Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Listed Democrats

There needs to be a clear standard for inclusion here. Some of those previously included have very mixed records. Of those I've removed, I think Stephen Lynch and Mike Michaud could arguably be included. I've left Mike Ross in, but I'm not sure he should be. Also, there are apparently two somewhat pro-life new congressmen from Pennsylvania- Altmire and Carney. I think we'll have to wait to see what there voting record looks like before including them. Gabrielthursday 20:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list was not created by Wikipedia. If the list was created by Wikipedia, it would be original research. The list was taken from the Democrats for Life website which was on their website up until after the 2006 elections. 75.3.7.41 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Take a look at the "what is excluded" section of WP:OR. This is merely gleaning information from the public record. Gabrielthursday 05:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert by 75.2.246.99 on 13:59, January 10, 2007

I am dismayed that this user deleted my work. I put a good effort into improving this piece, by ensuring it was NPOV, descriptive, sourced, and grammatically correct. As I said in my edit summary, I reworded the deleted material wherever possible. I deleted as little as possible. I find it extremely rude that 75.2.246.99 deleted all of my work, rather than replacing whatever they felt had been lost. I encourage others to view the edit history; it should be apparent that all my edits were made in a good-faith effort to uphold Wikipedia policy. Joie de Vivre 19:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I readded "This idea again assumes that the Democratic Party is solely made up of members who only support a non-restrictive woman's right to choose an abortion, when the reality is more complex and less single-issue oriented." It seems like taking this out is implying that the party is a one issue party or you must accept all stances of the national party to be a member, which is untrue, and every former DNC chairman will tell you that is not true, Howard Dean will tell you that is not true. There are no major Democratic party figures that believe it's a one issue party or an take it all or leave it party. 75.2.246.99 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for respecting the value of my edits, and working with them rather than destroying them. It makes for a much better Wikipedia experience. That said, I would like to address your recent addition.
"This idea again assumes that the Democratic Party is solely made up of members who only support a non-restrictive woman's right to choose an abortion, when the reality is more complex and less single-issue oriented."
I understand what you are trying to convey, but I've got some problems with the current sentence. First, ideas cannot "assume" anything, because thoughts cannot think. People can make assumptions. Secondly, the middle of the sentence, about what pro-choice Democrats think of pro-life Democrats, has already been stated earlier in the paragraph. Thirdly, it is entirely POV to use the phrase "when the reality is...". It's not Wikipedia's purpose to state an opinion as "the reality". The fact that some pro-choice Democrats do not think that pro-life Democrats represent the ideals of the Democratic party is as much a "reality" as the fact that pro-life Democrats considering themselves as full-fledged representatives of the Party. So, rather than using a grammatically bad, repetitive, POV statement, I would rather see something like:
"Pro-choice Democrats tend to see the views of pro-life Democrats as incongruent with the ideals of the Democratic party, an opinion with which pro-life Democrats dissent."
What do you think? Joie de Vivre 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you have just said is not true though. Pro-choice Democrats do not see conflict with pro-life Democrats. Important Democrats do not believe the Democratic party is a one-issue party or a take it all or leave it party. The statement which you have suggested is more point of view and baseless than anything you have taken out of the article. 75.2.246.99 19:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have read the 2004 platform of the Democratic Party, I have made changes to the section and article. Joie de Vivre 20:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party Stance

The 2004 Democratic Party platform

If you are new to this discussion, please view the 2004 Democratic Party Platform before commenting. The relevant information is found on page 38 of the document's printed page numbers, which corresponds to page 42 of the PDF's page numbers. Joie de Vivre 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

User:75.2.246.99 placed the following comments on my Talk page. I am copying them to this location for comment.

The official stance of the Democratic party can be included in the article, but it is not relevent enough to the organization to where it gets it's own heading and is the first heading. Putting such a large emphasis on the Democratic stance, when the page is supposed to be about the organization and not the official party stance, is clearly biased. The page is about the Democrats for Life, not about the official stance of the Democratic party on abortion. Also, it fails to mention where the organization agrees with the official stance of the party. Also, please show me other examples of Democratic organizations where on Wikipedia, the first heading is not about the organization, but about where the organization is in disagreement with an official stance of the party.

