Talk:Simon Hoggart

Simon Hoggart's affair with Kimberley Quinn

What distinguishes Private Eye from the tabloids is that it doesn't break sex scandals, but will cover those already reported. I hope that Wikipedia will do the same. Talking of Private Eye, it reported that Simon Hoggart escaped Angus Deaton's fate (being mercilessly mocked about an affair on a topical comedy quiz show that he chaired) by putting his family in the audience. Should there be some mention of this? Tim Ivorson 08:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The NQ anecdote is probably too incidental to be included in the main article. Keeping the basic details in the article is difficult enough, even though it's more than a "factoid", and included on very reputable news sites. Philip Cross 18:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's arbitration list is backed up, and shouldn't be necessary when the guideline is already in place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".Flatterworld (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoggart's affair with Quinn found its way into publications at the top end of the newspaper spectrum, not only the red tops, and thus meets the requirement to be derived from reputable sources. Its inclusion would therefore be valid. The double standard in this country as regards extra-marital affairs is fading, so the 'do no harm' argument does not apply. One more reference is different from OR. Philip Cross (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The affair is mentioned in the Kimberly Quinn article, and it is not sensationalist as it has been covered in reliable sources: the Daily Telegraph is cited in that article (and was also cited in this article), hardly a tabloid newspaper. An affair would not usually be notable, or appropriate content for a Wikipedia article (privacy would be an issue), but this was with a notable person, and had received coverage in the media. Also, the "do no harm" issue is not particularly important, as what little harm there is has already been done. I can understand, however, if it is omitted from the article, as it is uncertain of the impact, if it had any at all, either positive or negative, on Hoggart's career and notability. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Message left on Flatterworld's talkpage after this revert :"I'm not clear what your thinking was when you reverted my recent edits, but you removed an important citation from a reliable source, and you undid some WP:MOS guideline amendments. I suspect that you have some issue with the inclusion of the factual detail that "In December 2004 he confessed that he was the "third man" in the Kimberly Quinn affair[1] - the political sex scandal that contributed to David Blunkett's resignation." This is not a fact that is open to debate. Simon Hoggart gave out this information himself in the reference from the Newspaper of record Telegraph, as given in the cite: [1]. In building an article on Wikipedia we strive to give a full, balanced and unbiased view with all the facts. We do not blackened someone's name with slurs from their private life, but a public revelation of that importance, which the subject of the article has given himself, has to go into the article to make sense of a newspaper report like this, in which he is referred to as "the third man". By not including that detail we would be whitewashing that incident, which would be a POV activity which is against one of the very few official policies we have on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you have any issues regarding this then you may discuss it with me, or you may take the matter up with any of the dispute resolution methods we have on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Editor assistance or Wikipedia:Third opinion are good starting places. I will copy this to the Simon Hoggart talkpage as a matter of record. Please do not remove the third man material from the article or revert my edit until you have discussed it with someone else. Regards" SilkTork *^YES! 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Wikipedia guidelines. This point has already been through mediation, which is why I again reverted your changes. Flatterworld (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see that you are acting in good faith and with the best of intentions, however, my edits have assuredly not been through any mediation or discussion. I do not wish to get into a one on one edit war - if you are not happy with my edits then please either talk to me or get another opinion. I have explained my edit, and the reasons why I feel that it follows the guidelines, ethos and policy of Wikipedia. Please engage in discussion and explain the reasoning behind your position. A previous mediation was closed without any apparent discussion - though looking at the discussion above there is a consensus to include the "third man" material. I get the feeling that you dislike the material to be included because you feel it puts an unfair slur on the man. Yet he came forward with the information himself. It is now a matter of public record. He was a part of a significant public scandal that helped bring down a senior politician. He is referred to in newspapers of note as "the third man". If he comes to write up his biography the incident will appear in there. We do not whitewash articles on people - look at Jeffrey Archer, his prison sentence is mentioned in the lead. We attempt to be as balanced and fair as possible. This incident happened, and the man is known for it. It would be inappropriate for us to smother or censor that information. SilkTork *^YES! 07:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your personal edits have not been through mediation, but the topic itself has. There's no reason for me to repeat everything that's happened before simply because someone different makes the same edits, nor is there any reason to ask for yet another third opinion (an oxymoron) simply because you happened on the scene. As I can see from your Talk page, this isn't the first time you've done something like this. Flatterworld (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What discussions have you been through - the only discussions I can see have been in favour of keeping the material in the article. It would be interesting to see the consensus on this. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

