Talk:Emic and etic

Expand

At least needs some examples... Towsonu2003 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

it's really confus'n

• etic means universal
• enic means ethnic

but in the perversity on perversity that is the multicultural solution to "white male" dominance, the "white male" approach that sees everything universally in it's world view, or the "White" ethic approach is etic, or attempts to be so

the new approach is to use enic to be culturally-tuned, along with persona, which is the individual's face outwards to society and hence culture (and thus adapts to culture and hence has its attributes), and etic is at a much lower level: the white and gray matter bits, so an example of

• enic would be self-reports by individuals from various cultures to compare then (about some issue) in ways that are tuned to ethnic difference and
• etic would be working memory tests using universally recognizable symbols--if such things exist (see the problem?) so if you want the test to be etic then the symbols you use to make it so are culturally-tuned, and thus enic

expanding enic, if you are attempting to measure something universally, then tests for different ethnicities would have to be customized for those ethnicities, and you would to have label "White" as an ethnicity, which blows away the whole feminist-created multicultural reaction to white male dominance along with white male dominance, but sobeit --John Bessa (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

removed phrase

"An "etic" account is a description of a behavior in terms familiar to the observer." isn't in accordance with "making universal claims will rely on etic accounts." --> if the scientist rely on his/her own observations ("etic" according to the first sentence), s/he cannot make universal claims because he'll be acting on imposed etic (researcher imposing own perspective / emic on the subject) Towsonu2003 23:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nattiez

I removed this

Musicologist and semiologist Jean-Jacques Nattiez (1990: 61) describes an "'emic' approach" as "an analysis that reflects the viewpoint of the native informants" and an "'etic' approach" as "an analysis accomplished only by means of the methodological tools and categories of the researcher."

because it is unclear and can only confuse the reader. Assuming Nattiez is correct in his definition of emic, the question is, how do we know what the emic view is? In the social sciences, it is through the research of an investigator, using particular methodological tools. Thus, his definition of etic does not serve to distinguish etic from emic. In fact, both emic and etic together comprise methodological tools Nattiez refers to but only in relation to etic. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"whether the phones /b/ and /v/ make a contrast in meaning in a minimal pair in the language" -Quote from the article.

Just thought to mention this.. I believe everybody knows what /b/ and /v/ refer to?

backwards?

I'm not sure if this is the case in anthropology, but the linguistic usage of the concepts of emic and etic are the opposite of that usage described on this page. Emic refers to the abstract entity. A phoneme can never be perceived. Phones are the perceived articulations of phonemes. I'm not sure then, why etics would be used to establish universal comparisons, since anything etic in relation to human activity would, by analogy to linguistics, be a local articulation of a more general concept, like burial of the dead or seasonal festivals. The emic concepts should be the ones used for cross-cultural comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseBeach (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources given are Pike, Goodenough, and Harris - you will have to check those sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, your observations are interesting, JesseBeach, and I can see how you arrive at the logic that you state. However, the info is not backwards. The way to understand it is to focus on interpretive judgments about whether physical-universe differences matter or not. A phonemic interpretation is more abstract, as you say, than a phonetic value. For example, with allophones: a human cultural system encodes a judgment about whether phonetic differences (physical-universe differences) "count" toward making a different phoneme, or if they are negligible. The physical universe itself makes no judgment—these phones are just one group of soundwaves and another group that are not physically identical. It is this concept that extrapolates to the difference between anthropological emic and etic. The emic refers to the idea of a greater degree of human interpretation, whereas the etic is *supposed* to refer to something that is closer to the physical-universe truth, involving a lesser amount of human interpretation. Now, this is problematic, because on some level *everything* that *any* human thinks is emic in some way—even if he is a scientist. But the idea is that some kinds of emicness can be objectively seen to be more emic than others (the others approach—if never totally equaling—true eticness). I agree with Slrubenstein that you should read Harris and the others yourself to get a better explanation. An example could be the phenomenon of sunrise: one human might believe quite earnestly that the sun rises because the sun-god pushes it up with his index finger. That is the emic view. The etic view is that the sun is a star and the earth's movement around it merely produces the appearance of the sun moving up and down while the earth is standing still. The etic view could be thought of as the one that's "closer to reality". (Analogously to the way that a phonetic transcription is thought to be "closer to reality" than a phonemic interpretation of the soundwaves.) But this is potentially ethnocentric and condescending, because a space alien who knows that the theories of gravity and relativity are both wrong would consider the earth scientist's "etic" view to be just another emic interpretation. Analogously, it is pointless for a linguist to think that his phonetic transcription is exactly "equal" to the soundwaves he's transcribing, because he can only differentiate the phones that his brain is capable of differentiating based on its past language experience. In other words, he's trying as hard as he can to be etic, but no one can *completely* escape emicness. — Lumbercutter 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To put it more simply, these emic accounts may be more abstract but they are culture bound i.e. abstracions meaningful in one speech community or culture but not another. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

they're not opposite, and they don't refer, in anthropology, to abstraction. I hope I improved enough to make it clear what they do mean. Ultimately, it's about root words (etic and emic). You're right that the usage doesn't exactly parallel that in linguistics (very confusing). Also, there were definitely misunderstandings (by Pike) in the borrowing - I'll go edit further to make that clear.--Levalley (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley

The above comment seems to be incorrect on at least one level. Pike invented the terms, so how did he misunderstand in the borrowing?

cultural psychology

I removed this fur further consideration:

In cultural psychology, Emics are concepts that are unique to one culture and etics are concepts that can be found in most, if not all, cultures. Emic and Etic concepts are an example of the develpment of concepts for cultural and cross-cultural psychology during the post-1970 period.

What is "Cultural psychology?" How do we know this view is significant? Can we have a source? Why is the definition so completely different from Pike? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See the reference from Thomas Headland about diffusion of these terms into other disciplines...--Levalley (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley

marketing?

Can we have sources for this idiosyncratic use of the terms? Evidence that this is widespread and not just one person's view? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's one: “... etic contructs – those that exist in identical or near identical form accross a range of cultures – and emic constructs that are limited to one culture” (Translçating questionnaires and other reseasrch instruments, Behling and Law, Sage: 2000, p.3)

Came into cross-cultural psychology via Berry - don't have that ref, but is discussed in Brislin, Lonner and Thorndike, "Cross-cultural research methods", John Wiley: 1973, p.24-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.5.129.89 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

the post that was present was part of a consumer behavior marketing class final (which by the way got 100/100). most references were from the 7th edition text of Consumer Behavior (buying, having, and being) by Solomon published by Pearson - Pretince Hall [Amazon Link] Irahim (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please revise what you wrote so that it complies with our policies and guidelines, see WP:RS and WP:CS? Please do not provide a link to a commercial site, please provide a proper citation and a proper reference. You provide a good deal of information, please provide specific citations. A textbook is a reliable source but it would be better if you had real books or articles you could cite as well. Whose view is this? Do all merketers use these terms, or just some? Who in marketing invented these definitions? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I will find time and do a rewrite, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Irahim (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

help needed

Wikifying and making sure citations are consistent, eliminating any red links, etc. I'm trying.--Levalley (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley

The expansion is very good. Thanks! I have one concern: much of the tone of the expansion, especially in sentences like this - "There are no ethnographies (etic accounts) that do not rely on emic accounts, within anthropology" - seem to violate NPOV by suggesting that all anthropologists agree that the distinction between emic/etic is real/meaningful/useful/true. I didn't think Chagnon used the distinction. I am fairly sure Levi-Strauss did not. It seems to me that the claims that all ethnography is etic, that all ethnographies include emic accounts, is POV and thus violates our NPOV policy. Who is it that makes this claim? We have to make clear that not all anthropologists agree. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations, part of a dialogue re these terms

Decided to break these terms, to show you the general notions on which I based on my edits. I do not think all these citations are needed in the article to support the simple changes I made, but here are some lecture notes/contemporary statements about the distinction (note that I didn't include phonetic/phonemic references, as it is generally understood that while Pike borrowed the terms from linguistics, he didn't keep to traditional linguistic usage, although attempts have been made to reconcile him and terms with linguistic use). Also note that since Pike coined the terms, they have acquired different usage than what he originally intended. My view on the terms is that they should be discussed on Wikipedia as they are actually used in anthropology today:

http://www.sil.org/klp/karlintv.htm (especially the second half, where it discusses how current usage branches from Pike's usage)

http://www2.eou.edu/~kdahl/emicdef.html (some has randomly lifted a definition from a cultural anthropology textbook - but note that this is a typical basic attempt at defining these words - you can find dozens and dozens of similar entries in people's anthropology pages, lecture notes, etc.)

http://www.bookrags.com/tandf/etic-vs-emic-analysis-tf/ (another online encyclopedia's attempt)

Prof. James Lett has surveyed the conflicting literature on the terms and come up with these statements on general usage:

Emic constructs are accounts, descriptions, and analyses expressed in terms of the conceptual schemes and categories that are regarded as meaningful and appropriate by the members of the culture under study. Am emic construct is correctly termed “emic” if and only if it is in accord with the perceptions and understandings deemed appropriate by the insider’s culture. The validation of emic knowledge thus be- comes a matter of consensus--namely, the consensus of native informants, who must agree that the construct matches the shared perceptions that are characteristic of their culture. Note that the particular research technique used in acquiring anthropological knowledge has nothing to do with the nature of that knowledge. Emic knowledge can be obtained either through elicitation or through observation, because it is sometimes possible that objective ob- servers can infer native perceptions.

Etic constructs are accounts, descriptions, and analyses expressed in terms of the conceptual schemes and categories that are regarded as meaningful and appropriate by the community of scientific observers. An etic construct is correctly termed “etic” if and only if it is in accord with the epistemological principles deemed appropriate by science (i.e., etic constructs must be precise, logical, comprehensive, replicable, falsifiable, and observer independent). The validation of etic knowledge thus becomes a matter of logical and empirical analysis--in particular, the logical analysis of whether the construct meets the standards of falsifiability, comprehensiveness, and logical consistency, and then the empirical analysis of whether or not the concept has been falsified and/or replicated. Again, the particular research technique that is used in the acquisition of anthropological knowledge has no bearing on the nature of that knowledge. Etic knowledge may be obtained at times through elicitation as well as observation, because it is entirely possible that native informants could possess scientifically valid knowledge.

I added the bolding. The article can be found here: http://faculty.ircc.edu/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics.htm

From a page on multicultural counseling, we have:

Etic perspective is defined as an external or outsider’s view on beliefs and customs. This can be similar to an analytical or anthropological perspective. In counseling terms it is thinking that clients are “culturally universal”. (Sue & Sue, 2003)

Emic perspective can be defined as an

insider’s view or the view from a native about their own customs and beliefs. This is when a member of a group has their own interpretation of their group opposed to an outsider’s interpretation (emic). In counseling terms it is thinking that clients are “culturally specific”. (Sue & Sue, 2003)

Sue & Sue refers to a book called "Counseling the Culturally Diverse."

From Hahn, Christina. "Clear-Cut Concepts vs. Methodological Ritual: Etic and Emic Revisited" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany, Jun 16, 2006.

The author notes that there has been confusion, especially when there are many different emic views and many different etic views. She offers the same simplification/clarification as Prof. Lett.

Thomas R. Lindlof in Blackwell's, says: "The terms also refer to distinctive research strategies, particularly in the context of ethnographic fieldwork (→ Field Research). " (http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405131995_chunk_g978140513199510_ss18-1) I don't know if Blackwell's is considered an appropriate reference on Wikipedia, but it is widely available. Lindlof goes on to say (solving the problem of varying emic accounts):

Thus, the emic approach to research always starts from the “inside” of a culture. By studying the accounts, explanations, and social action that are meaningful to a group of people, researchers can better understand how symbolic communication varies from one situation to the next. A valid emic account is one that matches the consensus view of native informants....

The fact that there are varying emic OR etic accounts is today expected, and how to deal with them remains a topic of discussion - but that doesn't change the basic contemporary usage of those terms.

Lindlof's article is the International Encyclopedia of Communication, it was written in 2008.

Feel free to delete these comments from your talk page - I am keeping a copy on mine, and will put them on the relevant article pages when I get a chance.Levalley (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to this, left by you on my talk page:

For example, which quote supports your claim that the existence or extinction of hunter-gatherers is relevant to the question of whether an anthropology provides an etic account or an emic account? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think SLRubenstein has a lot of familiarity with these two concepts. At any rate, to any editors wishing to work on this article, I suggest you read all of the above.Levalley (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether I am familiar with these concepts. I asked three simple questions and so far you have not come close to answering them. (1) How does the extinction of hunter gatherers effect whether anthropologists use an emic or etic account? (2) what is your evidence that levi Strauss used the emic/etic distinction, and (3) what is your evidence that Chagnon used the emic/etic distinction? I have shown you good faith in asking the questions. Now you make a disparaging comment about me. I'd rather you provide the answers to my questions. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Etic example

This line, "There have been some famous mishaps when it comes to the etic approach, the most notable one being Euro Disney, which tried to imitate its American counterparts and failed," needs a citation. It is unclear how Disneyland Paris is meant to represent a failure of the Etic model. Is it meant to represent it as a cultural failure, a financial one, both? Who considers it a failure and why? How broadly is this view represented?

I post on the Disney forums so I know this example fairly well, which is why this line gives me pause. There are quite a few ways to judge the success or failure of Disneyland Paris, so anything referring to it needs to have some sort of reference to back up the conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.12.32 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Current use of the terms in anthropology

This sentence "The origin of the terms in linguistics, therefore, has come full circle with talk of a "syntax" of human culture, not dissimilar to Chomskyian views on syntax.[ref]" is oddly cited. The citation is to one of the works by Chomsky on syntax in language. He is not the one who made the claim that grammar is similar to human culture (at least not in the book cited). The reference should be to whoever is making this claim now. lxowle (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

criticisms

I just removed this section because it violates some of our core policies, namely WP:V and WP:NOR. There was no page number for the Abu Lughod citation, and it is not at all clear that she wrote anything about "emic" and "etic." The rest of the passage was just editorialisng - what we ought to do. That is not what encyclopedia articles are for. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

It would be nice to have pronunciations given, as well as derivations, for these two words. One very fertile ground in which to hunt for examples of the difference between emic and etic might be wikipedia itself. How does "reality" look to those who have "bought into" wikipedia culture, versus more "traditional" experts, or those who know reality primarily from a vocation? 66.212.78.220 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Didaskalosmrm

About nature of knowledge not source of data

The article states that the distinction is about the source of data, but see http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics.htm by James Lett for a discussion that explicitly rejects this view and argues it an epistemological distinction.

I quote from there:

"Despite that diversity and disagreement, it is possible to suggest a precise and practical set of definitions by focusing on emics and etics as epistemological concepts. From that perspective, the terms “emic” and “etic” should be seen as adjectives modifying the implicit noun “knowledge.” Accordingly, the distinction between emics and etics has everything to do with the nature of the knowledge that is claimed and nothing to do with the source of that knowledge (i.e., the manner by which it was obtained)."

"Emic constructs are accounts, descriptions, and analyses expressed in terms of the conceptual schemes and categories that are regarded as meaningful and appropriate by the members of the culture under study. Am emic construct is correctly termed “emic” if and only if it is in accord with the perceptions and understandings deemed appropriate by the insider’s culture. The validation of emic knowledge thus be- comes a matter of consensus--namely, the consensus of native informants, who must agree that the construct matches the shared perceptions that are characteristic of their culture. Note that the particular research technique used in acquiring anthropological knowledge has nothing to do with the nature of that knowledge. Emic knowledge can be obtained either through elicitation or through observation, because it is sometimes possible that objective ob- servers can infer native perceptions."

"Etic constructs are accounts, descriptions, and analyses expressed in terms of the conceptual schemes and categories that are regarded as meaningful and appropriate by the community of scientific observers. An etic construct is correctly termed “etic” if and only if it is in accord with the epistemological principles deemed appropriate by science (i.e., etic constructs must be precise, logical, comprehensive, replicable, falsifiable, and observer independent). The validation of etic knowledge thus becomes a matter of logical and empirical analysis--in particular, the logical analysis of whether the construct meets the standards of falsifiability, comprehensiveness, and logical consistency, and then the empirical analysis of whether or not the concept has been falsified and/or replicated. Again, the particular research technique that is used in the acquisition of anthropological knowledge has no bearing on the nature of that knowledge. Etic knowledge may be obtained at times through elicitation as well as observation, because it is entirely possible that native informants could possess scientifically valid knowledge."

Dan Suthers (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely, and glad that you posted that quote here. — ¾-10 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes James latt a reliable source? The principle sources in the article, Pike and Goodenough, are from books published by major presses. Pike coined the terms. Goodenough is pretty notable. How is Lett's view more significant than Pike or Goodenough? This does not seem like a mainstream view, but one man's argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Entirely true that Lett's thinking may be a divergence from that of Pike or Goodenough, but that doesn't make it irrelevant in the slightest. I don't see Dan's comment as saying "Lett's thinking needs to replace Pike's or Goodenough's in the article." I see it as "this viewpoint should also be included." This article can easily talk about multiple academics' views of the topic, and how they've evolved over decades. Some analogies to show what I mean: the article on psychoanalysis should definitely include the work of others besides Freud, and articles on generative grammar should definitely include the work of others besides Chomsky. DNA and Watson and Crick; quality assurance and W. Edwards Deming and Joseph M. Juran; relational databases and Edgar F. Codd. Personally I find Lett's points so obviously valid that it would be silly not to mention them here (e.g., "it is entirely possible that native informants could possess scientifically valid knowledge"). Hardly a fringe theory; more like the natural development of a scientific concept over decades by subsequent researchers. I also feel that Harris's view of the topic is entirely compatible with Lett's. To sum up, "room for all in this tent". — ¾-10 18:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not "room for all" in this tent. We do not just add views we like. We have encyclopedic standards. It simply does not matter whether any one of us thinks his views are "obviously valid" or entirely "invalid." WP's policy is to present all significant views from reliable sources. In addition to Pike and Goodenough the article also cites Harris, another significant view, and also from a reliable source, and that is why Harris's views are included, not because I or anyone else thinks they are "obviously valid." I just haven't seen any evidence that this is a significant view, and a personal webpage is certainly not a reliable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. True that the idea won't uncontroversially belong here until it's published in a book or journal. That will happen eventually, if it hasn't already. I don't agree that a faculty page on a college's domain never qualifies as a WP:RS. But I agree with your main point above. — ¾-10 22:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

University web-pages I think count as self-published sources which are generally held to be non-notable. besides, the point that this is an epistemological distinction was made by Mrvin hariss in several publications. Now, I am no expert on Harris and don't have his book Cultural Materialism but if the point is that this is an epistemological distinction, that point has been made in a reliable source (a major publication) and one need only get that book from the library and read the relevant chapter (or chapters?) and add more to the account of Harris's view with appropriate referencing. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

connection to phonemic and phonetic not made clear

If the emic/etic dichotomy is based on (or is related to) the root dichotomy of phonetic/phonemic, then the connection to those terms ought to be explained. It is not made clear at all by the current article. Even something brief would raise the quality of the article.

Good idea, go ahead! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lindsay and Kavi's To Do List:

-Expand on definitions and give examples → use textbook as a citation -Research two different studies each for emic and etic examples (using PsychINFO database; the four studies will all serve as more citations for the article) → the studies will serve as guidelines to understand and conceptualize emic and etic studies -Keep “History” category; do more research to see if there is any more information to add -Add “Studies” heading; subheadings of “Emic” and “Etic” -Add a “Conclusion” heading to summarize our research/findings and close out the article -Add a “Connections to Personality Theory” heading to connect emic and etic studies back to our class -Link our article to more emic and etic research articles to provide even more information to our readers -Add a “Real World Usage” heading to connect to other related articles → this will include the necessary secondary sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsayhogan15 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

These are all great suggestions. I like your edits to the existing sections and inclusion of new applications and personality sections. I look forward to what you develop! -EM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testaccountpy242 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! -KB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bansalk (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Mead -- relevant?

Did Margaret Mead use the terms "emic" and "etic", or has the section about her been an interpretation of her work, applying emic/etic? Pete unseth (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emic and etic. 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/20130422004329/http://psychology.geckos.sis.org.cn:80/2011/10/using-one-or-more-examples-explain-emic-and-etic-concepts-akane/ to http://psychology.geckos.sis.org.cn/2011/10/using-one-or-more-examples-explain-emic-and-etic-concepts-akane/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emic and etic. 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/20131024113220/http://www.simplypsychology.org/authoritarian-personality.html to http://www.simplypsychology.org/authoritarian-personality.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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Who are "Morris et al."?

You can't cite a source like that without including the full bibliographical information.--98.111.164.239 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)