Talk:Murder of Jesse Dirkhising

Converting to Harvard refs

I've completed the first phase of converting to the Harvard style to address an editor's concern about HTML mark-up. The next phase will be cleaning up all the refs to format to the Harvard style - books should indicate page number, newspaper articles are cited differently, etc. With the first phase complete, however, all the apparently hindering mark-up has been effectively moved out of the main text so hopefully that will address those concerns. -- Banjeboi 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I still need to re-review each cite and add page numbers and possibly revert the news articles as those, I think stay where they were. -- Banjeboi 21:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "revert the news articles"? Do you mean the {{cite news}} template I used? -kotra (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no revert my news cite changes. I'm still looking into this but itseems those should stay where they were but the book moves are fine. Piece by piece we'll get it! -- Banjeboi 00:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. -kotra (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that the article has calmed I'll look to completing this with an eye to GA. -- Banjeboi 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinions and editorials

I was just checking some sources and found that this article has a number of editorials or opinion pieces that are used as references. For example, the first source listed, "'A special kind of killing'". Op-eds should only be used as a source for the opinions of the newspaper or the writer, not as a source for facts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If the edit warring desists I will be happy to look into any concerns. -- Banjeboi 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I will certainly be looking into this before taking to GA nom. -- Banjeboi 13:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the media-bias accusation

At the top of the Accusations of Homophobia section was added the following sentence: "Criticism of the media-bias accusation and the use of the case to argue against homosexuality focused on the belief that homosexuality was being treated as identical to pedophilia."

This sentence implies that the main criticism was the homosexuality = pedophilia slant. However, the section seems to describe the homophobia more broadly than just that slant, with the slant being mostly an aside. Unless a citation can be found clarifying the main accusation of homophobia being about that slant, the sentence should be removed. -kotra (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I intended that line as a sort of 'thesis' for that section, because it seemed like a reasonable characterization of the existing text. Also, by linking to the articles on homosexuality and pedophilia so close together in that sentence, it reminds readers to check out those articles. I thought that if someone didn't want to read the whole section (as is often the case in decent-sized articles, I'd guess), that line could give them a quick 'gist' of the later paragraphs. I don't know if the line can be modified to better characterize the text, or if you think the section is short enough not to need it. Perhaps something like "Criticism of the media-bias accusation focused on perceived homophobia in these responses, and often on the belief that homosexuality was being treated as identical to pedophilia."? Whatever's clever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.11.135.246 (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Court Affidavit and presence of texts about abuse of a girl

The Benton Country court affidavit linked from this article notes that a search revealed the presence of texts describing the sexual abuse of a young girl. This information has been twice removed from the article, though it highlights the fact that the murderers were pedophiles (and possibly indiscriminate as to gender). The first removal said it was unsourced (it was sourced using the McMath article, which was already linked). The second removal said that the affidavit constituted original research (though it was already linked and the author did not remove the link), and that it was a primary source. A primary source would be one of the killers themselves, or someone personally affiliated with them or the victim.

The writings about a girl being abused were found by law enforcement, and they are the source. It is not even stated that the killers actually wrote the material - only that they had it. Barring any reasonable response here, I'll feel free to restore this information in a few days. So let's clear this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.11.135.246 (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not addressing this already. This should be cleared up and made accurate as to who identified as what, etc. -- Banjeboi 21:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The key statement is "While being questioned by Detective Martha Armstrong after being Mirandized, Josh Brown stated that he was Davis Carpenter’s lover." Nothing contradicts this but I think we should clarify this and state that they had also stated they had lived together in three states and were presumed to be a gay couple. The also-assaulted-young-girls-evidence isn't terribly convincing I'm afraid. It's clear that Dirkhising was degraded in various ways including some feminizing and it's unclear where any actual encounter with any other minors, or anyone else really may have ever occurred. The handwritten story referring to an assault on a young girl could easily be more of the same - fictionalized role playing done in story form. Often in written pornography the genders are changed from an original story to suit the desires of an audience. We don't know who the story was written for and if it was based on any real people or any real desires. For all we know he was an aspiring porn writer making some extra money - that the subject of the story was a young girl sexually assaulted makes it disturbing and suspicious but not conclusive to anything. -- Banjeboi 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Content changes made by Benji without consensus