I can understand why the details of the Hoggart-Kimberley Quinn affair are in the public interest, and it's already been exhaustively detailed in the public domain. But do we really need to give so much detail about his children? Surely it's enough to say that he has two children, and maybe to add that they're of university age? I certainly don't think it's in the public interest, or that there's anything to be gained, by adding their names, university courses, and extra-curricular interests, and I'd feel a bit more comfortable if these were removed. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debonairchap (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I whole-heartedly support this suggestion. I, too, am uncomfortable with the details given about his children. They are individuals in their own right, and there is no reason why details from their life should be put into a wikipedia article, any more than details from the life of any of us. There is absolutely no way there is any form of legitimate "public interest" here; it is their own private life, and I feel this "exposure" does to some extent violate their privacy. --- Someone please at least remove their names as well as the location they are studying in. Otto von B (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

I have been asked by SilkTork to clarify my involvement. In my understanding the case wasn't mediated because Philip Cross stopped editing the article. My view is that according to the Biographies of living persons policy, we should "insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." While I accept The Daily Telegraph is a reliable third-party published source, in my opinion there isn't a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. However, there is a clear demonstration to Kimberly Quinn's notability, so the content should be included in the Kimberly Quinn article, but not this article. PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What would you accept as a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability? It seems inappropriate to labour the point as a simple statement of fact might be more reasonable. For example, this cite is not in the article, however it really wouldn't be difficult to construct an entire paragraph presenting the case and why people gasped on Radio 4's Today programme when Blunket mentioned The News Quiz. Creating a strong paragraph with several cites would somewhat unbalance the article. Hoggart is not very notable - he is a minor presenter and columnist, but since the Third Man incident he is in the UK arguably as much known for his involvement in that affair as he is for the other things he has done.

The affair itself is one of note - it helped bring down a senior and very high profile British politician. There are many cites that could be given as evidence that Hoggart is equally notable for the affair as he is for News Quiz. Here are an assortment: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I include a variety so it can be seen that he is mentioned in connection with the affair, not just as a brief news item, but as an enduring matter of record.

A simple factual, neutral sentence with one solid, unimpeachable cite from a newspaper of record seems appropriate for the size of the article and the general notability of the person. SilkTork *^YES! 13:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been discussed before (see both here and PhilKnight's link), it's simply not notable within the Hoggart article, although I'll accept its inclusion in the Fortier-Quinn article. It was covered by the news media simply because Hoggart was one of the last people anyone would have suspected of having an affair with Fortier-Quinn. That's all it was: unexpected. That doesn't make it notable, important, or of any particular relevance. The Fortier-Quinn affair with David Blunkett certainly had an effect on Blunkett's career, but you're the only person I've ever heard claim her affair with Hoggart had anything to do with that. I wouldn't call Hoggart a 'minor columnist', any more than I'd consider the Guardian a 'minor news source', but I'm not surprised the readers of the Mail, Sun and Star only know about Hoggart because of this. So what? Lots of people don't know anything about the people running their own government, including their names - do you really think that makes them not notable unless they do something picked up in the red-tops? We are an encyclopedia and deal with relevancy and weight issues. This certainly doesn't rise to the level of Lord Nelson and Lady Hamilton, in which their affair played an important role in their lives. Do you truly not understand the difference? Flatterworld (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The affair is one of note. Hoggart played a part in that affair. He is notable for his involvement in that affair. There is enough evidence to support that. The article could be rewritten to give more emphasis to the affair in order to demonstrate that notability, however, this sentence:

In December 2004 he confessed that he was the "third man" in the Kimberly Quinn affair - the political sex scandal that contributed to David Blunkett's resignation.

