Jump to content

Talk:Human Terrain System

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

March 2008 comments

[edit]

After more or less rewriting this page a couple days ago, I came across another page Human Terrain Team which is about the exact same thing. That page should be deleted and made to redirect here (I am not a Wikipedian and don't understand how to do that sort of thing). I have taken the content from that other page and merged it here, making some corrections along the way Hope I didn't mess up the references.

It should be plainly delineated that HTT does not encompass MAP-HT, intelligence analysis thereof, or other frameworks not overt within HTS. Therefore I am opposed to a full merge/deletion, and furthermore think the fuller level of detail is unnecessary here, but rather expansion of the other topics with HTS as the parent article. If you'd like to expand those topics, that'd be great. But they are not synonymous, and therefore a full merge/deletion would obfuscate the distinction. Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes. Thanks. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. The term "HTT" (Human Terrain Team) is part of "HTS" - it is the designation of the field teams in the HTS (Human Terrain System) program (and refers to nothing else). The term "MAP-HT" refers to a software package provided to HTS (that is, the HTTs and the RRC) that is composed of some of the computer software listed (such as ANTHROPAC and Terra Explorer) and some integration ("glue") software written by MITRE. Neither "HTS" nor "HTT" refer to computer software. I do not understand your phrase "HTT does not encompass MAP-HT" because I do not understand how a team of people might "encompass" a computer software program. (And sorry I'm not signing this, but I don't know how to do that or what the tildes are about.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.230.231 (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, the HTT's are the field teams for the HTS project. The Human Terrain Team page should not be deleted but instead be re-written to reflect the level of detail encompassing the details of the team.. configurations, responsibilities, capabilities, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.141.140 (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The human terrain team article and human terrain system articles should not be merged. Rather, this one should be made into the parent article. This article should include information about terrain teams and link to the full article. The duplicate information should be deleted from which ever article is more appropriate. Lmh0509 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a purely textual basis, right now there is a lot of redundant information on Human Terrain Team and Human terrain system ... the latter half of both articles are almost the same in the information they provide. Harvey the rabbit (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

Please, editors and potential editors, the Human Terrain System page has gone through a lot of disruptive editing. Specifically, non-Neutral Point of View has taken over. Rise up and become good Wikipedians. Read the guidelines and then follow them. To much of the HTS page has become NNPOV'd and to little of the page has reliable, verifiable information. Sadly, the damage done is to Wikipedia, not to HTS. Thank you all so very much.--Srich32977 (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, I've undone the recent edits of April 14. They were certainly unresourced/unreferenced and had a decided POV. The addition of "unknowns" in the casualty list is an example of poor, indeed very poor, Wikipedianship. Let's add data to this article, but make it NPOV. Note, I undertook training in the HTS program last year (2009), but resigned at the end of my training cycle. My views regarding HTS are mixed because a lot of time on my part was invested. With this in mind, I think I am well qualified to criticize NPOV faux paux.--S. Rich 03:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Human Terrain System 2010.

Much of the information contained in your current version of HTS is outdated and in many cases incorrect. As it stands, it is not a reliable entry. It is a replica of the HTS .mil website.

  • HTS is, in fact, a Military Intelligence Program (MIP) according to the US Army's own documentation dated February 2010.
  • Casualties are not listed when, in fact, they have occurred and are documented. Unknown casualties are listed as such because HTS and/or wounded have not come forward to be identified. This is part of the HTS program and legacy. That there have been casualties is not an opinion.
  • Data indicating efficacy of HTS has always been disputed by critics and neutral observers.
  • Why list notable HTS program personnel? Are they the only ones that fall into that category?

Good luck with future edits.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peel1b (talk • contribs) 13:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is not helpful at all. It's HTS.mil stuff. I agree with the anti-Yogurt person. I'm out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peel1b (talk • contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yogurt here. Lots has happened within HTS since these entries were written. I've tried to bring it up to date but newer references pro-con-neutral need to be inserted and certainly some copy editing needs to be done. Like one of the other writers, it makes no sense to have an HTT ref and an HTS ref. Wiki is easier to read when the ref are linked right next to the text that needs referencing. Not sure why we have to drag people down below. This is the Net. Anyway, that's my 1 cent worth.----

Yogurt, you rewrote a fact-based article into a an opinion piece, full of speculation and original "research" and placed the entire thing in the past tense. You removed simple facts and replaced them with incorrect information, political misinformation, and weasel-worded "It is not known..." types of sentences. I don't know what possesses people to vandalize pages like this. You destroyed the structure of the article. Perhaps you just hate HTS or have some political agenda. There are so many changes and things wrong with the article that I would consider it vandalism. I work for HTS, by the way. At any rate, I'm not going to fix any of it; you guys have fun with your little pretend encyclopedia.