It would be better to put those sentences in the opponents section. As I have said, the page is about Democrats for Life organization, if the stance of anything should have it's own section and should be at the top of the page, it should be the stance of the Democrats for Life organization.

I absolutely disagree that this information does not warrant its own heading. The DFLA is an organization of Democrats. It is not biased to directly quote the platform of the Democratic Party in an article about an organization of Democrats, particularly when their political intentions differ so greatly from the national Party with which they share a name. It is censorship to omit information that demonstrates that the DFLA's purpose and movement is different from the stated intention of the national Democratic Party.
Certainly, this information does not belong under "Opponents". I certainly hope you don't mean to infer that the national Democratic Party is an opponent of the DFLA. That would be heavily POV, unlike the current revision, which simply states the information succinctly and moves on with the rest of the article. Joie de Vivre 16:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is this page is about Democrats for Life, not the official Democratic party stance on abortion. DFLA is not even an official organization associated with the DNC, so there position is unrelated. Putting the DNC stance as the top heading makes as much sense as putting Webster's definition of Democrat as a top section. Please, Joie, I think maybe you should leave the page as it was, it appears that you are either letting an anti-Democrat or anti-life bias effect how you edit this page. 75.2.253.88 19:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Democratic Party's stance on abortion is entirely relevant to an organization calling itself a group of Democrats. As an attempt at compromise, I have moved this information from the top heading, but it must not be removed entirely.
Question: What do you mean that it is not "associated with the DNC"? Is there a list of organizations that are associated? Joie de Vivre 20:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I placed the Party's position back into the history section, but added the context to make it more relevant. I think this should suffice. --Briancua 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the edit you made. I am dismayed at the efforts to hide this material. I feel it is important to note that the mission of this group of registered Democrats is divergent from the officially stated platform of the Democratic Party. My opinion is that you are giving the stance of pro-life Democrats undue weight, by burying the information about the national platform. The Democratic Party's platform states that its members "stand proudly for a woman's right to choose".
Now, any U.S. citizen can register as a Democrat, and Democrats with similar beliefs can band together and work to change a the party's policies. However, this does not change the beliefs set forth as a national platform. If a group were to form and name itself itself the "Democrats for a White America", and if they were to lobby for the deportation of all racial minorities, would this mean that the Democratic Party should be described as comprised of people who support white supremacism? No. The opinion of that small minority, regardless of their registration, would not be representative of the national Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party platform exists to define the party's purpose, and the beliefs of its members. Any group which supports diverging interests from the majority should be placed in contrast to the national party which provides that group's name. Please do not make further attempts to bury this relevant material under the unrelated "History" header. Joie de Vivre 22:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is trying to hide the material. The lead of the article makes clear what the position on the DNC is, and that the stated mission of DFLA opposes the DNC position. Perhaps you missed it. The positions the party has taken on this issue are certainly part of the history of the organization. If the DNC opposed abortion there would be no need for DFLA. In any case, you removed material about DFLA activities at the 2004 Boston DNC that I think we can both agree belong in the history section. I have reverted back--Briancua 23:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "miss" anything, I was the person who placed that information in the first paragraph. There was nothing about the national party platform until I placed it there. There is no reason not to include the short paragraph in the article. Also, anything that I deleted from the History section about the activities at the 2004 DNC was an accidental casualty of our minor edit war. I apologize for the error, and I urge you to reinstate that material, but to leave the section header alone. Joie de Vivre 23:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Webster's definition of a Democrat should also be included. It is very important to note that the issue of abortion is not defined either way in the actual definition of Democrat. Also, Joie, the fact that you only looked to see where they disagreed with the DNC and not where they agreed is very suspicious. Why did you not include other DNC's stances that the DFLA also agree with? 75.2.253.88 23:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about including the dictionary definition. There is a link in the lead to tell a reader which party is being referred to. In addition, it also says DFLA operates in the US. There shouldn't be any confusion there. I do agree that it is suspicious that Joie is so selective and insistent on this. I'm assuming good faith, but I don't see this as something that deserves its own heading. It seems out of place and far too prominent. --Briancua 23:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did not go into detail about the places that their opinions converge is that I am not familiar enough with the specifics of the DFLA to do so. Someone who knows more would be better able to explain how the DFLA and the Democratic Party's opinions align. I don't feel that I am being "selective". While I am insisting that including the information about the Democratic Party is important, a comparison and contrasting of their views would also be useful. However, I am not equipped to do this. I agree that the dictionary definition has no place in this article. Joie de Vivre 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DFLA does operate in the US, and many official Democratic party organizations on different local levels are opposed to abortion. 75.2.253.88 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink

Joie, you keep changing the line about a woman's right to have an abortion to the wikilinked woman's right to choose. Woman's right to choose redirects to prochoice. Prochoice is a political philosophy. DFLA does not oppose women or men holding any political view point they want. The more accurate statement is a woman's right to have an abortion.