seems appropriate and tells the casual reader all they need to know. As regards Hoggart's general notability standing, the quote from Order-Order sums it up neatly: "The presenter of the humourous News Quiz show is of course Simon Hoggart, Blunkett's co-shagger of Kimberly Quinn." SilkTork *^YES! 22:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's your idea of 'encyclopedic'? I think you need to find a new hobby. Flatterworld (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my idea of an amusing quote. ;-) SilkTork *^YES! 08:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

References

WikiProject Biography

I've asked WikiProject Biography for advice: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Simon_Hoggart SilkTork *^YES! 10:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"Third man" sentence

There is a dispute about the inclusion of a sentence related to Hoggart's involvement in the Kimberly Quinn affair. Full details to the background to this dispute and steps taken so far can be read at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Simon_Hoggart. SilkTork *^YES! 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that Simon Hoggart's involvement in this highly publicised scandal was significant; it seems to have contributed to his decision to give up the chairmanship of the News Quiz. The mention is adequately sourced (I found international coverage on a brief search) and neutrally phrased, although I would prefer if it made it slightly clearer exactly what his role was. Just saying "the third man in the scandal" hints at perhaps more than was actually the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The reasoning behind the terse comment was not to make too much of the incident and let it overbalance what is after all a very short article. But, true, a little more clarity might be helpful. SilkTork *^YES! 06:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making up 'facts' as you go along. It was NOT significant, had nothing to do with Blunkett's resignation, and had nothing to do with Hoggart's resignation from The News Quiz. It's certainly not encyclopedic to fantasize non-existent connections. Go work for News of the World if you enjoy writing ooh! ooh! imaginings. Flatterworld (talk)

Having read the previous discussion, I left a friendly note for Flatterworld on seeing this comment, requesting that he adhere to policy on personal attacks in future; he has removed it from his talk page as acknowledgment that he saw it. To take up the substantive points he makes, I think it is clearly established that there have been multiple independent sources referring to the fact that Hoggart was involved with a high-profile scandal. It has not been suggested that he had anything actually to do with David Blunkett resigning. It is a fact that Hoggart left the chairmanship of the News Quiz at the end of the series immediately following, and there was speculation they were connected: see the Independent's Pandora diary, 3 February 2006. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I need hardly point out the Pandora diary is not an encyclopedic source. I wouldn't make an incontrovertible claim in the Wikipedia article that Hoggart resigned from The News Quiz (at the end of the season) because he turned 60, but it's certainly more plausible. He had hardly made a secret that he had grown bored with it, long before this publicity. Flatterworld (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point being made here is not that the reason for Hoggart's leaving the News Quiz should appear in the article (Sam Blacketer has not said that at all), but that Hoggart's involvement in the Kimberly Quinn affair may have been a contributory reason to his decision to leave. If the incident did have such an impact on his life that in itself is a reason to include it in the article. It is a reasonable conclusion to draw. Our job as Wiki editors is to present the material - fully and neutrally - and leave it to the reader to draw their own reasonable conclusions.

At this point we have been around various Wikipedia forums and procedures, there is a convincing consensus (amongst those who have expressed an opinion) that the material should be placed in the article. I'm not sure where else we can go. This is not serious enough for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, but it may be a case for Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users if Flatterworld continues to act against consensus. I would be reluctant to go down that route. Anyway, I'll make the edit and see what happens. SilkTork *^YES! 08:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Flatterworld, I think you should check who exactly you are accusing of not knowing about Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. In this case, where BLP is not brought in (because the content is adequately sourced and neutrally phrased), the governing principle is consensus and I see no-one supporting your view that any and all mentions of Simon Hoggart's statement of December 2004 should be removed from the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to be so snarky. This topic has been through Mediation, Informal already. I will now send it through Mediation, Formal as you and your 'friends' are so determined your trivia must be included. I'm sure you have your reasons for ignoring both procedures and guidelines, but I'm really not interested. Flatterworld (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The topic has indeed been through mediation but the mediation was closed without a resolution, rather than the clear decision implied. I'm afraid I don't understand your remarks exactly; none of my wikifriends have pitched in and I wouldn't expect them to have. I arrived here in response to a Request for Comment as an uninvolved editor and I would advise you to assume good faith: the point is to make this a better article. It is not a conspiracy against you and your position. Please don't accuse me of ignoring procedures and guidelines, because I'm not. Does this link explain why I was surprised to be told that I didn't know about dispute resolution?

