Talk:Madoc/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Most scholars doubt"

In the first paragraph of the article there is a statement "most scholars doubt that Madoc ever made a trip to North America,". This claim seems rather un-scholarly. By most scholars shall we understand 60% of scholars, 90%, 51%?. How was this majority determined?

I find the wording particularly dubious in view of the experience regarding Leif Eriksen and the Vinland Saga. Prior to the decisive discoveries at L'Anse aux Meadows there was an effort made to deny the legitimacy of that account. Bear in mind that in their American sagas, the Norse recorded an encounter with men they described as "Rough Irish". See Samuel Eliot Morison's Oxford History of the American People for one discussion of this matter.

It is pretty weasel worded, but it's true. No real scholar believes the Madoc story to be true, considering that there's no evidence that he existed, let alone made a voyage, before the 16th century. It's not that the story can't be true (it can't be proven false, obviously), it's just that there's no real evidence for it. Also, the Vikings were in America substantially before Madoc would have lived.--Cúchullain t/c 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the 'rough Irish' thing is something someone found on the web, confusion with something else I guess.--Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Edward 'Morgan' - really Edward Williams

Well caught in once sense, it should have read Edward Williams known as Iolo Morganwg (w, not y), see for instance [1] I don't know about the Hewbrew stuff, but he played a key role in the development of the Madoc myth, so he needs to be mentioned. He's covered extensively in Gwyn Williams' book.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

let alone.......

Even myths deserve respect. Deriding these traditions, even indirectly, is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Certainly, as you just said, it is feasible that a prince with this common Welsh name existed. And certainly the British Isles have lots of myths/stories of sailors and ships finding unknown lands. But there is no known documented evidence of his existance. But -- just possibly -- some evidence of this prince might be found someday, somewhere in English/Welsh records.

"...let alone", to me, forces the comparison of a historic period in a literate culture, where records could emerge, with a mythical period in a non-literate American culture. It has a negative nuance, it "puts down" the American culture because no written record is possible and no archaeological record can be expected. This is even more unfortunate for the native people, as the myth may not have originated with them but emerged from their contact with Europeans who were looking for an explanation of advanced cultural attributes among a "primitive" people. "...let alone" also derides the existance of the myth itself, but this article (and encyclopedia) is not about absolute truth. We seek to explain this myth and place it in the context of its time and place, which was 18th and 19th century America. So can we deal with these two categories of evidence, both empty, in two distinct sentences, please? Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe "let alone" is disparaging, and I can think of no more succinct way of conveying this information. The fact is, Owain Gwynedd is well attested, but there is no record of him having an illegitimate son named Madoc. It is of course possible that he did have one; how possible this is is a matter for scholars, not us, to decide, and I've never seen one who thought it very likely at all, considering the records mentioning him are from hundreds of years later. Him coming to America is even an even remoter step. Obviously if there is no record of him at all, it almost doesn't need saying that there is no record that he discovered America. I don't see how pointing this out is disparaging, nor do I think the phrase "let alone" is particularly negative.
Further, I really don't see how this puts down Indian culture at all. And the story certainly did not originate with them, but with Brits who spread the story for obviously political motives.--Cúchullain t/c 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Succinct"? What? Is Wikipedia running out of space? I think we can take more space for introducing the article. As I understand the issue, "stories" from three different areas collide to create this myth. 1) Welsh legends regarding Madoc and a new land, 2) Origin traditions (common to all peoples) from specific Native American groups like the Mandan, and 3) an attempt by Europeans to twist and synthesis the previous two, primarily due to racial viewpoints common to the period. You seem very concerned that we don't give any credence to the story. I agree that there is not, and never will be, evidence to support the myth. But the intro and the article should lay a balanced view to clearly show how the myth emerged. Why it continues to be cited in more modern times, however, is more of a mystery. WBardwin (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have a few things wrong. The earliest, 16th century versions are not specifically Welsh, but generically British, and told of an otherwise unheard of prince discovering specifically America. These stories were politically motivated and intended to bolster British claims in the New World (Wales being part of the Kingdom of England at the time, and the Tudors being of Welsh origin). 100 years later, a separate tradition arose among white Americans that some Indian tribe somewhere had European origins, this was romantic speculation not based on actual Indian tradition or on fact. Eventually this was attached to the Welsh and the Madoc story, also by white Americans, though at least some Indians were familiar with the story, if Sevier's letter can be trusted. Native American tradition did not have anything to do with it, as far as I've been able to tell from the books I've read, though you'd know more about the Mandan than I do.
As for "succinctness", clearly the intro can be expanded, but the one point that there's no evidence for this guy's existence does not require more than one sentence to transmit the information. How better to say it? The info that needs to be there is that "Madoc's story has really gotten some traction, but there's no evidence that he was a real person, which obviously makes his candidacy for discoverer of America less likely." I think the rest of the intro ought to be on the story itself, and its origins.--Cúchullain t/c 08:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
WBardin still disagrees with the wording in the intro. The thing is, there's no evidence this man ever existed. So obviously there's no evidence that he existed plus discovered America.--Cúchullain t/c 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We also need to make it clear that Madoc can refer several Saints, one of them also called Prince Madoc (6th century) the Pilgrim. :-) I'm trying to find adequate references before doing any editing. One of them is an Irish Saint evidently later given a Welsh genealogy, but I need to verify this.--Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We already have Madoc (disambiguation) for that purpose. It's linked at the top.--Cúchullain t/c 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thing is it was the 6th Century Madoc who came to America not the Medieval one, that's the biggest Strawman the De bunkers use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't think so, [[2]] "Madoc was well known for his kindness to the poor and often gave away his food and clothes to them, while he himself lived on bread and water. Upon St. Dewi's death, he became the Abbot of Glyn Rhosyn, but later returned to Ireland to found famous monasteries like Ferns, Drumlane, Rossinver and Clonmore. He died in extreme old age on a visit to Mynyw (St. Davids) on 31st January 626. " Funny too how all those 16th century writers didn't mention your 6th century Madoc. Doug Weller (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)