Also, in the same section, you say DFLA strongly advocates on legislation to make abortion illegal. If you look at their website, you will not find them supporting any such legislation. They only legislation they support on there is the Pregnant Women Support Act which does not even restrict abortions, much less prohibit them. --Briancua 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it should be changed to state that they support pro-life politicians, with evidence of their voting records. Again, wholesale deletion=bad, modification=better. Joie de Vivre 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, now we're getting somewhere. Good job rewording the paragraph, Briancua. -- Joie de Vivre 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

After coming here due to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion and reading the discussion above, as well as the article, I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem. In my opinion, it's fine to quote the Democratic Party's official position on abortion for the purpose of contrast to DFLA's position - but not in the lead section, the next section is OK. I also think the DFLA's position should be stated more clearly in the lead section (more than just being "opposed" to the party line). I get the feeling that I'm missing something here. If the issue hasn't been resolved, please explain both positions succinctly in a neutral way. Thanks. =Axlq 06:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about one sentence

The sentence "The Democrats For Life of America's anti-abortion stance places the group at odds with the stated platform of the Democratic Party." does not belong in the article. It is poorly worded. The phrases used in the sentence are too similar to that of an opinion. Also, just using the term Democratic Party and not DNC, implies that the DNC is the only Democratic party in the country, which is untrue. Democratic parties operate on local levels in the country and the local parties stances do not always match that of the DNC. It also should be noted that the user who insists on putting this sentence in is biased, as in evidenced by the fact that the user only put in information where the DFLA was in disagreement with the DNC and not on the many issues where they agree on. This was clearly done to portray either the Democratic party or Pro-life people in a negative way. 75.2.253.88 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are aware of the ways in which the DFLA agrees with the DNC, you are free to add that information. I would not object to such an addition if it were made. I certainly do disagree with the wholesale deletion of useful material, rather than the addition of whatever material people feel is missing. I am not familiar enough to make such an addition; I can't add information I don't have. If something is missing, please add it, rather than deleting useful material. Joie de Vivre 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sentence is the same as the first sentence in the section. There is no reason to repeat it. Joie, have you considered not editing this article anymore? You are letting your anti-Democrat or anti-life bias get in the way of neutrality. 75.3.55.12 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you were complaining about me, I added a paragraph highlighting the basic differences between the DFLA and the national Democratic Party. I think it looks pretty good, but I invite you to take a look. Joie de Vivre 01:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevency

I think Joie is very mistaken about what this article about. Joie seems to believe that the stance of the DNC is the most relevent thing to this article. The history and actions of the Democrats for Life are more relevent to this article than the stances of the DNC. Joie is failing to use logic. The the title of the page is "Democrats for Life", therefore that organization should be the main focus. 75.3.55.12 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. This section is placed far to highly. I tried to move it down, but Joie reverted my efforts. --Briancua 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it should be buried further down in the article. As long as the DFLA uses the word "Democrats" in their name, it is important to clarify what the Democratic Party stands for. Joie de Vivre 06:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the Democrats for Life organization. What the Democrats for Life stand for and there history is more relevent than what another Democratic party organization stands for. It is not being buried, it is just being placed in a more sensible location on the page and more consistent with other wikipedia articles, where you focus on what the page is about first. 75.3.55.12 06:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The national Democratic Party can hardly be described just as "another Democratic party organization". It is the very source of the DFLA's name. I am quickly growing weary of going in circles with this. Joie de Vivre 06:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence under "History" section

Here is the sentence I removed:

The platform does not recognize the contributions that pro-life Democrats have made to protect the unborn, criticizing only the "Republican efforts" to that end.

