Talk:Baby Gender Mentor

message: John, I got your message.  This is very interesting.  I was not even aware this test existed.  A few thoughts:  I think that the section break line so close to the top of the article is a bit distracting; I'm not sure it's needed.  Also, I can see why you would have essentially quoted the company's claims, not wanting to unconsciously skew them in any fashion, but I think it makes the article a little clunky. I think we can probably safely summarize what they claim the test does ourselves and then just add a link to where people can see for themselves how they phrase the claims.  
I also think that there needs to be more discussion of just how early this test claims to work, as compared to the other current methods, for folks who may not be familiar with just what other options currently exist.  I also think this line needs a bit of tweaking:  Even though the Food and Drug Administration doesn't regulate the test because it is classified as non-medical, some parents may use the test as a basis for determining whether or not to get an abortion as a means of gender selection.  With that language, Wikipedia is pronouncing ourselves that some parents will use this test to do gender selection. What we need to say is that "critics of the test fear that some parents may use the test".... you see what I'm saying.  It would be even better to refer to a specific critic. 
May have some other thoughts later, those are what came to mind at first blush. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to say I found this article excessively long, and after forcing myself to read through it, felt it was needlessly so as well. It reads like an advertisement for the company designed to appear unbiased, but in reality is not. Possibly shortening the article and being more concise would avoid that feel. Just a thought. SINsApple 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain in more detail how it seems like an advertisement when a signifcant portion of the article is devoted to controversy and criticism of the product?  As for length, is there any specific information that you feel should be removed? Johntex\talk 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts 

message: In the section "Warranty and availability", the article mentions that "As of July 2006, the Pregnancy Store.com reported that the test was 'currently out of stock.'" If this is important to the article (I'm not sure), it should be brought up to date. At the moment, the Pregnancy Store website doesn't have any information about the Baby Gender Mentor at all, and the page linked as a reference for the above statement comes back as "Page not found." On the other hand, BabyGenderMentor.com still appears to be selling the test. 
Also, please be consistent in spacing and capitalization when referring to the Pregnancy Store website, and double-check spelling in general throughout the article. FreplySpang 17:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the note.  I brought the section about warranty availability up to date.  I also just completed a spell check in my word processor so I think I have fixed all the typos - inlcuding any new ones introduced today as I addressed the other comments from the FA reveiw.  I will now check for consistency in spacing when refering to the websites. Johntex\talk 18:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I have now fixed all these points.  Thanks again for the suggestions. Johntex\talk 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Availability, other comments 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
#Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
#There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
#Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
#Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): Can't.
#Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. 
:Reply:
:#I think that the important wikilinks have all been added.  The article tends to stick to the same terms, or to use plain English words that do not seem beneficial to link.
:#I can't find an appropriate infobox.
:#This suggestion puzzles me.  I don't see any location in the article where such a conversion is made.  Perhpas someone else can spot it?
:#Contractions - I have search the article for every instance of the (') character.  They all seem to be indicating a possessive, or else they are inside a direct quotation.  I don't see any contractions in the article except in quotations.
:#The article has had multiple peer reviews, as linked above. Johntex\talk 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the author of this section. Quite a few errors. Albeit minor (to most), they distract me to say the least. I've corrected a few, but still many left. Cheers. ~ UBeR 02:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-automated peer review script

message: :At least 40 women have come forward to say their Baby Gender Mentor tests predicted the wrong gender.[26] According to a National Public Radio (NPR) report, the company has explained certain inaccurate results as being the result of a vanishing twin, a fetus that stopped growing soon after fertilization.[11] Vanishing Twin Syndrome ...
Does this mean that all 40 women have had twins predicted but ended up with only one baby? Because surely the whole vanishing twins thing is irrelevant if a boy was predicted but you ended up with a girl (or vice versa) because the test is supposed to be able to report if you have fraternal twins Nil Einne 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we know at least 40 women are suing because they allegedly got incorrect results.  We do not know what explanation, if any they each got from the manufacturer. Johntex\talk 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the wording was rather unclear. And regardless, the explaination doesn't work for having a boy predicated but ending up with a girl or vice versa since the test is supposed to be able to predict fraternal twins. In any case, it seems this has been improved now Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article confusing 

message: The sentence "In February 2006, Wang said, 'We don't mistakes [sic]. Period,'50" in the Warranty and availability section, the link to the source cited does not work. ~ UBeR 02:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken ref link