This article was and is very poorly organized and written. I've cleaned up parts of it while trying to maintain a NPOV but it needs more work than I have time for today. If you don't have an opinion on the subject one way or the other and just want it readable and concise, your help would be greatly appreciated. If you think some of my efforts to condense things have slanted one way or the other, please try to discuss before hitting the undo button. Robert Bin Peters (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence gathering

[edit]

"HTS does not manage infrastructure projects, nor does it conduct military intelligence operations or kinetic targeting" It has always been a fact, and remains a fact that HTS does not perform, and has not performed, perform intelligence operations, most especially those associated with support of kinetic operations. This is what made it different in its scope and mission than any other program before it, and since. The repeated references to its funding source in the MIP has been explained countless times, so once more cannot possibly hurt. In 2006 when it was conceived and stood up there existed no sustained source of funding for new and innovative, breakthrough programs. The JIEDDO funding it initally received only sustained it through proof of concept. Beyond that funding within the structure of the Defense Authorization Bill had to be found. The leadership in DUSD(I) and Army G2, against much criticism within their ranks of HTS as something that DIA and the service intelligence elements "were already doing", sided with the overwhelming response from the operational units who stated they had no capability to understand and deal with the underpinnings of the insurgency within the population (i.e. curing the "disease" of the insurgency). The units were fighting IEDs and insurgents a year at a time within the unit rotations (i.e. treating the "symptoms" of the insurgency)and accomplishing no lasting headway. The MIP funding had nothing, and still has nothing to do with what HTS was created to accomplish. There was no attempt to deceive, hide, mask or conceal any true intelligence function. No other funding source within the DAB could address the requirement of the CENTCOM JUONS of 2007. All of this is part of the public, and some thorough and objective research will bear this out. Anyone with any experience with goverment budget processes is intimately familiar with how many programs have funding sources that have little or nothing to do with the program's mission and purpose. (User: LoneWolf 4/5/2012) Safondo554 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC) In a US military document, (Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Estimates Operation and Maintenance, Army PB-31D), the HTS is referred to as "Human Terrain System - Military Intelligence Program (MIP)". (http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeDocuments/Budget/BudgetMaterials/FY11/opmaint/oma-v1.pdf).[reply]

I suggest we investigate this further before pushing aside HTS as intel ops. --Enigma (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma, did you read my rewording attempting to clarify this? It is not the US Army's Military Intelligence branch, but it is a military programme gathering information which will be fused into overall intelligence efforts. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeDocuments/Budget/BudgetMaterials/FY11/OCO//oma.pdf...See page 23 Item 1 and pages 25-26 Item 7. Line item in document ref above is MIP...Military Intelligence Program...Supports Intelligence Operations. One of many intelligence functions within Army in support of operations in Iraq/AFPAK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peel1b (talk • contribs) 13:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so they're involved in supporting misc. teams with all kinds of data, not independently dealing with intelligence operations per se. Buckshot06 and Peel1b, thanks for clarifying. --Enigma (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HTS is not a traditional Intel program, it is a new Intel program. Housed in USA G-2, funded through MIP/Security line items. One of many Intel programs that feeds--when the data is relevant--into the Kill Chain http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007psa_winter/wilcox.pdf...Not understanding what the big deal is with this issue...Also, one last time, HTS is the product of military history with no one prime mover... http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20100425.aspx....There is so much more factual history on the program that you all ignore which makes this entry only a small portion of the overall story....

Let's look at the budget document that Enigma55 provided. It says: "Funds the Human Terrain System (HTS) to provide necessary training, graduate-level education, and program management of highly acclaimed HTS Teams. These HTS team members have the requisite skills and abilities to deploy and embed with combat units for up to one year, providing social and cultural decision-making insight to operational commanders and their staffs." Describing HTS as "intel" (with all the cloak & dagger implications) is using weasel words. (Although "highly acclaimed" is a bit to much for this HTS alum.)--S. Rich 07:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand Intel. 95 percent is not cloak and dagger but collecting information and connecting that information for decision makers or warfighters or in this case operational commanders. You must be thinking Israeli hit teams or NOC. Intelligence spans a lot of fields. Business intel, marketing intel, police intel....Many socials scientists are anxious to keep some measure of virginity here and it is rather comedic. At any rate, I've heard a couple of books are being written on the program for release in 2011. We'll have to wait for the complete story 'til then. Best for your efforts here...

