Talk:Chesterfield, Idaho

Copyright violations

Bgwhite seems to think that I object to the facts stated here. I have no objection to the facts; I don't know whether or not they are true, and I've not paid enough attention to the sources to see whether they're reliable. I have seen enough of the sources, however, to know that much of the text is copied from them, making them copyright violations. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me what sections you find objectionable. I'm not disputing what you are saying, jut tell me what is wrong so I can correct it.

Bgwhite (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this at WP:EAR#help with Chesterfield Idaho page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Now that I've looked through the Chesterfield Foundation sources, I wish to dispute their inclusion: it appears that they're all self-published and thus related to their subjects. Sources for Wikipedia articles need to be independent of their subjects; accordingly, as far as I can see, these sources aren't suitable for use here. No complaints about the news articles, but I don't agree with the current usage of the LDS Church ward report: the link is dead, and as you've not provided a standard citation, it's really not enough for verifiability purposes. LDS Church statistics could be quite useful here if all is good with the citation; could you try to fix it? Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Chesterfield Foundation sources are only cited when a building is under construction or when the LDS Meetinghouse was sold. As the Foundation is the original source if something is being restored, the citing of the Foundation as a source for this purpose should be ok.

The Foundation's newsletters and web site essentially copies the description of the houses from the book I referenced, "Chesterfield: Mormon Outpost in Idaho". While the book is published by the Foundation, the book is actually 2 photo essays and 7 scholarly articles by different people (Utah State history Prof and LDS Church Historian Leonard Arrington among others). Only 1 essay is available on-line and it's the introductory article.

The LDS Church ward reports was cited in one of the above scholarly articles. It's a source I have seen with my eyes at the LDS Church Archives. It's not available on-line. As it was a source I've seen, I listed it as a source in the Wikipedia article. The link is not dead, just me mistyping... I typed a "|" instead of /. It is just a link to the main page of the LDS Church Archives... http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/archives/.

Only other article about the history of Chesterfield that I've seen that doesn't rehash the book is: http://www.idahohistory.net/Reference%20Series/0963.pdf However, the article is more about how the conditions of the buildings were in 1972. Also, the author is the founder and past-president of the Chesterfield Foundation. After reading it again, I did use some info from the article and do need to cite it once in the Wikipedia article.

Soooo, two questions: How do you want to procede with the main citation... 1) Just leave the reference at the bottom. 2) Cite the individual scholarly articles 3) ???? Second Question, I'm not sure how to go about citing the LDS Church ward report, if at all.

If were wondering, I have no affiliation with the Chesterfield Foundation, but I visited Chesterfield two years ago. I had a great-grandpa who grew up there (1884-1901).Bgwhite (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I will fight tooth and nail to include references from Chesterfield: Mormon Outpost in Idaho. It may be self published, but the articles in them certainly DO NOT come from the chesterfield foundation. The articles were written by some of the most respect scholars of Mormon study. Leonard J. Arrington IS THE MOST respected scholar. The article, "Chesterfield: A picture from the Past", contains 51 citations for a 13 page essay. I'll buy you a copy if you want to see it. As you accused me of yet again of copyright violations, I sent the email conversations I had with Val Roberts to [email protected]. If you want to check yourself, send email to the email address listed on the Chesterfield Foundation webpage. All historical structures of Chesterfield are in private hands. BLM is no longer the governing body.174.52.49.182 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Also removed were references to Chesterfield Foundation. From talk above: "The Chesterfield Foundation sources are only cited when a building is under construction or when the LDS Meetinghouse was sold. As the Foundation is the original source if something is being restored, the citing of the Foundation as a source for this purpose should be ok." Tell me what is the difference from citing National Park Service website... by your definition, that would not be sourcing third parties as NPS designated Chesterfield as a Historic District. Also, multiple articles about people cite book, notes or correspondence about the very same person.Bgwhite (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

US federal government sources are generally treated differently from other sources—for example, we've always depended on US Census Bureau sources for demographic information. Likewise, we depend on the NPS and other government sources for information on relevant topics. If you want to propose that we remove all information derived from the Census Bureau from Wikipedia, go ahead, but be aware that your proposal is unlikely to succeed. This is largely because we know that the federal government is generally a very reliable source, but publishers such as the Chesterfield Foundation are quite unknown and do not have the strong reputation of the federal government's productions. This isn't at all to say that I think their publications are wrong: however, WP:RS requires that we depend on sources that are known to be reliable, rather than on sources that aren't known to be unreliable. The same goes for books: self-published material isn't considered a reliable source. And finally, I don't see where you're inferring that I once again accused you of copyright violations: I never said any such thing, overtly or by implication. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You accused me of copyright violations by rejecting the photos. I quote from you, "Removed images without any evidence of a free license." I got permission and sent the email I received to the permission email address.174.52.49.182 (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd Party Dispute.