message: "The medical community is not in agreement about how frequently vanishing-twin phenomena occurs.[27] The scientific method relies on the existence of a falsifiable hypothesis. This means that if it is not possible to observe a counterexample which disproves the claim, then the claim is not scientifically testable. If vanishing twins can be reabsorbed so completely that they leave no evidence, then it is not possible to prove whether they were ever present. This would make it impossible to ensure that all cases have been recorded.[28]"
This is a misunderstanding of the scientific method. This theory is easily falsifiable.
In order to be true: A twin must be observed early (real early) in pregnancy, disappear, and leav little or no trace of its prior existence.
To falsify: 
A twin will be observed early on. Some trace will remain. There will likely be an intermediate trace prior to the "vanishing" of the bulk of the foetal matter.
This theory relies on no trace. If there is a trace left (an observable counterpoint), this hypothesis is falsified.
*H1 No Twin Foetus. (vanishes?) No trace. (unobservable, but default position - Occam)
*H2 Twin Foetus. Vanishes. No trace. (requires observation of early twin and no recordabale trace)
*H3 Twin Foetus. Vanishes. Trace. (falsifies H2 through observation of a trace)
*H4 Twin Foetus. Doesn't Vanish. Significant trace. (normal twin pregnancy)
--ZayZayEM 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that in some cases the only evidence that a male twin ever existed is the result from the Baby Gender Mentor test.  If they say they detect a male baby and the mother delivers a girl, they can say that there were originally fraternal twins (one male, one female) at the time the Baby Gender Mentor test was given. Johntex\talk 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't talking just about how Baby Gender Mentor is using the idea (they are definitely fudging dodgy science). Just contesting that the general idea of vanishing-twin is not unscientific, and is essentially falsifiable. However it needs a little bit of actual evidence first (Baby Gender false positives are not genuine evidence, they could be used as motivation for research, but in themselves they show nothing until confirmed to be showing what they say they show).--ZayZayEM 07:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: They claim they can predict fraternal twins. Therefore if vanishing twins occured they should have predicted that rather then a boy or girl and gotten it wrong. It seems that this has been correct in the article now but I think it's worth understanding why multiple people raised this area as a concern on the talk page Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific method 

message: seems to be vandalism going on Bladesofhalo 04:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: May someone please semi-protect this article

message: Does this company have a stock ticker? 66.30.166.58 18:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are a private company. If you read the sources, you will infer that they have only a handful of employees (<10) though this is never directly stated, as far as I know. 68.8.72.3 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. 66.30.166.58 18:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ticker?

message: I am concerned that certain claims appearing in the opening section are speculative, opinion-based, and not supported by authoritative references. Namely, this section claims that reasons for use of the test include "getting a head start on shopping for baby clothes or decorating the nursery" or "preparing themselves or the baby's siblings for gender-specific issues." These two claims are apparently based on single, anecdotal interviews in popular press reports. The statement that "50–70% of expectant parents would like to know the gender of their child ahead of delivering the baby" is further used to support the presumed use of the device. Yet gender is easily and accurately determined by routine prenatal care methods (ultrasound) several months before term. The real purpose of the test is to determine gender very early in the pregnancy, and the motivations of the majority of this company's clients for doing this is unclear. The concern about gender-selective abortion is relegated to a worry of "bioethicists", yet there is no evidence to suggest that this is not a common use of the test in actual practice. I would propose that the opening paragraph be trimmed to state the reasons for ordering the test as:
"Women may have many motivations for using a test to learn the gender of their fetus early in pregnancy, including mental preparation, gender-specific purchases, or (more controversially) gender-selective abortion. The actual motivations of most users of the Baby Gender Mentor are unknown."
More (anecdotal) detail could possibly be included in a later paragraph about "non-controversial" uses of the device, but should not be in the opening paragraph, IMHO - otherwise this article risks uncritically parroting the company's marketing claims. Since this is a featured article, I will wait for comments before making this change. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 05:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking to the discussion at Featured article review.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the discussion at Featured article review. As you stated there, "Main page exposure may help address the issues in this article and encourage better examination of sourcing by FA reviewers." I hope this is true b/c this article's sourcing, er, sucks. For example, the source for the lead comment "An estimated 50–70% of expectant parents would like to know the gender of their child before it is born." is a now non-existant advertisement for this product (link was at ). The reference for "Parents might like to know this information early in order to get a head start on shopping for baby clothes or decorating the nursery" is a single news column which reads as if the author copied directly from advertising copy.--Alabamaboy 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I've made some changes to the lead to address these issues.--Alabamaboy 12:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: One motivation for women to seek alternatives to ultrasound is that the procedure is not entirely without risk to the fetus, and in fact the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not recommend the procedure for routine use in every pregnancy.  (see , the ACOG pamphlet, and Mothering Magazine).  The last source also points out that by having an ultrasound exam, some women receive information they don't want (for example, information that severely tests their opposition to abortion). Mike Serfas 13:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - "not entirely without risk" may have been a stronger phrase than I intended, and I'm pleased with how the final edit came out. Mike Serfas 14:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph POV concerns