Here's some food for thought: National Center for Medical Intelligence.--S. Rich 17:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

More food for thought is that the Dartmouth HTS Lab site in here hasn't been updated since 2008...Comedy Reigns!!!!

Merger

[edit]

Can someone please update this entry? It does not even reflect the changes listed on the new hts.mil website. It is no longer proof of concept, program managers have been fired, anthropology is minimized and many other changes are underway. GEOHTA is in...Big conference on this in the UK in January 2011. If anyone is citing this current HTS entry as a source, they are in trouble. Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weilsimone (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much has been said regarding merger of HTT into this article. The two articles mirror each other in many respects. As HTS has had some personnel changes lately, it caught my renewed attention. So, in the absence of further comment I'll be merging the articles in the near future. --S. Rich (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Working on merger.--S. Rich (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merger done. Moving on to copy edits, especially after the recent updates.--S. Rich (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HTS has gone through a lot of internal organizational restructuring, and probably a lot of improvements, in the last year. So I'm not sure this article is up-to-date. But the article sure as hell is 500% better than it was before the most recent rewrites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.105.8 (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 5, 2012

[edit]

Hello. Now, it's 2012. Allow me to introduce myself: I'm Dave, I'm job hunting, and I just saw this job posting: http://jobs.thingamajob.com/jobs/Nebraska/Social-Scientist---Human-Terrain/2500345 ...I didn't know what HTS is, so I looked Googled it. The first hit I noticed was http://www.army.mil/professionalWriting/volumes/volume4/december_2006/12_06_2.html ... which describes HTS as a "CORDS for the 21st century" Anyway... This wikipedia article makes it sound like HTS is a dead project... But they are hiring. Trust me, I just looked at the job post. This is EXACTLY why we need this thing to be ACCURATE. What if I'd unknowingly got myself into a job that really wasn't for me, based on this article? Anyway, all of this is why I added the POV-check. Also, since they are hiring, doesn't that make this a current event instead of "military history"? Cheers, --24.252.49.21 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First stab at addressing neutrality issue

[edit]

Hi there,

I've had a first stab at addressing the neutrality issue raised by 24.252.49.21 in March 2012 (see post at the top of this page), mainly by amending the sentence that was causing confusion (about the HASC suspending funding when in fact it temporarily limited funding) and also by adding in a bit more up-to-date information about the AAA's opposition to HTS. Any thoughts? Loriski (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information about major edit to this page

[edit]

Hi there,

I'm having a go at a major edit of this page in order to address the neutrality problems that have been raised and hopefully make it a bit less unwieldy and a bit more readable (especially for a lay reader). As I'm making a lot of small edits I thought I would explain anything that seems to need explaining here. So...