There are a few problems with this sentence. The word "criticizing" has a POV spin, as does the phrase "protect the unborn". In regards to the latter, the actions mentioned here are that of legally restricting access to abortion. What people perceive to be the outcome or the consequences of this action is not NPOV. To be clear, whether restricting abortion access "protects the unborn" or "violates the rights of women" is subject to interpretation. For contrast; here is an equally POV (and equally inappropriate) interpretation of the sentence:

The platform does not recognize the efforts that pro-life Democrats have made to oppress women, ballyhooing only the "Republican efforts" to that end.

I hope this clarifies why this sentence, in its current form, is not appropriate. Paring it down to facts, we'd get:

The platform does not recognize that in addition to pro-life Republicans, there are also pro-life Democrats working to legally restrict access to abortion.

But that could be considered original research. Regardless of that, though, I think that including this would be superfluous. The political aims of the DFLA have already been made clear. That is why I deleted the sentence. Joie de Vivre 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be original research, that would be looking at what the platform says. It does not recognize that there are pro-life Democrats. As the lead and this section points out, being pro-life for DFLA does not only mean opposing abortion and it does not mean only employing legal restrictions on abortion. I would thus recommend:
The platform does not recognize that in addition to pro-life Republicans, there are also pro-life Democrats working within the party to protect life.
As for it being superfluous, it is you who is insistent that this section be included. I think the lead is sufficient, and I don't think this topic deserves its own section at all. --Briancua 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence that we are discussing is in the "History" section, not the "Comparison..." section. Regardless, the euphemism "protect life" isn't specific or factual, and the sentence still smacks of original research. The most neutral way that I can think to express the meaning is "The 2004 platform does not acknowledge that some Democrats identify as pro-life", but even that could be considered WP:OR. I wouldn't object to including it, but others might. Joie de Vivre 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Protect life" is a factual way to put it. The fact that you don't think that abortion, the death penalty, and assisted-suicide ends life shows your ignorance. The phrase "protect life" is scientifically factual, wikipedia should go by scientific facts, and not allow them to compromised because of philosophical questions. 75.3.55.12 05:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already addressed this, at the top of the section, in regards to the phrase "protect the unborn". "Protect life" is just another euphemism for a perceived outcome of the specific actions taken by the group. The article should focus on those specific actions, not any specific perceived outcome. Again, you may see it as "protecting life", while others might see it as "oppressing women". Those opinions don't belong on Wikipedia. If you still think that "protect life" is a factual, reasonable description, turn it around and look at it from the other side: would you agree to the sentence if it looked like this?...
The platform does not recognize that in addition to pro-life Republicans, there are also pro-life Democrats working within the party to oppress women.
Do you understand what I mean? Either way, it is a POV spin, and it's inappropriate. Regardless, it still could be considered WP:OR. Joie de Vivre 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is this article about the group, or more general?

Given the title I would expect this article to be specifically about the group named "Democrats for Life of America", but much of the article is a more general discussion of the relationship between pro-life Democrats and the wider party. I think that should be moved elsewhere, maybe to Abortion and the Democratic Party, or something, since much of that discussion is broader than this particular group, and many of the pro-life Democrats listed at the end are not members of the group. --Delirium 04:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. It does seem that a lot would be gained organizationally from a separate "abortion and the Democratic party" article. There's could be some info on how the pro-choice stance became increasingly dominant through the last quarter of the 20th century--an interesting, long story that could include mention of some of today's prominent democrats (Gore, Clinton, Gephardt, Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, etc.) who changed their stance in the 80s and 90s, as well as those that are pro-life today (and the info about the recent Bush-era steps back to pluralism). Perhaps also stuff about how pro-life and pro-choice dems see their respective positions as being in concert with traditional Dem values (also interesting stuff). More appropriate than a DFL article, which should mention the overall Dem climate a little, but focus on the interesting but more obscure story of their grassroots growth.
I also have a couple of other observations: (1) The story of the 92 convention is confusing as it stands, because it says that Casey was barred from speaking because of being pro-life, then says that other pro-lifers were not. Surely it should read something to the effect of: Casey was not permitted to speak; some claim it was solely because of his pro-life stance; others point out that other pro-life dems spoke at the convention, and Casey was primarily barred because he did not endorse Clinton, the presumptive nominee. Or something to this effect. (2) Is it really accurate to say that candidates like HRC have softened their stance? I see this is unsourced; and I doubt either she or prolife activists would characterize things that way. There is, undoubtedly, a shift in attitude and rhetoric, and this is significant enough to include, but in a better way.205.212.74.252 20:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
additional observation: Man, is that "opponents" section horrible! As far as I can tell, anyone wanting to make it respectable would probably be better off considering the present passage a stub and starting from scratch.205.212.74.252 21:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to remove everything from here that is not about the organization. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008