1) User Nyttend contends that using references from the book Chesterfield: Mormon Outpost in Idaho. His contention is the book is "self-published and thus related to their subjects", thus nothing should be allowed.

While the book is self published by the Chesterfield Foundation, the content comes from completely independent sources from highly respected scholars. No money was paid to any of the authors by the Foundation, only the editor was paid money for her time.

From Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I believe the book meets this criteria.

The article, "Chesterfield: A picture from the Past" cites 53 different references in 13 page. It was written by Utah State University Prof F Ross Peterson, who is also on the Utah State Board of History. Short bibliography of Mr. Peterson. The article from the book, "Making a Living: The Economic Life of Chesterfield" was written by Leonard J. Arrington and Richard L. Jensen. Mr Arrington is THE most respected scholar of Mormon History. Mr. Jensen was a Professor of Mormon History at BYU, but is currently employed by the LDS Church. I'm sorry, but disputing that somebody of the stature of Mr. Arrington is slanderous. Mr. Arrington's bibliography can be found here. The article, "Play and a Lot of Hard Work: Group Life in Chesterfield" was written by Davis Bitton, former Utah State University History Professor. The article, "An Idaho Variation on the City of Zion", was written by Paul L. Anderson. Mr. Anderson specialty is Mormon Architecture and is currentl the head of BYU's Museum of Fine art. The editor of the book is Lavina Fielding Anderson, a noted scholar and author.

2) Also removed were references to Chesterfield Foundation. From talk above: "The Chesterfield Foundation sources are only cited when a building is under construction or when the LDS Meetinghouse was sold. As the Foundation is the original source if something is being restored, the citing of the Foundation as a source for this purpose should be ok." This should also be allowed. Again from Wikipedia:RS#Selfpublished_sources_.28online_and_paper.29, I believe this should should be allowed because it me the requirement of "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field." Also, if a building is being restored by an entity, why shouldn't the entity be the first source of what is being restored?Bgwhite (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

I think Bgwhite makes some valid points. There are instances where citing this book is appropriate. Nyttend seems to be arguing that because this book is self-published, it shouldn't be considered reliable (or at least "not unreliable"). That may be a reasonable general guideline but it isn't necessarily applicable to all such sources. They should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

On the other hand, I disagree that it's appropriate to cite a source that contains information from other sources. One should cite the original source for statements in the article. If the book itself cites other sources for the things it says, then those sources should be found and cited also.

Finally (not having seen the book), if it has multiple contributors, and those contributors are notable in their field, and their articles are related to the field that makes them notable, then I'd say citing those individuals from the book is reasonable. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinion on Chesterfield Foundation

User Nyttend contains that no references to the Chesterfield Foundation should be included. I'm not really sure why as I don't see a response.

I contend that the should be included because: 1) Chesterfield Foundation owns the majority of historic Chesterfield and is the only entity maintaining and restoring the buildings. 2) I only cite Chesterfield Foundation when the Foundation is restoring or buying a building.174.52.49.182 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Nyttend's contention that the reference does not meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines, as it is self-published/edited. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If a building is restored, who better to know about the restoration? As there is no other sources for information about restoration, wouldn't this be a valid use of a primary source? Why is this site ok This Is the Place Heritage Park to use it's own source?174.52.49.182

Sorry, thought I was logged in, above comment from Bgwhite

(talk) 02:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request:

Disclaimers: Although I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this is not a Third Opinion in response to the request made at WP:3O, but is merely some personal observations and/or information about your request and/or your dispute.

Comments/Information: I'm not sure why you have re-listed your dispute at the Third Opinion project page, having already received a Third Opinion from Amatulic, above. Once you've receive a Third Opinion under the project, you cannot get another one on the same dispute. Could you explain?

Note to other 3O Wikipedians: I have not yet "taken" this request, removed it from the active request list at the WP:3O page, or otherwise "reserved" it, so please go ahead and opine on it if you care to do so. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No more "edit wars"

All of this back and forth does no good. As you know, I'm a relative newbie. I'm trying to learn. I feel (right or wrong) that any sentence I've written you have objected too. It went downhill from "much of this is copied from copyrighted sources, so it's not too unlikely that the rest is as well."... especially when you wouldn't tell me what you objected too.

From now on please:

1) Answer the questions I've asked. You have not done so in the past. I can't learn if you ignore them.

2) No more short statement in the history, tell me what and why you object to something in the talk. Saying "messed up plenty of formatting" does me no good.

3) No more reverting or editing without discussion first.

4) I sent in my email discussion about the photos to permissions-en on March 9th. How long does it normally take? How do I know they have taken action (bad or good).

---

I've reverted back the Chesterfield article to my last previous addition.

I have removed the award on the book. You said, "Awards are irrelevant here." You are correct.

Please tell me how/what/why/where the "messed up plenty of formatting" is at.

I am keeping the source from the Chesterfield Foundation on the sale of the Church to the foundation. It meets the conditions set forth on adding self published source: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The Chesterfield Foundation was also used as a source to tell when, not if, a building's restoration will be completed. It's obvious from standing in front of the building that it is undergoing restoration. When could be removed as the building will be finished next year and thus the argument becomes moot. I'd rather keep it because as I've been editing other pages, seeing "construction will begin in 2010" makes me think, hmmmm, I know it just began. So I found a newspaper article saying it had already started and updated the page. Somebody seeing a building will be completed in 2011 and it's 2012, may make them update the article and remove that the building is undergoing restoration.

Oh, finally.... the Church and Meetinghouse are the same building. There was only one Church built in Chesterfield. Meetinghouse and Church mean the same thing in LDS nomenclature, however Meetinghouse has been replaced with "Wardhouse" or "Stakehouse" these days.Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Formatting first—some headers in your version are often in all caps (such as "Historical Buildings") against standard practice (see WP:HEAD); that's the first thing I notice at the moment, but I expect that there are others. Communities throughout the United States are introduced by "Placename is a typeofcommunity in Countyname County, Statename, United States". Moreover, you've used the Chesterfield Foundation to introduce multiple claims about third parties and ultimately based the majority of the article on it. You've never proven that the Foundation is a reliable source at all. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I find my way to this article because I was browsing Nyttend's contributions, in response to finding a somewhat similar pattern of edits reverting changes that i had made to various articles. So I am not entirely impartial, but i am a very experienced wikipedia editor, and seem to be encountering some similar difficulty with Nyttend's sometimes-abrupt style. Nyttend is also a very productive editor and, from my experience, has very valid concerns. It usually is not a good way to start out to say that there are copyright violations, though. I have had a few interactions with new users go downhill really fast when i started out that way. :( I am not sure that there are any here.

Looking at the last diff of the article, in which Nyttend reverted to a previous version, i am having trouble seeing what was changed relating to simply the use of the Chesterfield Foundation source. Offhand, a primary source can indeed be used, with care. And if it is about non-controversial/non-contended matters like how many houses a foundation has restored and operated, I think it is pretty obviously completely fine to use the source. Nyttend and I both frequently use NRHP nomination documents, which are primary sources, in articles where the documents are covering factual info and there is no reason to doubt it.

So, Nyttend, I would think that it would be best to restore the article, and to discuss here with User:Bgwhite what are specific issues you have with anything. It is very reasonable for Bgwhite to ask for, and get, specific discussion here on the Talk page, rather than mere edit summary comments. Please participate constructively in a discussion, here. I will return the article to its last version and hope that discussion can proceed here. I will watch and try to help. --doncram (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Further, the NRHP nomination documents about Chesterfield, which apparently is a historic district listed on the National Register, should certainly be obtained and used to develop this article. I am sure they would corroborate a lot and remove some questions from the table. Bgwhite, could you send away for a free copy of those? You may do so by emailing a request to the National Register staff, at nr_reference (at) nps.gov. If they have them scanned already you will get them back by email; if not, they will send a copy to you by postal mail so send a postal mail address. Then, Nyttend and I both can help further. --doncram (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to primary sources—I'm objecting to sources produced and self-published by an organisation with no widespread reputation at all. This is completely different from sources produced by unknown people but published by the National Park Service. I also object to the heedless reversion of fixes that plainly fit MOS issues. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you object. You reverted by this edit, citing formatting problems as well as unreliable sourcing in another argumentative edit summary. There is so much changed in that one edit, and/or the wikipedia "diff" operator is so poor, that i can't tell what all has changed.