  1. I've removed the following 5 sentences that were previously in the 'background' section. They are all unsourced. I have sourced parts of the second sentence and incorporated it into a paragraph in 'history and recent developments'. The rest is, in my opinion, either a repetition of things already said in earlier section, un-sourceable or unnecessary information. However - I am not an expert! So, if anyone disagrees, please do put this information back in, in an appropriate place and with citations! Loriski (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The FMSO HTS pilot was specifically designed to determine the extent to which increased understanding of human terrain (social, ethnographic, cultural, economic, and political elements of the local population surrounding them) developed in accordance with US social science standards and applied in the unit's established military decision-making process would assist US Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) and US Marine Corps Regimental Combat Team (RCT) commanders and their staffs address cultural awareness shortcomings at the tactical level. The FMSO HTS pilot was to remain small (i.e., two experimental teams in Afghanistan and three in Iraq) for 18–24 months until their impact and operational performance standards could be established and the resultant adjustments to their methods, personnel selection, training, data management, and tools could be made. (The FMSO HTS pilot project included independent academic review boards for social science methodological standards, personnel, training, data, and ethics in order to remain compliant with the ethical and methodological standards of academe and to protect human subjects. These boards were eliminated when the pilot was transitioned to TRADOC G2.[citation needed])
At that point, the purpose of HTS was changed to explain to the commanders and soldiers the reasoning of the population and enemy, and reasons for hostility towards the US Army and forces.
  1. I've removed the following paragraph from the criticisms section. Most of the information has been re-integrated back into the section with more specific information. However, despite multiple searches, I was unable to source the last claim about HTS officials comments on the CEAUSSIC report. If there are sources for this information, please reintegrate this statement back into the 'praise and support' section, with citations. Loriski (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On December 2, 2009, two years after denouncing HTS publicly, the American Anthropological Association released a report based on a year long research project that interviewed several dozen selected individuals associated with HTS and HTS critics. Notably, the research plan did not include any onsite visits to HTS training locations, HTS headquarters or military units where HTS teams have served, nor did the interviews include the HTS program manager, senior social scientist or any other members of the HTS program staff. The report supported its 2007 denouncement of HTS, concluding that HTS was such a poorly conceived and executed program that “When ethnographic investigation is determined by military missions, not subject to external review, where data collection occurs in the context of war, integrated into the goals of counterinsurgency, and in a potentially coercive environment – all characteristic factors of the [Human Terrain System] concept and its application – it can no longer be considered a legitimate professional exercise of anthropology.” The AAA assessment and what they consider their detailed accounts of how Human Terrain has not addressed ethical problems, plus the report’s finding that HTS data is used as intelligence by the military, served as the basis for their conclusion that the program is a severe distortion of anthropological research and principles. HTS leadership contended that the study's lack of discipline, inadequate research, and conclusions in support of an organizational statement made years prior were predictable, spoke for itself and did not warrant further comment.[citation needed]

My name Dr Christopher King and I am the Director of Social Science for Human Terrain System (HTS). My username is kingchri.

I recently made changes to the page. I made these changes because as the Director of Social Science for the program I am developing our communication outreach for the HTS program. In doing so I believe HTS has the obligation to post and/or remove information or images that we believe to be inaccurate. For example, the image in the history section is of a person who is not and was not part of HTS. Additionally, the image under Design and Organization Structure is of a HTS classroom setting. However this was not posted with permission from one of the people in the image and they would like the image removed. HTS believes people should have some right of control of their image on the internet so we want to remove this image.

Lastly, in the coming month our plan is to completely rework this page to provide the most current information about the program as well as to expand on our history. I am relatively new to this editing process. In my previous changes I did not explain the reason. I will do so next time. Is there a way in which HTS can be the "owner" of this page.

Dr King — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingchri (talk • contribs) 23:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After my possibly gruff start, I want to emphasize that we do take neutrality very seriously. You'll learn that we have enough policies and guidelines to make your head swim, but at the top of the list are the WP:Fivepillars, one of which is neutrality.
It is because of our strong commitment to neutrality that we discourage editing by people with a Conflict of Interest.
However, we are not naive, and we recognize that many will have a conflict of interest but not disclose it. We strongly encourage you to post concerns on the talk page. If they are backed up with Reliable Sources, they will probably make their way into (or out of, depending on the situation) the article. The timing is often not as swift and interested parties might like, but it does happen.
If editors on a talk page disagree, we have a whole sequence of dispute resolution steps to follow, I hope those won't be needed, but mentioning just in case you push for a change and it doesn't seem to happen.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned on your talk page, fbut for the benefit of editors who may read this page and not your talk page, Wikipedia NEVER grants ownernship of a page to anyone or any group, other than the editors as a whole.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image inclusion

[edit]

When you mention the image you removed, are you referring to File:Human terrain teams.jpg? That image is tagged as a public domain image. If the tag is correct, then we can discuss whether or not it is appropriate for the article, but you cannot simply remove it. The first test is whether the image is correctly licensed. If not it goes, no matter what. If correctly licensed, the next test is whether editors reach a consensus that the image adds to the article. I recall a situation where an individual in an image requested that the image be removed, and the request was granted, but the discussion are made on a case by case basis.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image actually came from the Ft. Leavenworth Lamp, a copyrighted publication -- not a US Gov publication. Speedy deletion has been requested & the image is now deleted from the article.--S. Rich (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion was declined, so I've restored the image. The (other) rationale for not including it -- privacy -- is not a valid one as it was published (apparently) in a newspaper distributed in the military and civilian community. --S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Embed

[edit]

Why is there a Notable Embed section? Except for the three individuals who died, who are already discussed in another section, the other individuals are random. There have been hundreds of individuals through this program. Recommend deleting this section as it does not contribute to the story. There only contrbitution was that their name and/or image showed up in a new report or blog site somewhere.