Are there any pro-life Democrats running in 2008. If so, tell me where their next campaign rally is.

Tim Kaine

Tim Kaine is politically pro-choice [1], and I can find no support for the assertion that he's a member of Democrats for Life of America. The provided link is stale. I'm taking Kaine off the list.

Pro-Life Democratic Congressmen and Governors

Someone removed the list, claiming they were not related to the group. The list exists to show that pro-life Democrats are really a minority, but they have some important figures. In a way or another they are related to Democrats for Life of America, like it or not, for obvious reasons.85.242.237.64 (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. We don't get to try to prove that XX are really YY. Unless these people have affiliated themselves with this organization, they do not belong in the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, probably a new article about Pro-Life in the Democratic Party is needed.85.242.238.163 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would make more sense than putting generic information in an article about a specific organization. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question about another sentence

It seems to me that the opening sentence Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) is an advocacy group in the United States attempting to reshape the political left, primarily the Democratic Party, into taking a pro-life position does not come from the group's self-description at http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=49. The strongest language used there - 'promote a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party platform' and 'achieve pro-life legislation', which is not really the same as 'reshape the political left, primarily the Democratic Patry, into taking a pro-life position', is towards the bottom of the mission statement. This makes the opening sentence here a bit tendentious. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it! You're correct -- without reliable sources describing the DFLA as "attempting to reshape the political left", it's not right for Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox?

Shouldn't there be an info box with the logo and leaders and dates and stuff? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current Pro-Life Democratics

I restaured the list in the Talk Page, until someone decided to start a more general article.

Governors

  1. Joe Manchin of West Virginia
  2. Bill Ritter of Colorado

U.S. Senators

  1. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
  2. Harry Reid of Nevada, Senate Majority Leader
  3. Mark Pryor of Arkansas
  4. Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania

U.S. Congressmen

  1. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania
  2. Marion Berry of Arkansas
  3. Dan Boren of Oklahoma
  4. Chris Carney of Pennsylvania
  5. Don Cazayoux of Louisiana
  6. Ben Chandler of Kentucky
  7. Travis Childers of Mississippi
  8. Jerry Costello of Illinois
  9. Henry Cuellar of Texas
  10. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee
  11. Joe Donnelly of Indiana
  12. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania
  13. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana
  14. Baron Hill of Indiana
  15. Tim Holden of Pennsylvania
  16. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania
  17. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio
  18. Dale Kildee of Michigan
  19. Jim Langevin of Rhode Island
  20. Dan Lipinski of Illinois
  21. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts
  22. Jim Marshall of Georgia
  23. Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
  24. Mike McNulty of New York
  25. Charlie Melancon of Louisiana
  26. Mike Michaud of Maine
  27. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia
  28. John Murtha of Pennsylvania
  29. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota
  30. Solomon Ortiz of Texas
  31. Collin Peterson of Minnesota
  32. Nick Rahall of West Virginia
  33. Mike Ross of Arkansas
  34. Tim Ryan of Ohio
  35. Heath Shuler of North Carolina
  36. Ike Skelton of Missouri
  37. Bart Stupak of Michigan
  38. Gene Taylor of Mississippi
  39. Charlie Wilson of Ohio

81.193.223.185 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"abrangive"? What could that possibly mean? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One hit on Google. It was near the word "psicological". ABC will broadcast the 2009 Scripps National Spelling Bee championship rounds. Coverage begins tonight at 8 p.m. EDT. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 08:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia first language is english. I replaced that invented word by general.213.13.240.74 (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democrats for Life of America. 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:

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) 13:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Democrats for Life of America. 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:

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) 10:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democrats_for_Life_of_America