On June 30, 2009, Benji made content changes against consensus and then quickly archived the original discussion concerning the content issue (over the word "homosexual" vs. "gay") on the same day. Prior to his changes, consensus seemed to be that the word "homosexual" (like the word "heterosexual") was the correct and proper english word best fit to be used in an encyclopedia. I made it clear in the last discussion that slang words (like "gay" and "straight") are not appropriate for a encyclopedia. I changed the wording back to what it was before. Unlike Benji, I am asking others to voice their opinion here concerning this issue and hopefully we can reach another consensus that will stick this time. Please do not revert my edit until then. Discuss first please. Thanks. Caden ^cool 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the antagonism and battleground mentality, "openly homosexual" is the near exclusive domain of the religious right in the United States it is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Banjeboi 21:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon Benji? I am not doing no such thing so please cease with your attacks and bad faith. Homosexual is the proper english word, just like heterosexual. Slang words like "gay" or "straight" should not be used in an encyclopedia. Those words are inappropriate. Caden ^cool 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Benji please stop. Please stop reverting my edits before discussing it here. I made it clear in both my post as well as in my edit summary to discuss things first. Thanks. Caden ^cool 21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Caden, that's not the way it works. You don't make controversial edits then tell everyone they can't undo them until you are satisfied with discussion. Read this essay for a pretty good explanation on how controversial edits should be handled. Also, three users have undone some or part of your edits on this article. Please be mindful not to edit war. AniMate^draw 21:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-webster, Cambridge and any free dictionary I could pull up online do not label the usage of gay in the homosexual sense as informal or slang. 'Gay' hasn't been used in any other sense than the aforementioned one in most texts written after 1960 because of the potential for misunderstanding. The Homosexualist (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Ani, I know how it works. First off, I didn't make controversial edits. The proper english word is homosexual. I've been reverted by 3 editors all from the exact same wiki project. No surprise there dude. I'm sorry but it's true. I wanted consensus but I see that a heterosexual editor like me is not allowed to ask for that. Thanks but no need to worry since I will not be edit warring over this. Please give the same advice to Benj on edit warring. Thanks. Caden ^cool 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Caden please stop. I'm not edit-warring here whereas you have a history of doing so. And no one is discounting you for your sexuality. Presuming other editors motives' and LGBT status is unhelpful. We comment on the content, not the contributor. -- Banjeboi 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Will Beback, who removed the category after I did, is not a part of WikiProject LGBT (unless he, Benji and I are all part of another WikiProject). Benji, should you feel that Caden makes inappropriate edits please discuss them and avoid any temptation you may feel to edit war. For the record, I see no evidence that anyone here has edit warred, but it is always a good idea to remind editors in conflict to avoid it, and that includes me. AniMate^draw 22:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No Benji, you need to stop. You've edit warred before on this very article. And yes I do feel I am being discounted based on my heterosexuality. And I "was" commenting on content, that's why I was trying to discuss it here on the talk page but I see I wasted my efforts as I've seen how you've decided to comment on the contributor (me) instead of content. Caden ^cool 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Time out. Technically you've both commented on each other. Now instead of escalating things here, why not go and edit something else until any anger about this article has dissipated. AniMate^draw 22:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, we've been through the homosexual vs gay thing with you before, Caden. Or maybe I am mistaken and it was a different editor. Regardless, consensus has long been on Wikipedia that we use "gay" in instances such as these. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries AniMate. I'm logging off and going for a jog before I say something I may regret later. I just saw Benji's post to Black Kite and I'm not happy since I take that post as a threat from Benji (looks to me he's trying to get my former ban reinstated, which is wrong). Caden ^cool 22:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hate Crime