Or maybe change the header name to : HTS members in the news — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingchri (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what we want to happen. I saw you removed that section, which was inappropriate without explanation, but as I looked at the section, I wondered why it was there and whether it belongs. The term "Notable" has a special meaning within Wikipedia, and the last five may not qualify. It is quite common for article about schools to have a list of notable alumni, but not so common for other types of articles, so we ought to debate whether the section even makes sense, and if it does, who qualifies. Generally speaking, if we answer the first in the affirmative (and I'm not sure I agree) the second is simple - blue-links only. However, I'm done for the evening, so will look in tomorrow to see if everyone is playing nice.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I just thought I would add my two cents. I personally don't feel strongly either way about this section. While I don't think it adds a great deal to the article, it is the only place that Cardinelli is mentioned, and hers is quite an interesting story. So, from a reader's point of view I'd say it may serve a purpose for people that want to find out more about individual stories in HTS. However, I think that renaming the section to 'HTS members in the news' is a good suggestion, and I think that the last five probably should be deleted from this list. Lorelei (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just as I said that I realised that if we do keep a form of this section we'd maybe need to think about an alternative to "HTS members" as this is broader than 'academic embeds' (and would include McFate, for example)... Lorelei (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but I'm not a big fan of "... in the news". It doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic. I've searched, with no success, to find a discussion of the use of such lists in schools articles. My guess is that some are opposed, but they are grudgingly accepted, but not encouraged outside of schools. However, that's a guess, and I could be wrong.
Let me explain what I think is the difference: Pick a random famous person, such as Judith Crist. There is an article about her story. She is also mentioned, as an entry in Morris High School (Bronx, New York). It doesn't make sense to expand the discussion of Crist in the high school article, because the notable parts of her life aren't really about her high school. It is understandable that the high school wants to mention her name, but we wouldn't encourage editors to add a section about Crist to the high school article. In contrast, the list in this article includes people who notability is attached to this program. In this case, it makes sense to have a discussion of their involvement with the program. If some of the stories of individuals are encyclopedia, then there should be prose discussing their activities, and they will naturally be mentioned. This would also allow mention of people whose stories might contribute to this article, but who are not sufficiently notable on their own to have their own article.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Connected contributors banner

[edit]

Back when I was new WP editor my first, rather clumsy editing efforts were on this article. At the time I worked for a defense contractor which was training and supplying people to HTS for eventual hiring as USG civilians. While I completed the HTS training, I did not hire on with the USG. As this article has popped up again on my watch list, I have done some more editing and added the connected contributor template above for myself, King, and Peters (both of whom I never met). – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Several sources were removed. This is a D in the BRD process. The sources are:

  • Open Anthropology's pdf of the CNA analysis – a study commissioned by Congress
    • John Stanton's report about the CNA study, found at [1] – nothing in story indicates unreliability
    • Cryptome's story, by Stanton, about the CNA report – nothing in story indicates unreliability
  • A few Zero Anthropology articles by Stanton – a website established by Maximilian Forte
  • Pravda.ru pieces by Stanton – while Pravda is a pro-Kremlin source, there is no indication that the pieces are inaccurate when a WP:CONTEXTMATTERS analysis is done.

Given that Stanton is mentioned several times in the Lamb book on HTS, his criticisms of HTS are WP:NOTEWORTHY. But given that the WP article on Stanton is up for AFD, it seems that removing the pieces was done in connection with the AFD. – S. Rich (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a part of these edits some information in the article has also been removed (presumably unintentionally/unnecessarily) - see 'Chronological History of HTS', a sentence about the HTS conducting its own report as reported by Maximillian Forte (who doesn't seem to be in question here).
Also, apart from one, all of the citations that have been removed are corroborated by a second, independent source within the article. Lorelei (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Termination and tense-changing

[edit]

I've added a cited statement in the lede that HTS was terminated in September 2014. However, I'm not sure how to go about changing all the appropriate verb tenses in the article - "is" to "was", "has" to "had", etc. Is there an easy way to do that, or should I just start a copyediting slog through the whole piece? jxm (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Human Terrain System. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_Terrain_System&oldid=1207667030"