message: How does a passage like this end up in a Featured Article? (my bolding):
"The company says that the accuracy of the test exceeds that of conventional methods, such as ultrasonography, amniocentesis, or chorionic villus sampling techniques, and that their test offers "unsurpassed accuracy, unrivaled earliness, and uncompromised promptness".[4] Acu-Gen has chosen not to release details of how the test works or proof of its accuracy"
So basically an unproven claim has been allowed to stand in a featured article - a claim that makes nice advertising for the company.
That this has been promoted to Featured Article status SUCKS. Now every company will get their PR people to write a nicely-worded, generally positive article for their products and Bingo! Millions of dollars worth of free advertising.  Shame on you, Wikipedia people. 81.152.168.172 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They already do.  Have you seen some of the Feature articles foisted on Wikipedia?  Every couple of days it's an ad for a video game that's due to be released next month (because the article is most "stable" when no one has had the opportunity to dispute the manufacturer's claims...)  At least this article incorporates some substantial criticism (and doesn't even spin it off to a separate sub-article!) and mentions competing products.  I would have voted against it anyway, but I didn't vote... there's one problem. Mike Serfas 13:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slander! Video game featured articles usually show up only every couple of months at the most part. (And I agree with the statements posted below.) Brutannica 01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I had just the other impression: Quoting the manufacturer's claims made it very clear to me that this company is suspicious.  Without the claims, it might have seemed like a nit-picking issue, but the article as presented was very compelling and balanced at the same time. Good work! Ben 14:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Ben.  I am very surprised anyone thinks this reads like an advertisement.  The controversies surrounding this product, including allegations of fraud, are clearly explained in the body of the article and mentioned in the lead. Johntex\talk 18:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we should be discussing how the product is marketed.  The article wouldn't be comprehensive if it didn't state that the company insists that it's completely accurate, despite several false results.  If we actually said that this stuff was true, it'd be an issue.  But it's completely appropriate to discuss the company's claims in the proper context.  This doesn't look like an ad at all.  ShadowHalo 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said "no publicity is bad publicity"? Seriously. If the claims are bogus, the company doesn't need an article. 4500 people have bought the product? That is a vanishingly small number. Carcharoth 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it warrants an article.  The product has received attention from reliable third-party sources.  ShadowHalo 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remind me which sources those are again? Carcharoth 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking the references, one finds that the article cites stories from The Today Show, NPR, and Science, among others. Johntex\talk 15:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose one could question why the article is titled Baby Gender Mentor rather than Blood-based prenatal sex determination or something similarly generic, given that this company is only one of several labs offering a similar service. I agree that this is the most publicised & well-known company, and maybe it does deserve its own separate page, but right now I think it is a valid concern that Wikipedia seems to be promoting one company (if you agree that any publicity is good publicity) over others. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the other companies that do "blood-based prenatal sex determination" have received any sort of widespread publicity at all.  I had to dig to even find them, and I dug them out just to make this article as complete as possible.  In my view, our Coca Cola article should absolutely mention Pepsi and vice versa, but that does not mean both of those articles should be merged into Soft drink.  We are clearly not promoting this product just because we have an article on it; not if our article is an un-biased view of the product. Johntex\talk 16:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One giant advertisement

message: I would be interested to here if Sherry Bonelli's child was indeed a girl...has anyone heard anything about this?Trottsky 13:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherry Bonelli 

message: Americans United for Life argues that women disappointed by the result of their test would find it easier to have an abortion if they get the results early. They say that women who want to have a specific sex will be learning the results at a time when it is safer for them to have an abortion, without the complications associated with aborting later in pregnancy.
Unless AUL is seriously arguing in favour of killing off women who opt for abortion, doesn't this seem like a pro-abortion argument? Or am I misreading it? Soo 15:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AUL is essentially stating that a woman shouldn't know the baby's sex early, because that way she'll be too far into the pregnancy to abort it.  That's how I read it, at least.  ShadowHalo 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is how I read it also. Or, to re-phrase it slightly:  AUL does not believe women should be getting abortions, and they don't like anything that might make an expactant mother more likely to choose an abortion. Johntex\talk 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americans United for Life 

