not worth it to contest that in this article about Gary Hart. Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you judge the motivation of the tipster whose tip led to Hart's downfall irrelevant to the story of Hart, we do disagree. But thanks for considering my point, and for devoting the considerable time and effort that you have to ensure the quality and accuracy of the Hart article.

A key correction for future readers of this discussion: Carpo-Rusyn, in the discussion referenced above, pointedly left off the phrase "...which was obviously impossible" from the Bai quote upon which Carpo's argument depends: "When I spoke to Dana Weems, she repeatedly insisted to me that she had only called The Herald after reading Hart’s 'follow me around' quote, which was obviously impossible." And this is the second time this happened – this same quote, with the same key portion removed, was used to justify an earlier obfuscation of the passage in question by an anonymous editor.

Also, for the record, Dana Weems retracted her earlier denials and admitted that she was the tipster – and Bai reported this in that same source that Carpo cites to make Carpo's case. Thanks all, Seanjsavage (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

the note in the article makes it clear that Weems was the tipster, yes. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Was Weems lying then or lying now? Why should anyone believe her now? What else is she not being honest about? Bai didn't interview her in person. It was only over the phone. He couldn't read her body language, etc. No one is obligated to accept her last statement as fact, or truth. Hart alleged that he had been under surveillance after he suspended the campaign in May 1987. Bai made reference that theories of mafia and/or CIA involvement were possible but not proved. A former National Security, Roger Morris, adviser noted a claim of CIA involvement. "Admitted" implies that Weems' last statement is truthful. That lacks NPOV>68.82.241.124 (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Weems claims that she knew about Hart's "follow me around" quote well before it was publised is necessary to judge her credibility in light of her previous denial of her involvement in the matter.2601:44:500:3408:D80:198A:3341:73EE (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It also needs to be noted that Weems was not even a registered voter, and thus could not have been a "liberal Democrat" as the Herald reported. This is noted in the May 18, 1987 article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, which also noted Rice's other friend, Julie Semones, as having been told about the Bimini trip. Curiously, the story noted that Rice and Semones had attended a party on the private yacht of Saudi Arabian arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, who was implicated in the Iran-Contra and Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) scandals. That suggests a possible connection between Hart's media problem and Iran-Contra players. Iran-Contra was a certified conspiracy, and Hart did claim that he had been set up when confronted by the Herald in the ally behind his home.2601:44:500:3408:C1DE:998E:6245:7E3B (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

in popular culture

he was also mentioned on Beverly Hills, 90210 at the first season on episode 17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.50.4.76 (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gary Hart. 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/20131103143845/http://www.museumofthegulfcoast.org/personalities-notable-people-raymond-strother.html to http://www.museumofthegulfcoast.org/personalities-notable-people-raymond-strother.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/montreal/story.asp?id=%7BED508362-1BF2-4F9A-912D-EDADDA9216B7%7D

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gary Hart. 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/20071114135219/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F03%2F28%2F1431259 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F03%2F28%2F1431259

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)