I was really wondering if the Prince Madoc the Pilgriam could have been where the Tudors got the idea. The disambiguation page needs some additions I guess.--Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Welsh?

Taken from the article:

"There also is a theory that caves also known as the Welsh Caves in Desoto State Park in northeastern Alabama where built by the Welsh, based on a assumptions that the natives did not possess technology advanced enough to build such caves. The legend of the Welsh Indians was apparently not restricted to whites; in 1810, John Sevier, the first governor of Tennessee, wrote to his friend Major Amos Stoddard about a conversation he had had with the old Cherokee chief Oconostota concerning ancient fortifications built along the Alabama River. The chief said the forts were built by the white people who had once lived in the area as protection against the ancestors of the Cherokee. They were called "Welsh" and their leader was "Modok"."

Does the fact that there are quotation marks around 'Welsh' mean that the Cherokee chief knew the English word 'Welsh'? Because if the story of Madog is true, then I'm certain that Madog and his men would have refered to themselves as Cymry to the Indians rather than refer to themselves as 'Welsh' (since 'Wales' or 'Welsh' is an Anglo-Saxon word, not a native Welsh word).--Tlle1 (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sevier users the word 'Welsh'. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, this makes the governor's story seem very dubious.--Tlle1 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. One could also ask: did the chief speak and understand English (unlikely in 1810)? Even if he did, how likely is it that he would be sufficiently proficient in that language to know the word 'Welsh' and that it was English for whatever form of 'Cymry' was allegedly used by the Cherokee? Etc etc. Pure hokum, of course: it's amazing what you can "find" if you are determined to find it. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, it seems that the term "Madoc" closely resembles that of the Modoc people of the Great Basin, United States! The Modoc originated in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and northeast corner of California known as Modoc County. I can't say for sure the connection between the Madoc and Modoc, but I comprehend a new theory on the Modoc people came from the "Madoc" of the Dakotas via Montana into Idaho will arise from that perception. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would a Native people from the Pacific Northwest name themselves for a random Welsh guy? Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? Regardless, this talk page is supposed to be used to discuss changes/improvements to the articles. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

An infobox is meant to give "A quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject" - but this one doesn't. It strongly suggests he was real - anyone reading it would see he has parents and a birthdate, he must be real. As another editor once wrote:

"A box promises to contain, and things that can't be neatly contained can't be put in boxes. A box suggests "this is the real deal," and if the real deal could be put in a box, then there would be no need for articles. A box says, "Here is your PowerPoint bullet point list, so you can find all the world reduced to a reductive summary; please do not strive to understand complexity, for that is for suckers." A box says, "Wikipedia is just like your primary school text book: full of colors and 'bites' of infotainment." A box says, "I, the box maker, have just pissed all over this article and written a counter-article, and it's short, so read it instead." A box may be found useful by some people, indeed. We call those people "non-readers.""

I don't think this box should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. Complete violation of basic policies. There is no evidence he even existed, let alone "discovered America in 1170".--Folantin (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Appreciate your comments. My reply to this would be that at least a dozen independent people have come to the conclusion that Madoc is real as they have an ancestral genealogy family line that can be traced, as they have put up independent databases to show the family line on the fee based Ancestry.com section "MyTree.com". They determined his birth date to be 1136. Since obviously Madoc is in their family line, they had much interest in this and did extensive research to find this information.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that sounds completely unscholarly and biased. It does not represent the mainstream academic view that Madoc is simply a folkloric figure. The infobox is a complete violation of WP:NPOV and other policies. --Folantin (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Folantin, I think you mean to say: There is no "proof" he existed. If there were no "evidence", there would be no article, as this article consists entirely of a discussion of the "evidence". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
However you want to phrase it...the infobox gives the misleading impression he did exist and did discover America, which is not the general view.--Folantin (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with removing the infobox. The consensus is that there's no (substantive) evidence for Madoc existing (not to mention doing the things he's said to have done); the article needs to present that.--Cúchullain t/c 14:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
No opinion on the infobox, but what you just said is only a "consensus" if you endorse one side of the issue and pretend other views don't exist. That is being deliberately one-sided and not a true "consensus", rather that is typical of a "controversy". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Fictional genealogies abound - these are generally self-produced and we do not consider them reliable sources, see WP:RS but in particular see the discussion at [3] and [4]. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of which, we need to seriously review these new sources. A number of them appear not to pass WP:IRS.--Cúchullain t/c 14:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources

We are using maddoxgenealogy.com as a source for his alleged brother - not only is this not a reliable source by our criteria, the only thing on that page that mentions his brother is an old copy of this article. [5] is wargames.co.uk, again clearly fails WP:RS. Footprints of the Welsh Indians: Settlers in North America before 1492 is another of these 'everyone came to America' books. We are told by his publisher[6] that Dr. William L. Traxel "graduated from Northwestern University, and Vanderbilt University, and has a doctorate degree from the University of Michigan. Sounds impressive until you look at another book he wrote, Notes on Anatomy and Physiology[7] where you find "Dr. William Traxel is a graduate of Northwestern University, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and the Naval Aerospace Institute. He has done post graduate training in Internal Medicine at Vanderbilt and in Ophthalmology at the University of Michigan. He began teaching Anatomy and Physiology following his retirement from medical practice." Richard Deacon's (real name Donald McCormick) book is also flawed according to one of the sources used. Also see [8] which says he sometimes fabricated sources. There may be other problematic sources although most look ok. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