I believe the category for hate crimes is acceptable and appropriate for the Jesse Dirkhising article. Rape is an act of hate and not an act of love. Rape isn't just a sex crime (power over a victim) but also a crime of hate (committed against an innocent), regardless of who the victim is or was. There was debate over this in the media from conservative commentators. Therefore I feel the category fits. Please discuss here if you feel otherwise. Thanks. Caden ^cool 17:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're using you're own interpretation of what a hate crime is here, and that's not appropriate. Generally, crimes only are put into this category when they are charged as hate crimes. AniMate^draw 19:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not true. The Shepard crime was not charged as a hate crime. Caden ^cool 19:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but it lead to the Matthew Shepard Act - hate crime legislation. This crime did not lead to hate crime legislation and has not been described as a hate crime in the mainstream media. AniMate^draw 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Further to this as I mentioned before, conservative commentators have discussed the issues of what is a hate crime. Ani please stop reverting my edits before discussing it here. I made it clear in both my post as well as in my edit summary to discuss things first. Thanks. Caden ^cool 19:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, conservative commentators haven't called this a hate crime. They've used this as an example of pro-gay bias in the media. Now, from hate crime:

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

How does this crime fit into that definition? These men were disgusting pedophiles, without question, but they didn't commit a hate crime. AniMate^draw 19:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It fits under gender (male) and age (child) in this case I would think. Yes these men are pedophiles who committed a hate crime. Are you telling me that rape is an act of love? How so? Caden ^cool 19:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Caden, I'm clearly not saying that rape is an act of love, and I'm curious to see if you're going to add this to category for every single rape article on wikipedia... including those not committed by gay men. Rape is an act of power and aggression. These monsters didn't rape Jesse because they hate all children. They didn't rape him because they hate all men. It simply wasn't a hate crime. AniMate^draw 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I just might add this category to all articles in relation to a sex crime. Ani, please do not bring politics into this discussion. Where did I say I was adding this category because the convicted are homosexuals? Please drop that okay. And, yes this was a hate crime because rape is not a love crime. Rape is hate and a lot more then just power or aggression. Caden ^cool 20:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Caden, please don't bring your own interpretations of law into this. Rape isn't automatically considered a hate crime. Is hate involved? Absolutely. However, rape isn't automatically considered a hate crime. You don't get to change the definition. Murder is a crime of hate. Are we going to add every murder to the hate crime category? Assaults usually occur because of hate. Are we going to add every article that involves as a violent attack to the category? Terrorism almost always involves hate. Are we going to add every instance of terrorism to the category? Political revolutions occur because people hate their government. Are we going to add revolutions to the category? AniMate^draw 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It takes time for the law to interpret new legal changes. The fact is, rape is a hate crime. You just don't understand and I don't expect you too either since you simply don't know. Regardless, I feel in my heart that this category belongs here. Caden ^cool 20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

First you didn't answer my questions about including all the other crimes. Secondly... Caden, what you feel in your heart doesn't matter here at all. What matters here is NPOV. You want the law to reflect your interpretation of it. It does not. Until it does, your definition of hate crimes does not mesh with Wikipedia's interpretation of hate crimes. I'm sorry. Unless you can provide some reliable sources that state this is a hate crime, the category should probably be removed. Now, if you want to start a discussion on the hate crime talk page about how you feel in your heart it should be expanded to include rape and everyone agrees, then we can likely add this to the category. AniMate^draw 20:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what matters is NPOV but I feel this category belongs here and I can't see how its a POV issue for the article. In regards to the law, changes and new additions take time and anyways not all laws are fair in terms of protecting the innocent. Your suggestion to discuss the category (on the hate crime talk page) is a good idea. Would you help me if I did? Caden ^cool 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I would not. The majority of crimes are motivated by hate. A hate crime occurs when the crime perpetrated is done so specifically because the aggressor hates a certain category of people. Your definition simply doesn't fit the legal definition or Wikipedia's and therefore it is POV, specifically your POV. If you want the law changed, work on changing it, but Wikipedia isn't the place to advocate your beliefs. AniMate^draw 21:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Rape may be an appropriate category here if sources support it but implying one crime into a hate crime category is not our job. -- Banjeboi 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know Ani that your POV fits the legal (liberal) definition (as well as Wikipedia's) but it's still a biased POV and needs to be changed and will be changed eventually. Also, please take your own advice Ani. After all I've read your user page and let me remind you that Wikipedia isn't the place to advocate your beliefs. As for the category, I would like to hear from others besides just your POV. Thanks. Caden ^cool 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Caden, the legal definition is all we have to go on. Whether or not the law is liberal or not is open to interpretation, but we can't start changing the definition of something to suit our own personal beliefs. AniMate^draw 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I see I was reverted yet again by an editor without him discussing it here first like I been kindly asking. Fine. The message is clear that too many want this to be muted. Oh well, I guess this is how it continues to work on here. Shame. Caden ^cool 22:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Caden, the reason this has been reverted is because in this instance it is an inappropriate category. If you want the definition of a hate crime changed from the legal (or as you describe it as liberal) definition, arguing about that on Wikipedia is pointless. We can only go by what reliable sources say, and they do not agree with your definition. If you're really passionate about changing the definition, rather than arguing about it here, the proper venue would be in the courts or political arena. Start a grassroots movement if you feel so inclined. However, until such time as the legal definition of hate crime is changed, this is really not the appropriate forum to attempt to change it. AniMate^draw 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rape is not, in and of itself, a hate crime. Rape might be committed in the context of a hate crime, but we have no sources indicating that to have been the case in this instance. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's only a hate crime if they attacked him because he was straight or was perceived to be. Otherwise, it's just a standard crime. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories and purpose of the article