Perhaps more comment about the article would be better. The key issue here is that including a mention of Hoggart's own statement does not violate any policy and has consensus. Only one editor disputing a position does not mean that it does not have consensus. It is not a trivial topic; the story about Kimberly Quinn was high profile. His statement received wide media coverage at the time. We have good quality sources. There is no great dispute about the facts. References appear in other related articles. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That link does not explain a thing. Are you now claiming it's MY gfault mediation was closed? I agreed with the mediation statement that was made, and have abided by it. I have no idea what you consider a 'clear decision', but I suggest you read the information I supplied at the time, and the Wikipedia policies I referenced. The mediation was not re-opened, I have not been asked for more input into the mediation process since then, by you or by others, so I have no idea why you're claiming I'm out of line. I remain surprised (make that shocked) by your attitude. Flatterworld (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Tempted as I am to follow suit, can I object only to the fact that this response comments only on processes and personalities, and not at all on the substance of the article? I do not yet know why you object to the inclusion of a reference to the statement Simon Hoggart himself issued to the press in December 2004 which set out his involvement with Kimberly Quinn. It would be more productive to debate that rather than get sidetracked into a meta-discussion of processes. Could you set out your reasoned objections? Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of record, a message [9] was left on Flatterworld's talkpage in which it was pointed out that Sam Blacketer is a member of the ArbCom. Flatterworld has removed that message so he should now be aware why Sam Blacketer knows about dispute resolution.

As far as process goes - the nature of how Wikipedia is created means that it is important always that we discuss, reason and negotiate. There are going to be disagreements, and those are best solved by discussion. Members who attempt to force their views on others by repeated actions against consensus and refusing to get into a discussion cause disruption. It is terribly frustrating when "your writing [is] edited mercilessly", and the temptation is to keep on putting the situation back the way you want it to be. We've all been there and know what that feels like. But the way out of the situation is to open a discussion. The informal mediation process has been through and was not completed. The mediator gave his personal, informal opinion as he saw fit at the time, and he stands by his view. That opinion has in itself little significance. It has as much significance as my own opinion. So our opinions cancel each other out. Weighed against that we have 10 other editors who feel the material should be included. In total there are 11 editors, including - as I have frequently pointed out - SlimVirgin, the major author of the BLP policy - in favour of the material being included and 2 against it. That is a significant consensus in favour of the material being included. I have requested several times that we discuss this matter - with no meaningful result other than reference to the informal mediation, and I have complied with every request to look into other channels. I don't wish this drama to continue, but my own sense of the fair process of Wikipedia, and the importance and value of neutral, balanced content in Wikipedia means I will stick this out. I am involved now, and until consensus goes against me I will stand up for what I believe to be right. It's like not being able to walk past on the street if I see someone being attacked. I don't want to get involved, but a sense of doing the right thing means that I will. I do hope you will start talking! Let's aim to resolve this. SilkTork *^YES! 17:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

On a small point, I wouldn't want my status as current arbitrator to be taken as giving any more credence to my views; I'm here as an ordinary editor who happened to alight (through the RFC) on this dispute and offered my opinion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, I agree with SilkTork that my view has no more weight than his. Also, there certainly appears to be a majority in favour of including the content. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted all your comments to be on this 'permanent record' to demonstrate that mediation is a worthless waste of time when people like you are determined to include 'facts' totally out of weight with an article. The real fact of the matter is, Blunkett was brought down by his own actions and Hoggart had zero connection with those. You can't accept that, can you? Must find someone else to blame, so you come up with all these ridiculous excuses as to why this is soooo important to include in Hoggart's article. It's a pretty pathetic argument you're making, but hey - you got a few people to post here, so you 'won'. Congratulations. You must be very proud of subverting Wikipedia to your own ends. Flatterworld (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Consideration de novo

Reading back on what I previously commented to Flatterworld, it seemed to me that he might reasonably interpret a challenge to state objections as coming over as slghtly passive aggressive. As it is for the people arguing for inclusion to make the case for disputed content, here is the case as I see it.

• The affair was a significant aspect of the subject's life. So far as I can find, this was the sole occasion on which Simon Hoggart has 'been the story', in other words prompted news coverage of his actions, rather than reporting or commenting on the news. It prompted considerable comment too: for this see Denise Robertson in the Newcastle Journal (28 December 2004), Tony Parsons in the Daily Mirror (27 December 2004), Peter McKay in the Daily Mail (27 December 2004), for starters. He was also namechecked in the Channel 4 film 'A Very Social Secretary' transmitted in October 2005. There are other press mentions throughout 2006 and into 2007.

• There are multiple independent reliable sources. The subject's statement issued on 19 December 2004 was reported in all newspapers the following morning, and significantly it was written up in the broadsheets by political correspondents: George Jones in the Daily Telegraph, David Hencke in The Guardian, Philip Webster in The Times, and Marie Woolf in The Independent.

• The essential facts are undisputed. Here we do not have a claim made by one and disputed by another; we have a statement issued by the subject himself on which to base what is written. That statement was exculpatory of Kimberly Quinn to the extent that it stated that the affair occurred prior to her marriage. So far as I can find there is no-one who has asserted that the reality was different.

• The incident can be recorded in non-sensational language. In a biography we are not interested in News of the World style exposés; what is relevant is how events in the life of the subject brought him to public notice and affected the way others see him. We only need to record what the subject admitted doing.

• Biographies of living people policy does not require removal. The article is a biography of a living person, and the claim is contentious to the extent that it is potentially defamatory to accuse anyone in a marriage of infidelity, but in this case we have good sources to the subject himself putting out a statement confirming it. The policy only requires removal of poorly sourced or unsourced contentious material. It does not matter that the affair was short, and it is no part of the policy that any vicarious embarrassment to friends and relatives of the subject requires removal; I suppose an extreme interpretation might argue that Peter Sutcliffe or Dennis Nilsen's murderous escapades took a short part of their life and to dredge it up embarrasses their living relatives.

One final thing to mention is that I overstated the link to the News Quiz earlier; the affair was revealed in December 2004 and Hoggart left the News Quiz in summer 2006, so that was 18 months after rather than the next series. However, it remains true that some comment linked the two, and that there was some comment comparing Hoggart's treatment on the first News Quiz recorded after the revalation to that endured by Angus Deayton on Have I Got News For You after the stories about him. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to stir things up all over again but it seemed to me that the really significant thing about Hoggart's involvement in the Quinn affair was his initial dishonesty about it, so I've slightly amended the mention of it to reflect this. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How self-righteous of you to use the excuse of 'initial dishonesty' about a purely personal matter. I was not aware he was under oath in a court of law at the time (end snark). Clue: anyone who asks a question which is none of their business doesn't deserve, nor should expect, a truthful answer. However, I expect you were were totally thrilled and rubbing your hands with glee at the possible impact your 'helpfulness' might have on both families, particularly the children. You must be very proud to have brought such Undue Weight to this article. Let's be honest, shall we? Based on the 'updates' I've seen made over the years, I would point out no one but me seems interested in updating such things as his list of books, presenting record, etc. Only this one particular point, often in conjunction with what I can only characterize as the attempted bullying of his children, particularly his son. I will always 'assume good faith', but I think the record speaks for itself. One can only hope you grow out of it as you approach adulthood. Flatterworld (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Did he ever write about *that* affair?

I note that in 2005 he promised to write about his affair with Quinn.

I will write about the events of two weeks ago some day, but right now it's all a bit raw, so I hope you'll excuse me.

Did he ever do so? BrainyBabe (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Simon Hoggart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110610151439/http://www.kingston.ac.uk/krf/events/2008/02-the-hands-of-history-parliamentary-sketches-1997-2007-simon-hoggart/ to http://www.kingston.ac.uk/krf/events/2008/02-the-hands-of-history-parliamentary-sketches-1997-2007-simon-hoggart/

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simon Hoggart. 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/20140301171422/http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/277577/top-100-political-journalists-2011.thtml to http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/277577/top-100-political-journalists-2011.thtml

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: 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) 19:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)