message: There is a thread on the Main Page talk about this article. Carcharoth 16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thread on Main Page talk 

message: Has anyone followed up the references provided by the Acu-Gen web page?  I haven't had a chance to do so, is there any mention of how Acu-Gen ensures that only foetal cells undergo QT-PCR?  Any maternal cell contamination would clearly interfere with the results.  I am unaware of any technique which allows for the selection of foetal cells over adult cells with 100% accuracy... 
Alexjcharlton 01:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Question 

message: How does one go about verifying the transparency of the decision process for front page nominations. I'm not making any claims here, I'd just like to know how WP decides what gets put up on the front page. Ronnotel 22:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first it is made a featured article. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baby Gender Mentor. Then Raul (the Featured Article Director), queues the articles to appear on the front page. See this month's queue at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2007. The choice of articles from the backlog to appear in the queue is done at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, though as that page says, the final decision is taken by Raul. Carcharoth 22:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision Process 

message: I've e-mailed Acu-gen Biolabs on this question and they replied, saying the product is "currently being offered".--Pharos 03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current availabilty info 

message: This discussion uncovered some sourcing problems in Baby Gender Mentor #Test methodology. That section makes claims about fetomaternal microchimerism, polymerase chain reaction, and DYZ-1, but the cited source (O'Crowley 2005) doesn't support those claims. For now I added some fact tags. Eubulides (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging DYZ-1 etc. 

message: * I removed edits sourced to or related to PregnancyStore.com. The removed information needs to be discussed here and sourced per WP:RS before being readded to the article. The article appears to be the victim of rampant, equal-opportunity abuse and questionable sourcing. Flowanda | Talk 08:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing edits -- June 2011 

message: Am I correct in assuming that this meta-study (; lay summary) relates to Baby Gender Mentor? Gabbe (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent meta-study 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Baby Gender Mentor. 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/20090619120142/http://news.aol.com/article/baby-sex-tests-lawsuit/528219? to http://news.aol.com/article/baby-sex-tests-lawsuit/528219?
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228022019/http://babygendermentor.com:80/information.php?information_id=3 to http://babygendermentor.com/information.php?information_id=3
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webantidote.com/pregnancystore/today_show_flash/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820143450/http://www.babygendermentor.com/ to http://www.babygendermentor.com
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414153151/http://www.dnapolicy.org/resources/2006_Javitt_Fertility_and_Sterility_Pink_or_Blue.pdf to http://www.dnapolicy.org/resources/2006_Javitt_Fertility_and_Sterility_Pink_or_Blue.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Baby Gender Mentor. 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/20110505210227/http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=19814 to http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=19814
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202131214/http://babygendermentor.com/information.php?information_id=4 to http://babygendermentor.com/information.php?information_id=4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813223631/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/front/story/337727p-288375c.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/337727p-288375c.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109041436/http://www.tufts.edu:80/sackler/facultyIntros/bianchiD.html to http://www.tufts.edu/sackler/facultyIntros/bianchiD.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202102307/http://www.bioethics.gov:80/background/background2.html to http://www.bioethics.gov/background/background2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Baby Gender Mentor. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.aol.com/article/baby-sex-tests-lawsuit/528219
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410184640/http://babygendermentor.com/information.php?information_id=1 to http://babygendermentor.com/information.php?information_id=1
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://babygendermentor.com/information.php?information_id=3
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/337727p-288375c.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819132014/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D16574383%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dwhat-will-they-think-of-next---name_page.html to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D16574383%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dwhat-will-they-think-of-next---name_page.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929134129/http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/07/03/10051143.html to http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/07/03/10051143.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tufts.edu/sackler/facultyIntros/bianchiD.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bioethics.gov/background/background2.html
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) 11:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Baby Gender Mentor. 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/20070202094115/http://babygendermentor.com/information.php?information_id=5 to http://babygendermentor.com/information.php?information_id=5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070129005148/http://www.babygenderinvestigation.com/ALLEGATIONS.html to http://www.babygenderinvestigation.com/ALLEGATIONS.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224130327/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/050624/24sex.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/050624/24sex.htm
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) 02:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Baby Gender Mentor. 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/20060705201351/http://pregnancystore.com/baby_gender_mentor.htm to http://www.pregnancystore.com/baby_gender_mentor.htm
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) 11:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified