Talk:Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

message: I removed the link to Stephen Schnider's generic remarks, mainly because his site's down, and even cached versions of the page are not coming up.  So it basically doesn't exist any more (and I'm not sure if it was appropriate to link to in the first place, but if I can't find it, then it doesn't matter anyway...)  All I could find was this: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=61104  
So. Sln3412 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to generic comments 

message: Looks like she's retired?  Does anyone have more up to date information? – Apis (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Demoted to res assoc? Indeed, it would be nice to know more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired 

message: I removed this:
:Her journal once published a paper that claimed that the sun is made of iron .Cited to Shanta Barley, "Real Climate faces libel suit", The Guardian, 25 February 2011 --
--which claim  is sourced to "Big City Lib's" blog, and unconvincing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be reworded, but the source in use (The Guardian) is not a blog.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian's  source is a blog, by a notorious partisan. The accusation is clearly false, and absurd. We don't put in UE stuff like this -- it's just political  posturing,  and has no place in a biography. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian can use whatever sources it likes.  It remains a reliable source itself (again, the Guardian piece is not itself a blog).  Why are you so sure the accusation is false?  Note the wording of the sentence: "Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron."  It does not say, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that he asserts claimed that the Sun is made of iron.  So the Guardian is in no doubt about the truth of the claim.  A Wikipedia editor's assertion to the contrary is thus WP:OR, if not mere speculation.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed blog-sourced comment 

message: The material supported by the Guardian article makes explicit reference to Boehmer-Christiansen's direct involvement as editor in publishing the paper in question.  There is no problem re WP:TOPIC here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It mentions her, yes but the article is not discussing her but that of the journal E&E. Is this page discussing what appears in E&E? Debates over what did or did not appear in journal E&E should be on that page.--JournalScholar (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not merely mention her -- it discusses her direct involvement in the decision to publish that paper (against the recommendations of the reviewer, even).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No such peer-reviewed paper was published. It was only published as a viewpoint - an opinion piece, http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2011/02/peer-review-at-e.html. The wording of the Guardian article is very poor and is not accurately reflecting what the paper was about which, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109075137.htm and peer-reviewed papers have been published on this, http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/. Thus it is not true that she published a peer-reviewed paper against the recommendations of a reviewer. Without proper context people will come to a misleading conclusion about this as you have. This is a discussion that belongs in the journal page.--JournalScholar (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to want to take the view that we should disregard what high-quality reliable sources say about this matter and rely on your own personal knowledge here.  This is surprising, coming from someone who started editing Wikipedia such a long time ago.  Add that to the distraction about "peer-reviewed paper" -- that's not in the text that you have been repeatedly deleting here, so it's a red herring to make that a point of discussion here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian said no such thing. You added a line completely out of context and that is 100% verified by reading the source. "Real Climate" said nothing, Gavin Schmidt did and it was not your incorrect line. Did you not read the source? Your "high-quality" reliable source linked to a blog, which I actually read and linked to above. Everything I stated was confirmed by the blog your "high quality" source got it's information from. Your argument that The Guardian, "discusses her direct involvement in the decision to publish that paper (against the recommendations of the reviewer" is the correct context of the line now not your original distortion. You apparently do not understand the peer-review process if you do not understand the purpose of reviewers. Reviewers are not involved and not considered in publishing viewpoint - opinion articles in most journals only the editors. Everything I have stated is 100% verifiable.--JournalScholar (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your post is virtually word salad.  Here's what the Guardian says: 'As an example, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. "The editor sent it out for review, where it got trashed (as it should have been), and [Boehmer-Christiansen] published it anyway," he says.'  This source thus supports the text that you have been deleting: 'Real Climate, a prominent blog run by climate scientists, asserted in 2011 that her journal once published a paper that claimed that the sun is made of iron.'  (You complained about attribution, but Real Climate's membership includes Gavin Schmidt.)  The entire thing is absurd -- including the notion that an assertion that the sun is made of iron could be a "viewpoint-opinion'.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, it does not say "Real Climate" said anything - that is a complete distortion of the source. You just quoted it, it explicitly says "Schmidt". The context of, "an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron" is a Guardian editorialization and not a quote from Schmidt. This is also discussing E&E NOT Boehmer-Christiansen. Your text is completely inaccurate and I will submit that argument for review anywhere. My assertion is absurd? Did you not read the blog source The Guardian linked to? Are you even reading anything you cite before you do so? The Guardian cites, http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2011/02/peer-review-at-e.html, "Hence his paper could not be published as peer reviewed, but as a viewpoint. "- Sonja.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I am also very concerned that you do not understand the context of "the sun is made of iron". Dr. Manuel is not claiming the Sun is "solid iron" which is a wildly incorrect distortion of his theory. His theory proposes that hydrogen fusion creates some of the sun's heat, as hydrogen and can be found on the sun's surface. But most of the heat comes from the core of an exploded supernova that continues to generate energy within the iron-rich interior of the sun, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iron-02a.html. This theory has been published in the peer-reviewed literature, http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/. The Guardian editorialization is incredibly misleading in this context.--JournalScholar (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you do not understand the meaning of the term "editorialization".  And I'm amazed that you persist in saying that the Guardian does not connect Boehmer-Christiansen to this incident: the source is unequivocal on what happened here.  If you think the source was wrong, you'll need to take it up with the source.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Provide me with the quote of Gavin making any such claim.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please become acquainted with WP:V.  The Guardian is a wholly appropriate source for this content.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not arguing if the Guardian is an appropriate source. Again, please quote where Gavin made the claim you are subscribing to him.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a question you might want to pose to the person who write the Guardian article.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to ask them as I can see where the " " are on the page and so can you. I just added the paper's title.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I've violated nothing, Gavin is not quoted on the page stating any such thing and I will submit that for administrative review. I have asked repeatedly for you to provide me with his quote of this claim and you have not done so.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