We need to find consensus about what the purpose of the article is about before we start an edit war about which categories apply. For example, if this article is about the murder but not victim, then "murdered American children" is not a true category. If this article is a biogrpahy of a murder victim, then that category is appropriate but the article needs to be re-named. Please discuss before making such changes. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say "murdered American children" is a characteristic of the topic, "murder of Jesse Dirkhising". The murder of Jesse Dirkhising is about a murdered American child, among other things. The difference between an act and the focus of the act is splitting hairs, I think. -kotra (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was moved, and I'm not sure there was consensus for that, but it is acceptable here. My main concern is that we serve our readers so if "murdered American children" is removed then "murders of American children" would, IMHO, serve the same purpose. Likewise "American murderers of children" may be relevant. Presently we have these categories:

• Crime in Arkansas
• Deaths from asphyxiation
• Media bias controversies

While all accurate, none clarify this is about a murder victim or that the victim was a child. These would seem to be significant. It would also seem to be relevant that some ephebophila/pedofilia category be applied as that is certainly relevant here. -- Banjeboi 10:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No. The "topic of the article" is the murder of an American children, not a "murdered American children" (as would be if it was a biography). --Damiens.rf 11:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are enough articles about murders of American children, then a category should be created and used on them all. If there are not enough such article, there is no much point in categorizing wikipedia articles this way. Of course "enough" can be as much as three. --Damiens.rf 11:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

First off please keep comments in order so the flow of comments is accurate to the discussion. Secondly the volume of articles we have on a particular subject is relevant to subcategorizing. As I pointed out we don't even call this a murder or note it involves a minor. For those using categories to find articles on related subjects this omission becomes a disservice. We are here to serve our readers. -- Banjeboi 13:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are 2 or 3 other articles about "murder of minors", just use a "see also" section. If there are more, create tthe category. Miscategorizing this as an article about a minor that was murderer is not helpful. --Damiens.rf 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's really not how See also or categories work. See also should be for links that really should be in this article, we have categories to connect like articles. We again may be talking past each other - do you not see a problem that this article is about a murder but we have no categorizing of that? -- Banjeboi 15:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do see a problem and I support the use of some "murder" category. --Damiens.rf 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. perhaps we should look to renaming Category:Murdered children to or simply clarify on the cat page that articles that also focus on the murder of children can be included. It really seems semantical to push articles out of a category because they meet the spirit but not the letter of the category. Thought? -- Banjeboi 15:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree this article meets the spirit of that category. --Damiens.rf 15:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is really too nitpicky. Of course this article is about a murdered child. The title is "Murder of Jesse Dirkhising", and one of the main focuses of the article is about how Dirkhising was a child. There is no real, practical difference in the context of this category between the act and the focus of the act; they're two sides of the same coin. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to creating Category:Murders of children and its subcategory, Category:Murders of American children, though there are dozens of "murder" and "massacre" articles in Category:Murdered children (and subcats) that would then need separating out. -kotra (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, this article is simply not just about a "case", just about pedophilia/ephebophilia, just about perceived media bias, etc, etc. It is about all these things and I see the category as helping readers not confusing in any way. IMHO, no reasonable person would be terribly put off that the entire article doesn't mainly focus on the murdered child alone and instead weaves a larger narrative about the case and why it became notable. I would rather much error by having a category that is a bit of a reach than leaving off one that should be there. -- Banjeboi 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should simply re-apply it and

Fragment added by Banjeboi [1] Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor Change in Opening Section

I am changing this sentence: "While both victims had died as the result of assaults by two men, Dirkhising was a minor and the victim of a sex crime; while Shepard, an adult, was murdered out of hate."

to . . .

"While both victims had died as the result of assaults by two men, Dirkhising was a minor and the victim of a sex crime; while Shepard, an adult, was murdered as part of a hate crime."

The reason for the change is that I think it goes without saying that a person is murdered out of hate, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a hate crime under the law. I know it's a bit picky, but it's better, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.99.222.84 (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not true neither. Sheppard was attacked by another homosexual over motives not related to dislike of homosexuals http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/14/The-Matthew-Shepard-Story-is-a-Lie --197.228.62.189 (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Jesse Dirkhising's Picture

Why was the image of Jesse Dirkhising deleted? There was no explanation left for this deletion. Caden ^cool 18:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's back. Here are the deletion discussions:
  • Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_17#File:JesseDirkhising.jpg - July 17, 2011 AFD - Result: Delete - Wikipedia:NFCC#8 used as rationale
  • Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_November_7#File:JesseDirkhising.jpg_.28closed.29 - November 7, 2011 Deletion Review - Result: Relist
  • Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_November_21#File:JesseDirkhising.jpg - November 21, 2011 AFD - Result: Delete - same reason
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 5 - December 5, 2011 - Result: Overturn because the administrator who did the delete result had been involved
• And so the image is up on the article now.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Whisper! Cool to have the image back. Caden ^cool 22:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

David Duke

There is not mentioned i.e. David Duke. He seems to be one initial and is also mentioned in the Washington Times article.

• 1999-10-16 American Dissident Voices Broadcast of October 16, 1999
• 1999-10-17 2 Adult Homos Rape and Murder a 13-year-old Boy Diskussion
• 1999-10-17 Individualism and Alienation Forwarded from the New Paradigms Project; Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research
• 1999-10-18 Did You Hear of this on the Evening News with Tom Brokaw? Probably Not.
• 1999-10-18 Matthew Shepard and Jesse Dirkhising (short, "Questions") (is posted many times in serveral groups)
• 1999-10-19 Duke Report Online: David Duke Demands Coverage of Homosexual Rape and Murder, [2], [3], [4] (attention to the groups names)
• And then came 1999-10-22 The Washington Times, which is in the usenet many times posted in many groups. Media tune out torture death of Arkansas boy (more often than Shepard-articles to his murder, excluding one often posted internet-petition for hate-crimes laws)
• Somewhere i had read, that the parents had asking not to spread the news over the country. But i have only avery weak source for this now. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 03:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Was the victim gay?

I have read some claims that Jesse Dirkhising was actively seeking relationships with older men, regardless of their illegality; and that his parents said he was gay during trial. I don't know if any of that is true. Any sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.252 (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Page numbers

I think a lot of page numbers are missing. The page numbers need to be identified. If possible link to the pages on Google Books WhisperToMe (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Murder of Jesse Dirkhising. 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:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.haywardwis.com/record/?section_id=956&story_id=235449

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: 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Jesse Dirkhising. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070808193754/http://www.haywardwis.com/record/?section_id=956 to http://www.haywardwis.com/record/?section_id=956&story_id=235449

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: 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Jesse Dirkhising. 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/20110606223846/http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/1999/11/06/witness/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/1999/11/06/witness/index.html

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) 04:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Jesse Dirkhising. 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/20081023030928/http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=blr:code to http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=blr:code

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) 15:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)