British Museum stuff

I've removed:"In the British Museum there is a genealogy in a manuscript of the Cottonian Collection showing a lineage of Gruffydd ap Cynan. It shows he is the father of Owain Gwynedd and the grandfather to Madawc (another spelling for Madoc). Also in the same collection is a Latin manuscript Vita Griffini Regis (The life of King Gruffydd) that says Gruffydd is the son of Cynan ab Iago and father to Owain Gwynedd - and Owain's son found unknown lands." Earlier I removed "This manuscript as talked about in the Cottonian Collection has a date on it of 1477". First, there are quite a few Madocs/Madogs/Madawcs etc, so genealogies are of not much use here. Secondly, why are we claiming that the manuscript says this without a link to it? There is an annotation that says " Vita Griffini, filii Conani, regis Venedotiae vel Northwalliae, à Thelwello jurisperito Latine versa: ad finem carmina reperiuntur Meredithi de Madoco, filio Oweni Gwynnedd, et ejus navigatione ad terras incognitas; Wallice. Vixit Meredithus iste circa An. 1477"[9]. Note that this is not a date on the manuscript. We need a reliable source that has actually read the manuscript as the annotation fails as an RD (as clearly does Deacon. Until a reliable source reads [10] and comments on anything in it that might have to do with Madoc, this doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The 1477 date

The notation says that Meredithus (in one notation Vixit Meredithus iste Poeta circa an. 1477) lived around 1477. Note that Deacon doesn't make this clear - in fact he misrepresents it, writing instead that "This reference to an explorer of unknown lands is dated 1477" when in fact the annotation doesn't date the manuscript but says Meredithus lived around then. He then says "and the sources of much of the information contained in the mss. are Maredudd ap Rhys" - who is mentioned in the article and is the person mentioned in the Cottonian collection. What this shows, and all it shows, is that in the 15th century there was a tradition of a Madoc who was a seafarer, said by at least this poet to be a "true whelp of Owain Gwenedd". Then came the discovery of the Americas and the Madoc story develops into a story about a Madoc who visited them. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

JV Brower

Minor point, Jacob V. Brower is not described as a historian anywhere I can find. Ethnologist, archeologist, explorer, etc, not a historian. And I found the source for the 12th century legend claim.[11] "TIIE MADOC BIBLIOGRAPHY. An unauthenticated Welsh legend indicates that the Norse discovery of Iceland and Greenland became known to Welshmen under the rule of Owen Gwynedd. Civil strife then prevailed there. Ilia son Ma doc. bred to the sea. being discontented, proceeded to colonize the lauda to the westward. His earliest voyage wai in A. D. 1170 to a fertile land where he left 120 peraons and returned to Wales, whence he aailed in force with ten vessels aud was never afterward heard from. Winsor aaya in his Nar. and Crit. History (Vol. 1. 109), that the original printed source [of information] is in Humphrey Lloyd's History of Cambria, now called Wales, written by Caradoc about 200 years past (Ixindon, 1584). The book of Caradoc of 1384, rewritten, contained corrections and additions by David Powell. Richard Hakluyt in his Principal Navigation. 1589. took the atory from Powell, but seems to have found Caradoc'a MS. Then followed more Engliah reference*. All Madoc literature is baaed on the original Cara- doc relation. Time, purposes and numerous changes warped the original legend into such deviationa that Caradoc if living would not probably recog- nize his own etory. No writer has ever been able to state a single fact based on definite knowledge concerning Madoc 'a whereabouta aince he last sailed about A. D. 1173. The story grew larger with increasing years until finally". Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the Mormon section?

What happened to the info that used to be here about how the Mormons in Utah thought various tribes might be Welsh speaking but failed to get any conversations going? It should be replaced Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Willem the Minstrel

According to this book on pages 104-106 it shows the Madoc that Willem the Minstrel is talking about is the grandson of Gruffydd ap Cynan per the Cottonian Collection, therefore related to Owain Gwynedd. I therfore have removed your statement "not related to Owain in this story".--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That book doesn't look like a reliable source to me.--Cúchullain t/c 02:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Definitely not a RS - see [12] - evidently they believe the Ark is "located in Utah's Sanpete County" and that Madoc became king of the Aztecs. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
What is the source for the statement "Not related to Owain Gwynnedd in this story"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Williams. I've clarified it. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Willem again

The paragraph on Willem in the Background section reads as though it was inserted into an otherwise coherent account of the story, as it breaks up the flow of section entirely. The third paragraph is clearly intended to follow directly from the second as it takes up the story of the family-feuding where that one left off. I was looking for a way to resolve this by checking up on the source of this material, since it seemed that we could do with an account of pre-16th century sources. The story of the "precis" found in the 17th century seemed rather fishy to me, especially after reading the Dutch wikipedia article on Willem (or rather the google translation of it). I came across this website, apparently written by Bernard Knight. It very clearly asserts that the so-called precis does not exist:

Willem’s book has been lost, but Deacon claimed that part of a French translation of a précis of the book was said to have been found in Poitiers in the 17th century, apparently written not later than the end of the 14th century. Deacon claims that a personal letter (never produced as evidence) from a M. Edouard Duvivier of Poitiers gave this information, but neither M Duvivier nor the précis is known to the academics of Poitiers - nor to any database, apart from one quotation by an author who got his knowedge from Deacon's book!

Of course this is not a WP:RS source, and Knight, though notable, is not a specialist scholar in this area at all. Still it raises the question of whether this should be presented as undisputed fact. At minimum I think it should be moved. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And Willem again

I just would like to add the source of Bernard Knights account which was originally on the MIRA Website, but now moved here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgdavies (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC) {u|Sgdavies}} As has been suggested above, I don't think that Knight is what we call a reliable source - see WP:RS - for this article. I also think that Google communities in general don't meet our criteria for external links at WP:EL so have removed it. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ellen Pugh not a reliable source

In a rather odd footnote, an editor writes " Ellen Pugh career: Western Reserve University (now Case Western Reserve University), Cleveland, OH, cataloger, 1943-45; Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, cataloger, 1945-47; Cincinnati Public Library, Cincinnati, OH, branch librarian, 1955-58; University of Nebraska, Lincoln, order librarian, 1958-63; University of Oregon, Eugene, cataloger, 1963-65; University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, cataloger, 1965-68; Washington State University, Pullman, serials librarian, 1969-" - she was also described as a Welsh historian, although she obviously isn't. She was a librarian with evidently no training in history. Emory & Henry College emeritus professor of history Eugene L. Rasor said of her that she "speculated about Prince Madoc but not convincingly". I can't see any way that she can be a reliable source for anything historical. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree as to your and Rasor's assessment of her reliability. She is as credentialed as he is. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a hugely significant difference between being a professor of history and being an employee of a library whose greatest achievements seem to be rising to being a branch librarian in Cincinnati (not necessarily a mean feat) and a serials librarian at a college. None of her credentials, and nothing in her work history, so far as I can see from the above, gives any reason to believe she has any particular knowledge or expertise in this area. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that she was a librarian at Washington State University from 1969 - 1982. Here is some additional about her. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The quote from Dougweller starting this thread specifically says "Washington State University, Pullman, serials librarian, 1969-," which is my basis for saying she was a serials librarian. While being a librarian might well make her qualified in the fields of librarianship/information science, degrees in those fields and writing a few books about Welsh legends, particularly without direct evidence that the works were well received academically, is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Forgot, I took this to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I can see no evidence that Pugh has any relevent credentialosity, or is relevantly expertisised at all. Nor can I see any evidence that her book has been taken seriously by historians who do have expertise in the field. Paul B (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Languages

Perhaps the reason Navajo and Zuni sounded "Welsh" to early explorers was due to the presence in these languages of the lateral fricative sound, which Welsh alone among Western European languages also possesses. It's a very distinctive feature of Welsh (e.g. the numerous place names beginning with ll) and Welsh is the only language in which west Europeans could have encountered it, until they met these Native Americans. Mandan's phonemic inventory doesn't include this sound and it isn't particularly similar to Welsh, although it does seem fairly close to its relative Breton. It's not altogether impossible that voyagers from Britain reached America before Columbus, but any trace of their language there is surely lost. Walshie79 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Madoc. 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) 14:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Madoc. 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) 01:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Madoc. 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) 00:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madoc/Archive_1&oldid=1135340296"