text: If your claim is so verifiable then you should be able to provide me with the quote. My argument is 100% verifiable using The Guardian source as - paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron - does not appear is quotes. The actual title of the paper is a primary source not some blog source like The Guardian used.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing needs to appear in quotes.  Show me a Wikipedia policy that indicates such a requirement; you can't, because there isn't one.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It violates WP:V as Schmidt cannot be verified as asserting any such thing.--JournalScholar (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian article verifies it.  You clearly do not understand WP:V.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the Guardian article it cannot be verified if Schmidt characterized the paper in question as - a paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. This is still editorializing the contents of the paper and violates NPOV regardless. The actual title of the paper is a NPOV.--JournalScholar (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Where is the conflict?  The blog to which the Guardian links says: "Manuel is that guy that thinks the Sun is like a giant, really hot ball-bearing."  JournalScholar wants to propagate the notion that Schmidt didn't say this, but he (JournalScholar) is confused on a number of issues and this is clearly one of them.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you have said that Guardian article verifies some statement by this guy Schmidt. Based on the 3 criteria, how does the article meet our reliable source requirements, and are there other sources out there which conflict with it? -- Avanu (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware that there are sources that conflict with it.  If you are, please do tell us -- I have no desire to get it wrong here.  The Guardian is not a source that would normally give rise to concerns about RS, and if there are concerns in that regard then of course they can be discussed -- but there should be a sensible basis for doing so.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said above, the Guardian is not really a source per Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. It is a publisher. A source has three components that need to be reviewed before it can be deemed 'reliable'. The context in which it is used matters as well. -- Avanu (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Avanu, the nature of your concern about this source is not apparent to me.  Do you have a specific concern?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Wait a minute! I tried to use information off the Guardian's blog source regarding Boehmer-Christiansen and it was reverted claiming the source was not valid. This sentence was off a blog source, "Manuel is that guy that thinks the Sun is like a giant, really hot ball-bearing." and was not a quote from Schmidt, who he is trying to attribute the statement to but made by the blog author - "bigcitylib". I am not confused that you have failed to properly attribute a claim to Schmidt.--JournalScholar (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of reliably sourced material

message: The article here now contains the following sentence: "Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011."  The source is a NYT article that does not mention Boehmer-Christiansen.  The paragraph seems to imply that Canada withdrew because of Boehmer-Christiansen's participation in the open letter to Harper.  The sentence should therefore be removed per WP:SYN -- or, at a minimum, per WP:TOPIC.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with this. I simply found it while researching this BLP and thought it was notable.--JournalScholar (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone did this change already. The protection has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SYN]] regarding sentence on Canada 

message: A dispute resolution was never reached on this sentence and Nomoskedasticity went ahead and edited the article how he felt like to this wording, The Guardian reported that Boehmer-Christiansen published — against the recommendations of a reviewer — a paper in Energy & Environment claiming that the Sun is made of iron - I attempted to correct this and receive warnings from his buddies. The process here is a joke and it is clear Nomoskedasticity intent is to negatively distort the context of this event and BLP. --JournalScholar (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally I dispute this account, and anyone with an interest is welcome to review the DR/N discussion.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review it and you will see no such resolution being reached, least of all for the current wording. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the fact that you have been reverted by several different editors is worth noting carefully.  As for the comment about "buddies" -- these are editors I have not encountered prior to working on this page.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave Souza is not an impartial editor and associated with Connelly as well. As was predicted by one of the two impartial editors involved in this, more did come to your rescue to make sure this half-truth remains on this BLP despite nothing being resolved in dispute resolution. This is an embarrassment to this process. Your failure to respond to my actual arguments or address my questions is evidence enough for anyone reading this who is intellectually honest. At least Avanu has made this effort. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No personal attacks: see below, or the history of the talk page of JournalScholar. . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm guessing the point about "no reliable sources" relates to the "Viewpoint" issue -- and I'm glad at least for the fact that there's recognition of the WP:RS and WP:SYN problem.  But just to be clear: JS is also complaining about the difference between the following two versions of the sentence: "The Guardian reported that Boehmer-Christiansen published — against the recommendations of a reviewer — a paper in Energy & Environment claiming that the Sun is made of iron" and "The Guardian reported that a paper claiming that the Sun is made of iron was published by Boehmer-Christiansen in Energy & Environment, against the recommendations of a reviewer."  This is a complete waste of time -- they differ materially only in use or avoidance of passive voice.  If necessary, we can discuss the former issue further at DRN -- anything can always be discussed further -- but I see no reason to do so with a view towards making an exception to policy, particularly to accomplish an edit that will confuse readers, all to address an overinterpretation afflicting a single editor.  As for the latter -- surely it's time to drop the stick.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only a waste of time to you because you have no intention of reaching any sort of consensus on this issue. What sort of exception to policy would be made exactly? What do you mean by "dropping the stick"? --JournalScholar (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as we saw, the RS policy was not directly relevant to what their argument was about. It was related, but it wasn't the central point, and as I said there, and strongly still believe, while you have somewhat of an understanding of the RS policy, you are missing the boat on some of the key bits. I never sensed that you were going to be right or that other people would 'back you up', because anyone who actually understands the RS policy wouldn't agree with you on those substantive points that I was focused on. (I actually thought that we had you converted and understanding, but I suppose I was wrong.) -- Avanu (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Guy, I meant to leave a message on your talk page thanking you for your efforts; I'm sorry I didn't do that earlier, I do feel you made strenuous efforts to be helpful, and it did seem for a time that progress could be made.  As for the future of this article: I'm not so convinced it will be protected -- more likely, JS will be blocked if he continues to revert multiple editors.  I realize that JS is still not happy (though he did achieve having the sentence be framed as "The Guardian reported" rather than "Gavin Schmidt asserted", and he even seemed to be content on that score (as per a post on DRN which I can find if necessary).  But the fact that multiple editors are rejecting his edits is something that should be noted carefully, as I indicated above.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the mob rules message the first time. --JournalScholar (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: JournalScholar, you've been warned on your talk page not to make personal attacks: the fact that you deleted that posting means that you've acknowledged receipt of the warning. Once again, assume good faith and you're advised to strike your comments accusing other editors of dishonesty, lack of impartiality, association with others you're in disagreement with, "mob rules" or of not being "intellectually honest". Wikipedia is about verifiability, and is not the place for your synthesis to portray what you regard as "The Truth". Having said that, there should be a way forward to improve the wording of the article, preferably with more secondary sources. . dave souza, talk 10:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone here can read the blog source the Guardian article cited and my other sources and knows what I have stated is not my synthesized "truth". If everyone is happy with this half-truth remaining on this BLP then I say the Wikipedia process was very successful and you should be very proud. --JournalScholar (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

text: That's all fine, Avanu -- except that JS is proposing to depart from what the Guardian says, using sources in a way that poses a problem of WP:SYN and WP:PSTS.  So if we're going to insist on strict adherence to policies regarding sources, then we won't do what JS wants to do about "viewpoint" and all that -- which is fine with me.  FWIW, I continue to believe that the Guardian is reporting on what Gavin Schmidt asserted -- so even on that score I don't agree that JS had identified a real problem -- but I am content to leave the point here in less precise terms in the way you proposed.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be aware that there is a basic disagreement here about the proper interpretation of WP:RS. I am not going to debate it here, but I do want to inform everyone that the dispute exists. I believe that Avanu is misunderstanding a basic aspect of the policy. Avanu believes the same about me. On several occasions I have invited Avanu to attempt to resolve this at WP:RSN but so far Avanu has declined. The bottom line is that you should (if you believe Avanu) take any comments I make about reliable sources with a grain of salt, and (if you believe me) take any comments Avanu makes about reliable sources with a grain of salt. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy, I don't believe anyone here is contesting that the article from the Guardian constitutes a reliable source, so we don't need to debate that. As Nomo says above, this is about whether you see one interpretation of the source as synthesis or not, and how to reconcile that with other competing primary and non-reliable secondary sources. -- Avanu (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? So it was not you who, at 02:38 on 5 July 2012 (UTC) wrote "Your statement that The Guardian is a reliable source shows that you don't have a firm grasp of the WP:RS policy"?  ( Diff )  --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a perfect example of the 'interpretation of syntax' problem we were solving in this entire debate. :)) In my comment just before yours here, I said "the article from the Guardian constitutes a reliable source". In your quotation of me just now, you quote me saying "The Guardian is a reliable source" shows you don't know WP:RS well enough. It is that fine point that I made... a publisher isn't a "reliable source" (in the Wikipedia meaning of that phrase). A publisher may be a "source"(per the 'three related meanings') or it may be called a "reliable publisher". But, here is the important bit, it is *not* a "reliable source" as a publisher alone. It must include an author, even if there is no byline, there is always an author, and it must include an article. No article means nothing to evaluate for reliability. Conversely, an article with no information about where it came from cannot be firmly tested for reliability, hence the need for the other two criteria. There is obviously some wiggle room in the idea of publisher/author. People can self-publish, and publishers sometimes print things without bylines. But the WP:RS policy is clear on the guidelines for this. If the author and publisher are the same person, the person must be 'authoritative in relation to the subject'. If the publisher doesn't show a byline, it must at least have a 'reliable publication process'. In other words, they are not simply a sieve for anonymous drivel, but have editors who are guided by a process and have a committment to quality, and are themselves likely to be subject-matter experts. In other words, the 'reliable publication process' stands in for the anonymous author. However, most of the time, we see all three parts very distinctly. We know who the publisher is, we know the author, and we can read the article in all cases. Have I explained this clearly, I hope? -- Avanu (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Ideological? Perhaps the "ideology" of physical science as against SB-C's political science?  . . dave souza, talk 21:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Real Climate faces libel suit for details of the conflict between Schmidt and SBC. "According to Boehmer-Christiansen, she and Schmidt have a "long-standing" conflict that began many decades ago..." Another reason to avoid BLP comments by Schmidt re SBC. And vice-versa. Pete Tillman (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't get it. There is no doubt that that atrocious paper was published by E&E, or is there? That Boehmer-Christiansen seems to mistake scientific criticism for a personal vendetta is not a reason not to include any criticism. There may well be a clash of cultures, but if she pretends to publish a scientific journal she has to live with a scientific culture, and that includes robust criticism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits with Dispute Resolution not being reached 

message: It doesn't appear that this discussion ever reached consensus on whether or not to include the "Sun made of iron" claim. Per WP:BLP, we need an unambiguous consensus to include contentious material such as this. Hence I removed the claim, and another editor restored it, asking for more discussion.
My recollection is, there are periodic efforts to add this contentious claim, which is based on a comment by Gavin Schmidt, an ideological opponent of Boehmer-Christiansen. It appears to me that the claim is intended to make her look bad, foolish, or both. Hence I'm reopening the discussion, and I formally OPPOSE inclusion of the item, per the previous discussion and BLP rules.  Pete Tillman (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideological? Perhaps the "ideology" of physical science as against SB-C's political science?  . . dave souza, talk 21:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Real Climate faces libel suit for details of the conflict between Schmidt and SBC. "According to Boehmer-Christiansen, she and Schmidt have a "long-standing" conflict that began many decades ago..." Another reason to avoid BLP comments by Schmidt re SBC. And vice-versa. Pete Tillman (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't get it. There is no doubt that that atrocious paper was published by E&E, or is there? That Boehmer-Christiansen seems to mistake scientific criticism for a personal vendetta is not a reason not to include any criticism. There may well be a clash of cultures, but if she pretends to publish a scientific journal she has to live with a scientific culture, and that includes robust criticism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sun made of iron" controversy, again

message: Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. 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/20120512140810/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. 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/20120301012402/http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/geography/about_us/staff.aspx to http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/geography/about_us/staff.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312211736/http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/about/forum-member.cfm?ID=3 to http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/about/forum-member.cfm?ID=3
*Added  tag to http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/v3600623g8txh577/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220023543/http://www.getcited.org/pub/102898795 to http://www.getcited.org/pub/102898795
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220051259/http://www.getcited.org/pub/103287641 to http://www.getcited.org/pub/103287641
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920174306/http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/inspired/article/1341/ to http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/inspired/article/1341/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified