Talk:Happy Planet Index

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Happy Planet Index article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Statistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

That legend needs to be edited, colors are not sequential, how is someone supposed to know the value of yellow and orange if you give them the value of green and brown?? It needs a scale of colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.85.62 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The colours are indeed wrong, for example The US has the second highest colour in terms of happiness, and is in 150th out of 178th, Libya for example is Orange which is the second lowest happiness level, and is above the US, this page needs a total revamp -KosherDave-KosherDave (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The maps do not match the list 67.176.160.47 (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the captions and the article you'll see that the lead map represents the HPI 2009, whereas the map in the section "Views" only represents one component of the HPI. Elekhh (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this one measured? It doesn't link anywhere, so an explanation seems in order. Rigadoun (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be self reported from survey data, which makes me doubt validity of the measure, unless it is thoroughly controlled for cross-cultural differences (ie Are translations of questions good enough, are the measured ideas (constructs) exactly the same for all countries, do the positions on the scale mean the same (does medium satisfaction mean the same, or is it somewhat positive in some, and somewhat negative in other countries), etc.). Without access to the outcomes and analyses of these surveys we cannot assess this part of the measure (some of the poorest may say they should not complain; while multi-millionaires may extensively bemoan the loss of some trivial amount of money - any good survey need to be calibrated to compensate for such things). Arnoutf (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This index is moronic.

  Absolutely it is moronic. Keep in mind though who funds and creates this "index"--the New Economics Foundation, an 
  organization that is left of Berkeley. Wow, who knew Cuba was such a happy place--I guess that's why thousands of Cubans 
  every year take their lives in their hands and try to float over to Miami on rafts and small, unseaworty boats to get to 
  the U.S., which is, according to this index, one of the most unhappy places on Earth. And what about all those millions of
  Mexicans trying to leave a more happy Mexico for a miserable U.S.? Odd that....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.5.80 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

(Life Expectancy * Quality of Life)/Ecological Footprint. What the hey?

It makes no sense whatsoever (why these three factor in particular? Why not the number of trees, or the ratio of cars to bicyles, and the divorce ratio, or the proportion of children raised by a solo parent, proportion who give to charity, or regularly observe religious festivals etc etc etc? What on earth (pun intended) is the relationship between these three randomly chosen indices such that it makes any sense whatsoever to multiply the first two and divide by the third? Why not do the inverse square of the footprint times life expectancy + quality of life squared plus the proportion of children with a stay at home mum, etc? Also, on what basis can "life satisfaction" across any population possibly measured, let alone consistently between billion plus-sized sub-continents like India and tiny pacific islands like Vanuatu with about four inhabitants?

Note also the extremely strong correlation between ranking on the "Happy Planet Index" and (i) net negative migration (per 100,000 population; and (ii) the proportion of the population which is below the poverty line (source: Index Mundi). It is, of course, extremely satisfying to go hungry.

Country	mig	pov	HPI
Vanuatu	0	NA	1
Costa Rica	49	18%	3
Dominica	-930	30%	4
Panama	-40	37%	5
Cuba	-131	NA	6
Honduras	-139	53%	7
Guatemala	-194	75%	8
El Salvador	-361	NA	9
St Vincent	-739	NA	10

Utterly, genuinely, daft. ElectricRay 21:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "index" is indeed stupid. There's no possible rationality, sense or justification behind that equation you mentioned. Hell, if I asked my 11-year-old niece to "make a list of the countries she considers happy" I'm sure it would still make more sense than this. I will try to look for online sources to start a criticism section. --Lobizón 20:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tabulated the statistic above and inserted them without comment (to avoid allegations of "original research") ElectricRay 08:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this study is quite ludicrous but please remember that Wikipedia talk pages are not discussion boards. Signature^brendel 06:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You all sound like GREAT NPOV editors. I CAN'T WAIT to see your contributions to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.101.164.99 (talk) 16:03, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

The name of this index makes perfect sense if you take in to consideration that it is the planet that is happy, and not the people. Although it is a little disturbing that mother earth is second happiest with Colombia who also has the highest homicide rates in the world (I guess mother nature doesn't love people, maybe they are not part of the earth?). What this article needs is some criticism of the use of this index and the name: Here in Australia left-wing nutjobs (and poorly-researched newspapers and news sources) are using this Happy Planet Index to push the supposed point that economic prosperity is not making people happy. Clearly being high on the HPI has NOTHING to do with the happiness of the people - Australia consistently ranks highly on national surveys of life satisfaction and happiness. U R A GR8 M8 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot, it's not wrong that Colombia is ranked as the second happiest country. At first, Colombia was in the 80's and at the beginning of the 90's the country with the highest homicide rate but nowadays it's plainly surpassed by Venezuela, South Africa, Ecuador and I guess Swaziland. And don't think that everyone has to live stupid war stories. No, there you do twice or thrice in a week your "rumba" and dance with everyone and drink aguardiente and rum. There are also many poor people but for them it doesn't matter. They are also invited by their friends to their "rumbas". And in Colombia there's also known a very popular quotation : "Pobre pero alegre !" ("Poor but cheery!") Yussef90 01:25, 23 September 2007 (ECT)

Yussef90, you called me idiot which proves how angry you are - your country should not be number 1 in terms of happiness. The point is that this index has nothing to do with happiness, it's all about how much a country damages the environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U R A GR8 M8 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things about this index make no sense whatsoever. What about the fact that many of these higher ranked countries have murder rates that are through the roof? Columbia technically fits the bill of a war zone, what with all the murders there (4th highest murder rate in the world at 39/1000), yet they're some of the happiest people on Earth? Same with Brazil, El Savador, Guatemala, Mexico etc... How anyone can take this serious is beyond me.

Personally I think this page should be deleted completely, as the only use for it is propaganda.

[1]

So if you die at birth you don't get counted. That's a criticism of the method. But that doesn't mean the article should be deleted, otherwise how will I know what it is? •Λmniarix• (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to recommend having a good look through the report before editing the Wikipedia entry. The report does explain why the three components used are important. The calculation is not simply a matter of multiplying and dividing. And there is no implication that the world would be a better place if everyone migrated to those countries that come out on top. Most importantly, and this is something that many people have missed, the HPI is not a simple measure of the best countries in the world to live in - there are plenty of those about. What it is, is a measure of which countries are most ecologically efficient in their well-being. That does not mean that these are the best countries to live in, nor that they will have particularly low levels of unemployment, migration, etc. (also note that the CIA poverty data is the percentage below the national poverty line, and as such you can't compare one country to another). Saamah 14:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Saamah, but you've not persuaded me a bit. "The calculation is not simply a matter of multiplying and dividing." Actually, it is exactly that. Well, I suppose you could say there an element of wishful thinking in there, too. And while I grant you there may be an explanation in the report, it's not a good one. There is no sensible explanation as to why these components, and not others, are material, nor why they should be combined in the way that they are, other than that (with apologies to the good people of Vanuatu), the outcome of this particular formulation seems serendipitously to favour the few remaining Marxist regimes in the world. Smell the (organic, fair-trade, Colombian) coffee, my friend. ElectricRay 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, it really is not simply a matter of multiplying and dividing. Trust me. There are 5 stages to calculating the HPI, involving making indices, and transforming them. Its all in the report, but requires a bit of statistical knowledge to understand. As for you accepting that you grant there is an explanation, I will adjust the page accordingly. Saamah 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am indebted to you for your condescending tone. The point - which perhaps I haven't expressed myself well enough in making - is that you can take any set of figures, be they correlated or not, and add them, subtract them, index them, discount them against a forward curve, square them, invert them, "transform" them - indeed, you can dessicate them, put them in a stew and colour them green, for all I care - but without a coherent explanation for why you have done any of this, the number that you end up with will still be completely, utterly, meaningless. I don't understand you to disagree with this point - or perhaps you do? ElectricRay 18:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at quality of life as rate at which happiness accumulates, times by average life span you have A measure of net happiness (stupid though it may be), dividing by ecological foot print needs a bit more explaining but its fairly consistent with green politics. [[User:]] 18:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Very noble of you to protect against hackers, but I think you'll find the report actually is called the unhappy planet index (on the front cover at any rate). Saamah 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so be it - the front page of the website calls itself the "Happy Planet Index" everywhere except the part which looks like it has been hacked. But, whatever, I couldn't give a fig, really. ElectricRay 18:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the CIA Poverty data and the UN Index - thanks for the suggestion - I have included the UN poverty statistics also - they're actually even more stark in their comparison with the HPI than the CIA ones. ElectricRay 00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this discussion with interest after recently reading the report, and am a little perplexed. The title notwithstanding, The Happy Planet Index is clearly not meant to function as an indicator of happiness but of efficiency in producing happiness (or well-being, if you like). The happiest place in the world, according to the data actually in the report, appears to be Denmark. With this in mind, I don't really see the relevance of the poverty or migration statistics - why would you expect any correlation? 217.158.45.4 13:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why is Denmark ranked 99th on the list? My point is that the index is just stupid, from soup to nuts. ElectricRay 11:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the index isn't an indicator of happiness - if it was, presumably Denmark would be first. Think of cars: you could rank them in order of best (say, Ferrari) to worst (Skoda), or rank them in order of "bang for buck", looking at how much performance you get as a function of cost. Obviously the two lists would look very different, because you can get a car with performance close to a Ferrari for less than half the price. It strikes me that this is what the Happy Planet Index tries to do. I can see that you don't like the indicators they've chosen - fair enough. But surely you can understand the point of the exercise? It's about "bang for buck", which isn't the same as "best".217.158.45.4 12:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - we understand each other. Apologies, by the way: I misunderstood your remark about Denmark first time. So we are agreed - I think - that the index doesn't purport to measure pure happiness, but efficiency at producing happiness.

And here's where the correlation between poverty and migration is germane: what lesson can we draw from the index? It is, presumably, trying to make some comment about the desirability of the highly ranked economies: that they're not just happy, but happy given their sustainability, and ecological soundness and general well-being of their citizenry (like it or not, while happiness isn't the only determinant, it is a large part of the equation).

But an economy which consistently delivers negative migration and significant poverty is not by any useful measure sustainable - it's leaking people - nor happy (those who can are leaving, those who are too poor to are stuck), and while it might have a low carbon footprint that is as likely - no, dammit, let's be frank here - hugely more likely - to be caused by lack of means (if you can't afford oil, you can't burn it) as some sort of zen-like contentment amongst the masses. To take your example, a car with no engine in it at all is much more fuel efficient than a Skoda. I'll stick with the Skoda, thanks. Ultimately, by no obvious measure is this the sort of economy one that a truly happy one, like Denmark, ought to aspire to - (especially if it has a large population, and not the 200,000 odd boasted by Vanuatu.) So what point the index, then?

Either (as I suspect) the index manifestly fails to produce results that achieve its intentions (i.e., the algorithm's wrong, and the index doesn't reflect actual bang for buck), or its intentions are effectivly pointless in the first place. Either way, it's pretty dumb. ElectricRay 23:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second map needs to be fixed. Underneath it says, green is happier than blue, etc. etc. but when one looks at the enlarged map the key indicates blue is most happy, then green, etc. 75.177.47.137 (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of content that ultimately discredits Wikipedia. I say this article needs to be removed!

Agreed. Seemingly anyone/thing gets a Wiki entry these days. The other day I saw an entry for a fifth ocean (I thought there were only four?) And then they want donations to run their servers from ME? I would love to see WIki's carbon footprint.207.172.166.181 (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Apart from other people here, I can understand the equation and the result. It makes complete sense to me and points the way, where top scoring countries basically manage to keep best average of quality of (long) life, while remaining of smaller problem to this worlds future. Since the Eco-Footprint considers also industry (which is main cause of greenhouse effects), it should really be the index that other low scoring countries should try to work on improving themselfs. I would NOT like to see it be deleted and will get it converted to german wiki. --Frank, 08.06.2007 02:56 AM CET

Well, it is a widely publish though ridiculously flawed study. I do not, however, think it discredits WP - we just report on this study's exsistance, not endorse it. Signature^brendel 06:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this types of index is worthless and should be removed as spam or propaganda. Using the logics of this scale econihilism would create utopia. If it is too remain the information has too become less aggressive and more objective, as it is now it says that anybody that don't agree is sort of stupid. Physician89 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have editted the text below because it implied that there was a linkage between a countries size and the Footprint used in the HPI. There is no such linkage, so that criticism seems misplaced.

Looking into how the HPI uses the footprint, I thought it would be best to delete the text "Ecological footprint is a controversial measure in itself. For example, large states with a relatively small population will receive a bad ranking, while the opposite is true of small states with a large population, even if there is no difference in resource consumption per person. Thus, critics have argued that it cannot be used to compare nations." Because it is a none factual statement--the index does not use the countries actual area, but its ecological footprint, and therefore the index would not have any bias for large or small countries because of the ecological foot print issue.

From the report on NEF website:

"The ecological footprint (henceforth: Footprint) measures how much land area is required to sustain a given population at present levels of consumption, technological development and resource efficiency, and is expressed in global average hectares (gha). The largest component elements of the foot print are the land used to grow food, trees and biofuels, areas of ocean used for fishing, and--most importantly--the land required to support the plant life needed to sequester CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

Footprint takes account of the fact that in a global economy people consume resources and ecological services from all over the world. Therefore, a Chiquita plantation in Costa Rica will not count in Costa Rica's Footprint, but rather towards the Footprint of those countries were the bananas are consumed. For this reason, a country's footprint can be significantly larger than its actual biocapacity. The Footprint of a country is thus best understood as a measure of its consumption and its worldwide environmental impact."

Enigma foundry 04:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "comaprison against poverty" section consitutes OR. Don't get me wrong, I think this study is completely flawed and ludicrous (Denmark - liberal, free, democratic Denmark, ranks below Iran and Columbia!) - but it is not up to us to discredit the study. The comparison with poverty rates in order to discredit the study is unfit for WP as it is our job to cover a subject, not comment on it. Besdides, anyone with half-a-brain will notice that free prosporous countries are ranked below poverty striken ones - no need to point that out in a table. For now I have flagged that section. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brendel:

I think that the fundamental thing that many of those who criticize this index are making is that it is a measure of how efficiently a country is at deriving some very basic outcomes that people value from the environment. It does not pretend, or ever allege, that it is a measure of how happy the people in that country are. People could be unhappy for a variety of other reasons. But how 'Happy' is the planet, that is what are the impacts on the planet because of what the people in that country are doing? I am not surprised that many traditional countries rank higher on the index, as Western high tech societies typically have high ecological burdens. But by measuring these burdens, we can begin to move towards the goal of having less of an environmental impact. This is a good part of my present work as an Architect, that is designing buildings that have less of an impact on the environment, and that's why I am interested in this important subject. I agree that the comparison against poverty section isn't appropriate, and isn't at all consistent with NPOV. I would suggest removal. enigma_foundry 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad two people have spotted that this comparison with poverty is inappropriate. For example, no one has put a section in the GDP page noting how infant mortality is high in some countries with high GDP (e.g. the USA). Is it acceptable to just delete it? Saamah (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question is, how does the People's Republic of China, a country which should by all measures fall near the bottom of all three measures, rank so highly on this list?66.222.51.168 07:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got to agree here. The life expectancy according to the Demographics of PRC article is about 63 years--average if that. I'm not quite worldly enough to say people are happy or unhappy there, but a lot of people are feeling the squeeze of the society's overzealous quest to get rich, and the holdovers from the authoritarian days aren't helping things. Finally, anyone who doesn't believe that China isn't making huge negative environmental "footprints" (as an example, take a look at what they do with e-waste) doesn't know what they're talking about. So how does China get high on the list, whereas countries like Japan and Sweden get shafted? Blue Crest (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness is subjective and does not apply the same values from a society to another. You can argue that Brazil has a deteriorated society, higly crime rates and poverty, but people there are happy because they can overpass life adversities and smile. What is happiness in US is not happiness to China and vice versa, people has different motivations to look the life depending where they live and it's values. About Japan and Sweeden talk about high suicide rates. --Ciao 90 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" fairly utilitarian principles " sounds like a fairly loose way of thinking.We all actually make effective moral choices on strictly utilitarian principles.Even those who argue against Utilitarianism use Utilitarian arguments to support their unclear misconception of what Utiltarianism is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruskin (talk • contribs) 10:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. But also, that's the point - that striving for health and happiness for all is such a common attitude that it needs little defense. I've changed 'fairly' to 'general', as I think that's perhaps a little more precise about its vagueness (if that's possible!). Any other suggestions appreciated.Saamah (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to call for a slight re-organisation of this page. Firstly, there should be a separation between the Outline section, describing the Index, and a new section on the Index's reception or opinions on the Index. So for example, the last two paragraphs from the Outline could go in such a section. Also, in order to concretise some of the criticism the Index has received, one could refer to some of its vocal critics, such as Spiked Online.

Secondly, following what has been said earlier (see OR section), I propose ditching the comparison table with Poverty. Instead, a comment in the opinions section noting the lack of correlation between the HPI and well-regarded measures of national success would suffice (though, as has been said time and time again, the HPI is about efficiency of well-being, not well-being itself).

I'm not sure what is the appropriate procedure before making these changes - how about I wait a week for comment? Saamah (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will make changes tomorrow, as I have heard no response. Saamah (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the pro and cons list as well as the whole views section, is unclear, and apparently biased. it dismisses the critics, saying that the HPI is not a measurement of happiness, next to a map that says it shows the happiest nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map can be indeed confusing if you don't read the text. However, in Wikipedia the text has priority. Images only illustrate the text. Elekhh (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@67.176.160.47 The pros and cons list is not supported by any source. I will add a "better source needed" citation. 2604:CA00:169:6BB:0:0:64:6E60 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most comments in the "Moronic" section are irrelevant as this is not an index of the happiness of the people. Refer to the definition in the first line of the article... index of human well-being and environmental impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.121.156 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@203.45.121.156 Agreed. Not to mention opinions should not affect or alter a Wikipedia page. Just because they disagree with it does not mean that it's existence should not be recorded in the free encyclopedia. 2604:CA00:169:6BB:0:0:64:6E60 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please to explain, Sir where in the “index of human well-being and environmental impact” does human well being actually go, I mean quite a few of the countries that rate highest also have endemic diseases, parasites and rock bottom poverty, so how much weight is placed on human well being? Seems more like a fantasy list of the way rich elitists want the world population to live, laboring 12-16 hours a day at sustenance farming with minimal environmental impact. Except of course most rich liberals have never actually had to live burning the wood around them, the constant haze and stench. Seems like this indicates the only humans whose well being are considered are those of liberal elitist smug in the fact that the peasants are producing for them. Just asking, because I think the list place Human Well being at the bottom of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.140.188 (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found them in the article, they should be in the preface !--Brainsteinko (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good article from Adam Smith institute criticizing the index — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjective Noun (talk • contribs) 08:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an explicit Criticism section.207.87.238.194 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanuatu went from number one to not listed. Why?Kdammers (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/happy-planet-index-2012-report --81.105.62.223 (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The People in Saudi Arabia only believe that they are happy due Indoctrination.--Aaron Yehuda Wiesenberg (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Happy Planet Index. 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/20090710205843/http://www.happyplanetindex.org/public-data/files/happy-planet-index-2-0.pdf to http://www.happyplanetindex.org/public-data/files/happy-planet-index-2-0.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618151336/http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/ to http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/

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) 00:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]