Battle of Perryville

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Missouri Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States History C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject United States History To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs Other : Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess: {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

"The church was persecuted for religion, which is against the constitution, the people in missouri were wrong.[5]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterGumby (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the cult was not "persecuted for religion." Note that the Saints had been robbing people, selling fake stocks, passing counterfeit bank notes and USA Treasury notes, taking land from the owners, and preventing free trade to the point where food produced by non-Saints sat in warehouses rotting. The Saints also set up their own government, with their own laws, and refused to pay taxes on USA government services they used such as roads and bridges. The victims wanted the Saints out of their lives and out of their region. In year 2009 the LDS published for public review over two million private letters written by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Saints, explaining why they were "persecuted:" it was because of their crimes. Desertphile (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the text about Governor Boggs back, but I softened the writing by saying "a degree of" and "somewhat" and this sort of thing. This change "Boggs had shown fairness" --- where does that come from? I think historians --- not just Mormons --- agree that Boggs didn't show fairness. If anyone has a source that says otherwise, I would like to see a reference. --John Hamer 04:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The section on the Daviess Expedition was changed to include information that is not accurate. The text was changed to read:

Splitting into three companies, the Mormons marched on the three major non-Mormon settlements in the county under the direction of General Parks and as official state militia. The purpose was to disperse the mobs forming to attack Adam-ondi-Ahman and restore order to the county. Apostle David W. Patten led the attack on Gallatin, Lyman Wight headed the troops assigned to Millport, and Seymour Brunson led a smaller detachment against the Grindstone Forks settlement. Fleeing, the mobbers set fire to their homes and fields and blame the mormons later.

[Changes in bold.]

While it is true that apologists for the Mormons used to make the preposterous claim that the Missourians set fire to their own homes, no reputable historian would ever repeat such a thing today. See the two key current sources on the Mormon War:

• Stephen C. LeSueur, The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, University of Missouri Press, 1990.
• Alexander L. Baugh, A Call to Arms: The 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri, BYU Studies, 2000.

I will look up the exact references when I have them in front of me. Using the term "mobbers" to refer to the Missourians who were being driven from their homes is rather the opposite of NPOV. In fact, it is the Mormons who were acting as a "mob," in that they illegally entered the county, drove out the Missourian settlers, stole their chattles and burned their homes.

The article as written was neutral. It acknowledged the wrongs and injustices of both the Mormons and the Missourians. I've reverted it to the way it had been. --John Hamer 00:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was quoting journal selections from some of the members of the expedition. It was compiled in the history book that I have at home and I'll quote when I get back. Jgardner 21:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know by what means you claim no historian would claim that anti-mormons would set fires to their own property. They were murderous rapists bent on driving the mormons from the state and taking their property. Mormon records indicate that no property was taken except to feed the army. No property was burned by the mormons. When the mormons would arrive at a burning property, they would put the fire out. They weren't driving them out - they were disbanding the mobs!

I'd also like to state for the record that what you are arguing has no effect on the other change. The mormons were assembled at the order of the state militia. They fought as legitimate state militia. They were ordered by the general to disband the mobs. The mobs were threatening to drive out the mormons from Daviess with physical force, while the mormons were peacefully co-existing with them, even submitting to the duly elected judge of the county. The term "mob" is especially appropriate because they were not pacifists - they were assembling and conspiring to do to Adam-ondi-Ahman what they had recently accomplished in De Witt! Jgardner 21:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Missourians in Daviess County were "murderers and rapists," were they? Who did they murder? Who was raped? I'm sorry to say that you seem unaware of the facts. Your use of the highly partisan term "mobbers" implies to me that you are an apologist. I suggest you read BYU professor Alexander Baugh's work, A Call to Arms: 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri."

Baugh states: "On October 18, Mormon companies made up of men from Caldwell and Daviess Counties, and comprised of both regular militia as well as members of the Danite society, visited the three settlements" [Millport, Gallatin, Grindstone Fork]. He continues, "The attack on Gallatin, the county seat, came as a surprise to the townspeople..." He quotes Joseph H. McGee, saying "150 [Mormons] came into Gallatin and finding but 17 men in the place they run them out and took possession of the town. The removed the goods out of Stolling's store and burned the house. They then took the goods to Di Ammon" [Adam-ondi-Ahman]. (p. 86)

Baugh concludes: "Gallatin was nearly completely gutted. The only structure left unscathed was a small shoemaker's shop owned by a Mr. Borwell. The effects of the Mormon destruction at Gallatin could be seen for several miles." He states, "Similar activities were conducted at Millport as well as a smaller settlement known as Splawn's Ridge." (p. 87)

Baugh corrects your error in claiming that the Mormons only took property for the needs of the army. He states: "During the days following the assaults on Gallatin, Millport and Grindstone Fork, Mormon soldiers brought into Diahman wagons loaded with furniture, household items, bedding, clothing, foodstuffs, and bee-stands confiscated during the raids." (p. 89)

I've discussed the claims about mobbers burning their own houses in my revision of your revision.

Your statements about General Hiram G. Parks are confused. You are conflating a legitimate movement of the non-Mormon state militia to Caldwell and Daviess Counties in mid-September with the illegal movement of the Mormon militia from Caldwell County to Daviess County that occurred in mid-October. The Mormons did not fight as legitimate state militia. To do so, they would have to be so authorized to act outside their county. They were not. As such they were a "mob." The residents of Daviess County whose homes were burned and whose property was stolen by the Mormon "mob" --- which term, though accurate, I am not using in the article, please note --- included many people who were not involved in any anti-Mormon vigilante activity. The Mormons expelled the entire non-Mormon population from the county. --John Hamer 03:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wrote you off so quickly. I've been trying to research out this period myself and I am constantly amazed by how much misinformation and misrepresentations there are made about these events. It seems that there are two sides to the stories told during this period. They are irreconciliably different. My interest, ultimately, is to get to the bottom of it and find the truth of the matter. I am an apologist. I can't deny that. But I have a sincere interest in discovering the truth because I believe at the bottom of it all is justification or at least a good rationalitization.

I hope my naivety doesn't put you off. I am not a historian by training. I don't think that matters, however, because even in my field I have seen experts who haven't had much training either. Let's write this article in three facets: The facts as near as can be told; the representation of the facts by LDS apologists; and the representation of the facts by Missourian apologists.

For starters, I think the most reliable source of information is going to be found in the letters of the generals themselves. For an LDS view, we can turn to church history books and to the journal of Joseph Smith. For the Missourian view, I think Joseph H. McGee is a good representation.

Here is my list of facts as near as I can tell:

• Joseph Smith went with Lt. Col. Hinckle with about 100 men. Joseph Smith rallied the troops. Lt. Col. Hinckle led them. General Doniphan ordered it to be done. The purpose was to protect Diahman from the reported 800 people gathering from neighboring counties. These 800 were beating Mormons; driving away their flocks and herds; stealing their goods; burning their houses. The 800 had a cannon with them.
• General Parks was sent by Governor Boggs to investigate the Mormon conflict in Daviess. Upon arrival, he orders Col. Lyman Wight to raise troops and put down the assembling mob.
• The 800 flee when they hear of the Mormon militia forming. They bury the cannon in the road.
• The Mormon militia spread out into the county; they plunder the county; they burn houses. Some of the 800 also burn houses to blame the Mormons later. The cannon is discovered by a sow digging in the road.
• No fighting takes place. No one is injured or killed.
• The goods taken are given to the church. After the Mormon War, people go to Diahman and Far West to recover their stolen goods.

We can talk about the apologetics' explanations and rationalizations later.

Does this agree with what you understand? Which aspects are in dispute and need further clarification? Have you read the letters in the RLDS History of the Church? Have you read Joseph Smith's account? I have read through McGee's account. Jgardner 05:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was hasty too. I'm glad that we share a common goal of getting at the truth. I see now that you are doing a lot of digging into the sources and so I'm not put off by you and I hope that we can work together, (see my note below). Here's where I disagree with your above working notes:

• I don't agree with the number "800" — people in the past often exaggerated numbers. How would the Mormons know how many people were in the opposing vigilante group? If there were that many, why would they flee? They'd outnumber the Mormons. I prefer to say "groups of Missourian vigilantes." There was more than one group of Missourian vigilantes. The ones with the cannon had come up illegally from Carroll County, I think. I'll have to check. That group did bury the cannon and flee and the Mormons confiscated the cannon.

• Doniphan did not order the Mormons to Daviess County. As Smith's lawyer, he cautioned that it would be illegal for the Caldwell militia to march under arms to Daviess County. Parks did not authorize Wight to "put down the mob." LeSueur has this to say about the sources you are relying on: "The Mormons later tried to justify their activities in Daviess County by asserting that General Parks had ordered them into the field during his visit to Diahman. This claim, like the assertion that General Doniphan authorized their expedition to Daviess County, is misleading. First, Parks did not arrive in Diahman until after the Mormons had begun their activities, including the sacking of Gallatin. Second, Parks did not report ordering the Mormons into the field. Finally, although Parks probably advised the Mormons to fight in self-defense, he certainly did not instruct them to drive Daviess settlers from their homes." (LeSueur, p. 123).

• I agree that the Missourian vigilantes burned Mormon houses. For any account of beatings, I would like to have a witness or a victim's account cited --- not just general hearsay that there were beatings. I'm not denying that those occurred. Like you say, this is a pivotal event and so we should be careful that specific crimes are well-documented.

• The goods stolen by Mormons were called "consecrated property" and were given over to the bishop and stored in the bishop's storehouse. All of the property was supposed to be given over to the church in this way, but some was kept by individual Mormon vigilantes. --John Hamer 15:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, this source: History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is completely out of date. The Community of Christ recognizes that it was filled with partisan errors, which is why they commissioned a newer, less partisan history: The Church through the Years by Richard Howard. A new official history has just been commissioned to replace Howard's book and it will be published in 2007.

Were the letters quoted false? Jgardner 05:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've made corrections based on more recent scholarship to your expansion of the Daviess Expedition. The article is now accurate again, but I think that the expansion unfortunately emphasizes this part of the Mormon War. The fact is that Missourians acted as vigilantes and attacked Mormons in De Witt and elsewhere and later acted illegally when the Mormons were expelled from the state. But it's also true that the Mormons acted as vigilantes and attacked Missourians, e.g. in Daviess County and at Crooked River. Because you've required so much evidence to back up the latter reality, I think it overemphasizes the Mormon crimes. --John Hamer 04:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you are overquoting Baugh. What sources is Baugh relying on? Not even McGee mentions farms being plundered by Lyman Wight. He told only of the smoke rising from Gallatin. I can only find references to farms burning in the reports made to Governor Boggs by the anti-Mormons.

Why would Joseph Smith write the following? "About this time William Morgan, sheriff of Daviess County, Samuel Bogart, Colonel William P. Peniston, Doctor Samuel Venable, Jonathan J. Dryden, James Stone, and Thomas J. Martin, made communications or affidavits of the most inflammatory kind, charging upon the 'Mormons' those depredations which had been committed by the mob, endeavoring thereby to raise the anger of those in authority, rally a sufficient force around their standard, and produce a total overthrow, massacre, or banishment of the 'Mormons' from the State. These and their associates were the ones who fired their own houses and then fled the county, crying 'fire and murder.'"

Are we to discount Smith's testimony of the events?

I believe the Daviess County event is the pivotal event in the war. It is because of this and the reports of this that the Extermination Order is signed. We should document every atrocity committed by every person as accurately as we can. It is also the first time people felt that they were really at war. Jgardner 05:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that I over-referenced Baugh — I did that to show you the conclusions of a believing LDS professor as published by BYU Studies, i.e., to try to show you that this is not some "Anti-Mormon" conclusion. The same conclusions could be referenced from LeSueur's work. There are a host of primary sources from the Latter Day Saint and Missourian sides that make it clear that it was the Mormons who burned the Missourians' homes in Daviess County. (I will look several up and give them to you. I will also change the article to cite the primary sources.)

Note, however, that you yourself even admit that the Mormons burned homes above, although you want to hold out and say that some of the homes were burned by the Missourians themselves. Unfortunately, yes, we are to discount Smith's testimony. The testimony that Missourians were burning their own homes does not hold up. (It doesn't even past the smell test — people don't generally burn their own homes just so they can blame their enemies for the crime.) Why would Smith write that? Perhaps because there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest on charges relating to these activities. You may not want to believe that Prophets are imperfect and do both good and bad, but Smith would have been the first to correct you. These were trying times, Smith and the Mormons felt threatened and decided to respond to that threat with their own aggression. In doing so, they became just as guilty of mob activity as their perceived persecutors.--John Hamer 15:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jgardner --- I'm likewise sorry that I dismissed you quickly and reacted hastily. When I read the change about "mobbers" burning their own houses, I thought you were just a Wikipedia vandal. I would have reacted the same to someone claiming that the Mormons burned their own houses in Jackson County in order to blame the Missourians. You'll note that I reacted similarly when some Anti-Mormon vandal tried to change this article to say that Boggs had always treated the Mormons fairly. That's simply not true — Boggs clearly acted with negative bias toward the Mormons.

I agree with you that the primary sources are the most important sources. There are a great bulk of primary sources for this period, and yes I have read many, many of them. However, many of the primary sources are partisan. You have to consider them all and weigh them against each other. For many of the events, much of scholarship has reached a reasonable consensus on many issues in the past 20 years. The accounts in both Baugh and LeSueur match on almost all the issues — I've been referencing Alex Baugh for you to show you what believing, practicing LDS scholars have now said.

My goal is to tell this story in a neutral way. I am not an Anti-Mormon in any way. My ancestors lived in Far West; their property was wrongly appropriated and they were illegally expelled from the state. I am having an article I wrote on this period published in a compilation by the LDS church's Deseret Book (which I mention to illustrate that my research has not been viewed by the LDS church as "anti")

Let's work together here, if we can. Quote specific sources and references and I'll do my best to answer. --John Hamer 14:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could I suggest a disambig at the top to the page to Johnston's Army? Growing up Mormon (there's a title!), the only "Mormon War" I heard about was the US action against the western LDS Settlements. The Missouri troubles/persecutions were not labeled a "war" until college history class. So, our readers might need direction. WBardwin 15:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I wrote a little something, see if that works for you. --John Hamer 01:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been expanding this article --- it was actually one of the first I wrote, and it really needed some flesh on its bones (especially references) --- but I don't want it to be too long, so I've started to expand some of the supplemental articles. I just made a massive expansion to the Battle of Crooked River article and I hope to hit some of the others soon. --John Hamer 01:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand that there are a great deal of Mormon articles in Wikipedia, its becoming something of the great saga. At the end of the articles such as this one could you enter a reference under 'see also' a link to the next part of the story. Such as that the Mormons are moved on to Illinois, but what happened there to end up seeing them go to Utah. I understand that these articles have been written, but I am wondering if you could link them up for us so that, if us readers come upon the story at any point we might be ushered on to the next installment or previous happening. Such seems the convenience of the almost linear development of the Mormon story, that it would be served well by this type of delivery.Danieljames626 05:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kville105125 00:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC) The article was a redundant stub. See its old talk page Talk:Gallatin election day battle[reply]

Although tensions were indeed high there was NEVER any authorized killing by organized Morman Forces (Although they came close)66.41.186.212 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second renaming of this article. Renaming this article based on date is not helpful. There are three wars that are clearly identified by state -- Missouri Mormon War, Illinois Mormon War and Utah War. The Utah article at least keeps the state name in it. You have to be a hardcore historian to recognize the dates whereas the states keep it in perspective. Americasroof (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to also add that Missouri would be more appropriate since the war was actually in two parts - 1833 (the eviction from Jackson County) and 1838. Americasroof (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I will add the Illinois war doesn't even have its own article -- it's a subset of History of Nauvoo, Illinois. Any search of "Mormon War" will produce the most results on the Missouri event.Americasroof (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow! I can't believe I just added the only inline reference on this article! For an article about something that is very controversial, that is pretty pathetic! Americasroof (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not pathetic -- just old. Almost all of this article was created before the current "fad" of inline cites. It takes a while for older articles to be rewritten and rereferenced. 71.219.150.164 (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that the article is not materially different from its first significant contribution in January 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_War_%281838%29&oldid=9236065 It caught me more of a surprise considering the considerable debates and references on its parts. There is considerable controversy in some of the facts and inline references would help that. But you are right it takes time to do it properly.Americasroof (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses Harvard style references. They just have to be converted into links using the appropriate template. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Consistent style, the citation style already established in the article must be followed. Therefore I have replaced the <ref>...</ref> style reference with one that is more similar to the style already used in the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "cross" symbol next to David Patten's name is standard notation for US armed conflicts indicating death during combat &/or during the conflict; this is not a religious symbol in this usage, or some sort of a memorial. For another example please see War of 1812. This should not be removed again. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/publications/studies_spring_01/MHS2.1Black.pdf}}
  • In 1838 Mormon War on 2011-05-25 02:04:40, 404 Not Found
  • In 1838 Mormon War on 2011-06-01 22:48:18, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was moved without discussion. The other articles refer to the state (Utah Mormon War and Illinois Mormon War). People do not easily recognize the year. But they will recognize the state. Even the disambiguation refers to it as "AKA Missouri Mormon War."Americasroof (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we have citations that demonstrate that this is the most common usage, then I'd support this proposal. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information here that discusses the forceful removal of Mormons appears to draw from sources affiliated with the LDS church. If the goal here is to inform a neutral audience, then there ought to be more effort involved. And is it really the case that there are no peer-reviewed sources on this topic outside of BYU? Rob Shepard (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, this particular article, three years later, is still completely biased towards Mormons. It needs to be re-written to include as many counterpoint sources as possible. 24.49.173.118 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOT trying to start any kind of edit war here, but the change in the church name does have a bearing on this article. The name of the church is mentioned at the beginning of one section as the Church of Christ, which is correct--but by the time the war commenced, the name had officially changed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. While I would agree that it has no major bearing on the outbreak of the war, it does represent the official name of this organization at the time the conflict erupted; hence I think this article should pay at least passing credit to that fact. There is no need for any extended discussion, but the article should at least give the name that was being used officially in 1838, somewhere in the article prior to the portion that details the beginning of the conflict. Just my opinion, though--as I said, I'm not trying to start any edit wars. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the church has no direct bearing on the issues involved with the 1838 Mormon War; it was not an antecedent factor to the conflict, it was not an action taken during the conflict, nor was it a result of the conclusion of the conflict. The links at the beginning of the article to Latter Day Saints (which redirects to Latter Day Saint movement), Mormons, and especially to Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) all adequately describe the change in name in a far better way than the the awkward wording, and poor placement of the material you added. The edit in question does not add materially to a readers understanding of the 1838 Mormon War, and is off topic. If you feel a need to included the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" name in the article in order to avoid anachronistic naming usage, there are far better, less intrusive ways to do this than the way you have. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 15:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to cause offense; I myself make plenty of mistakes, and don't always word things in the most clear manner (see the repeat word issue in my reply above). It would have been better if I had not characterised the wording as being awkward, as that wasn't needed, and I should have foreseen that using that word could cause conflict. That was foolish of me, and I'm sorry. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 18:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; these things happen to all of us--me, included! I fully accept your apology, and also apologize to you in turn if anything I did or said was offensive to you. Have a super day. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1838 Mormon War. 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/20131224120338/http://www.jwha.info/mmff/mmtour.htm to http://www.jwha.info/mmff/mmtour.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]