A lot of this arguing seems to be about whether some foundation is a reliable source. I don't have all the facts, but isn't this foundation the controlling entity of the ghost-town? I would think they would have accurate information. And, a lot could be resolved by getting the NRHP documents. I imagine it is possible that the documents were prepared by the same foundation and/or by many of the same principals, and their word on the facts was then accepted by a state office and by the National Register of Historic Places of the U.S. National Park Service. What specific points do you regard as likely to be inaccurate, that is sourced from the foundation? --doncram (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The NRHP documents state that the Chesterfield Foundation will be restoring buildings. The documents were prepared by the founder and past president of the Chesterfield Foundation Bgwhite (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Facts in question

What are the facts in question?

governing body

Here's a new one, perhaps: what is appropriate to say for "governing body" in the NRHP infobox. In 1980, the National Register recorded "governing_body = BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT", because, presumably, that was a Federal entity which had control of some property in the area, and which would have to be notified or coordinated with if buildings were slated for change. That does not mean that there is not significant private ownership. Should it show "Private" or "Private, and BLM" or something to reflect private ownership now? --doncram (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the assertion "The community is in an area governed by the Bureau of Land Management" from the lede of the article, which was supported by footnote to NRIS database. I don't believe that the NRIS database expresses that, it just mentions BLM as being a Federal agency that would need to be informed. It means that in 1980, there was some BLM property in the area; it does not extrapolate to "the community is in an area governed by the BLM". --doncram (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

number of restored structures etc.

One of the passages that seems to have been deleted by Nyttend is the following:

Today, there are no permanent residents in historic Chesterfield. The Chesterfield Foundation has restored thirteen structures with another five in the process of being restored. In 2009, the Foundation was awarded a Save America's Treasures grant to restore six additional buildings. Tours of the restored buildings are available every summer between Memorial Day and Labor Day. A Memorial Day celebration is held every year along with several musical concerts over the summer. LDS Church youth groups use the area for handcart reenactments.

References:

"Chesterfield Foundation 2009 Fall Newsletter" (PDF). Chesterfield Foundation. Retrieved February 21, 2010.

I don't see problem with that. You could put a citation needed tag on the latter part. But, is it seriously doubted whether the foundation received a grant or not, and whether it has restored 13 structures? Or that there are no permanent residents? These seem like relevant, important things to say. Are these the facts being disputed in the edit warring mentioned above? --doncram (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Or is the objection that the specific page number of the newsletter is not given in a footnote, for each statement, such as for the awarding of a $295,000 grant from the U.S. National Park Service to the foundation? What are the objections, and/or what would be acceptable instead of the passage as written? --doncram (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section

Nyttend, Do not revert changes unless you discuss. Your refusal to discuss makes it very hard to communicate what is going on.

Why is it that any change I make you revert? What did I do to you?

Your lead introduces information that is not in the article.

As discussed before, the church building and Meeting House are the same buildings. In the Nominating document and all literature, they are the same building.

Calling "Latter-Day members" is considered an insult to some Mormons and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has specifically stated to never use that term. Bgwhite (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) & Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) for better information about naming standards here at WP for topics related to the Latter Day Saint movement. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever read other community articles? We always introduce an article by giving its location in county, state, country. You can introduce other data later, but it needs to wait until the standard intro sentence. Moreover, you've deleted validly-sourced information that has no place elsewhere in the article; it fits more naturally in the intro. As well, if the church and the meeting house are the same, how is it that the church is 2.5 minutes (3 miles) to the north of the meeting house? I revert changes that you make because they're at variance with the way we do things at Wikipedia. You may notice that I've not done anything with the pictures since you have a valid OTRS on them. Finally, why do you bring up "Latter-Day members?" That text isn't in anything that I wrote, and I don't see it anywhere in the article. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The church you are referring to was built about 1960 and is outside of the historic district.

Sorry, you said "Latter-Day Saints". Please use Mormon or members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After you use the full name, saying LDS Church is then acceptable.

There is no museum any more. It was closed Bgwhite (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of peer review/gac/fac stuff. Twice they have mentioned that the lead must contain material from the article and not introduce material only found in the lead. Bgwhite (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I notice this article popping on my watchlist, and don't know if I can help here or not. Nyttend's edit to the lede did have some good aspects from my own point of view. For one example, it included showing Chesterfield in bold, which is standard to show this is the article about that, which i think Bgwhite's reversion loses. Nyttend is an experienced editor who has helped a ton of articles, and I work with Nyttend often and value his cooperation. But, Nyttend's points are coming across here as dogmatic and a bit attacking, from my point of view again, given history here of Nyttend questioning and somewhat combatively removing material, without adequate explanation. The previous removals had to do with sources that Nyttend questioned but which seem to check out as fine, is my understanding, so in fact Nyttend's forceful edits on this topic have turned out to be wrong at least in part, though no doubt well-meant. And I don't personally agree that "all" similar articles are written the same way; there is no way that can be true, even if you want to qualify it by saying all "good" articles on communities are written that way. Given that history, Nyttend, could you back off and let other editors contribute to fine-tuning of the lede and so on, later? It just seems that for now your comments on the specifics of writing this article, even when valid, are not going to be heard easily, are not going to come across as constructive. I was going to suggest to Bgwhite that he/she take the article for peer review at some point in the future, after other development. I have lost track here, but I thought Bgwhite collected NRHP documents which I have yet to see, myself (Bgwhite, if you have an electronic version or could easily scan and send, could you email those to me?). There is other development possible and/or needed, which Bgwhite and perhaps others need space and time to do here. Then eventually i think Bgwhite can ask for other editors' input in the form of a peer review. Glad to know from Bgwhite's last comment that he/she has some familiarity with such. --doncram (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, I emailed you the NRHP documents back on March 26th. I also made mention on your talk page, but you have one busy page, so it probably got overlooked. I will email them again. Please tell me if you got them or not in case I have the wrong email address. The NRHP documents were prepared by Craig Call, the Founder and Past-President of the Chesterfield Foundation. Documents also make mention that the Foundation will be restoring buildings. The documents are essentially a rehash of a paper put forth to the Idaho State Historical Society by Craig Call. Bgwhite (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter that the church isn't a CP? It's the Chesterfield church and thus can be considered to be part of the community; after all, this isn't just an article on the HD. Moreover, the inclusion of information not given elsewhere is done in featured articles (you won't find anything about county seats at Cleveland and Detroit except in the intro, to give a quick set of examples), and you've not moved it to a different location; there's no good reason to remove information entirely. Moreover, kindly refrain from telling me that I'm not being constructive or that valid comments are going to be ignored; comment on content, not content writers. And yes, the point is that all good articles (not GA-Class; simply articles of decent quality) have this format; there's no good reason not to follow a format used universally for US community articles. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You said "We always introduce an article by giving its location in county, state, country." The version I had the location of state and county. I goto Historic Districts and click on any of the historic district articles... They have no elevation and geo coordinates listed and the vast majority omit the country. Where does it state that elevation and geo coordinates must be mentioned in the first sentence? So, if the only thing preventing your "standard" is to have the country listed, why not just list it instead of reverting everything.

If we are talking about Chesterfield with no permanent residents, why does a church that nobody from Chesterfield attends be relevant? Why not list the old post office, general stores, amusement hall or any of the other 41 buildings? You also reverted changes in regards to "Latter day saints", plus an anonymous edit from somebody who changed LDS wording to correct syntax. You removed wording on Chesterfield's demise and left in a reason that is opposite from the body. You also didn't keep Mormon Historic Sites Foundation's Mormon Historic Sites Registry. So, because you want country listed, you revert everything? Bgwhite (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been dinged twice for including information in the lead not given elsewhere and the lead MOS states "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Wouldn't it be best to leave it out and expand the body to include the information especially if editors don't agree if new, sourced material should be in the lead?

Shouldn't the correct way have handling be to add in the country and then talk about adding the church until Consensus is achieved? Bgwhite (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Images → Commons

Any interest in moving the existing images over to Wikimedia Commons? Are there images available with the correct license for each of the contributing structures to the historic district? If so, they would also be a great addition to Commons. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is one other photo that is not currently on the Chesterfield page. The three photos are the first photos I ever added and made the mistake of not adding it to commons. I will move the existing images over to commons. I live far away from Chesterfield, so I'm not in a position to take photos any time soon. The person who donated the three photos is not in the mood to donate any others... he gave permission to Wikipedia three separate times and got upset that Wikipedia refused to believe him. Bgwhite (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chesterfield, Idaho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707220750/http://www.bearriverheritage.com/Content/WYSIWYG/brha_brochure.pdf to http://www.bearriverheritage.com/Content/WYSIWYG/brha_brochure.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)