Talk:Maurice Jarre

Cimbalom

What is a cimbalom? RickK 16:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A cimbalom is a hammer dulcimer.

Pronunciation

How is Jarre pronounced?

Like "jar," only with a soft "j," as if it were "zh." Rich 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Update

I made a major update to this article. if anyone has an image that is not subject to copyright, please do post it. If you have anything to add or to comment on feel free to do so, BUT PLZ don't edit the article before posting your edits for discussion. Tx A J Damen 09:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Video with this great man

This site: [[1]] has this great man and his art.Agre22 (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)agre22

Death date

I only found reference that are dated today which state he died. Most accurately says he was 84 at the time, but none of them mention the exact day or time it happened. Clearly assuming it was the same day is speculation. He could've died the evening before it was reported. Can someone actually verify the date? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia hoax in the news

"A WIKIPEDIA hoax by a 22-year-old Dublin student resulted in a fake quote being published in newspaper obituaries around the world. The quote was attributed to French composer Maurice Jarre who died at the end of March."[2] cojoco (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

also http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/04/journalism-obituaries-shane-fitzgerald

This story has also just been reported on RTE Radio 1 News (Ireland's public sector broadcaster), and the sociology student from University College Dublin (UCD) was interviewed. (06/05/2009 1.30pm). Bmbwiki (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to RTÉ radio news interview ("Experiment shows Internet can be unreliable"): http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0506/news1pm.html --89.101.220.70 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history, it looks like it was IP user 86.42.227.123, which resolves to: 86-42-227-123-dynamic.b-ras1.cld.dublin.eircom.net. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty rude "experiment". Like you can mess with peoples' trust of Tylenol by putting poison into a few bottles as an experiment too. Or you can mess with peoples' trust of policemen or accounting auditors by planting evidence and/or entrapping them. If this was really an experiment about which the student was writing a paper for a class or other credit, he should be penalized. In the U.S. I think that experimental review boards of universities would govern, and would judge that "experiment" would not be ethical. doncram (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I may agree it's something of a rude experiment have a bit of proportion. This is not equivalent to getting someone arrested or poisoning their Tylenol. It's more like doodling on a library book or at most streaking at the Oscars.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One small inconvenience for the wiki, one large eye-opener for mankind. All it did was inconvenience a few spam fighters an imperceptible bit more, but it shows everyone how even major 'respectable' newspapers will print anything without checking. (Imagine what Fox news will do for a story...) You concern trolls need to check and see if any damage was done before you complain. (Other than to the reputations of a few soon-to-be ex-journalists...) - WNight 74.198.50.165 (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Imagine what Fox news will do for a story..." What the hell? What a revealing bit of ignorance! Fox Derangement Syndrome - a useful signal for letting the reader know you're not interested in serious, sane discussion. Children's table is over there. 208.111.220.239 (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs this, Journalists and Traditional media need this experiment. Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not a traditional book. It should be treated with respect and with care. The blame here is on Journalists using the quote. Wikipedia makes it too easy to do research sometimes, and we need people fighting back and showing why that is a bad thing. -- Sverdrup (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he made his point by luck, and only through persistent vandalism, since he had to add the quote three times before it eventually stayed for more than a few hours, as can be read on the Guardian article: "Wikipedia editors were more sceptical about the unsourced quote. They deleted it twice on 30 March and when Fitzgerald added it the second time it lasted only six minutes on the page. His third attempt was more successful - the quote stayed on the site for around 25 hours before it was spotted and removed again." [3] Laurent (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

News also in the italian Corriere della Sera (in Italian). --CristianCantoro (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To Laurent1979: So what? The point isn't that he could make an edit stick, or that he was vandalizing. The point is that journalists trust wikipedia when they shouldn't. CapnZapp (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well we've learnt that some journalists don't check their sources, which is nothing knew. This issue probably exists since journalism exists, and I don't think it was worth vandalising Wikipedia multiple times to (re)discover it. Laurent (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Shane Fitzgerald now had his 15 minutes of fame. Leave it at that. --bender235 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And also in the news in Australia.[4] As the above Guardian article shows, our fact-checking processes worked fine but various media outlets failed theirs. Here, an editor added incorrect info to an article three times and each time it was removed as unsourced. In the wider media, a journalist added incorrect info to a newspaper article and no one fact-checked it at all before it went to print. Then a bunch of other newspapers copied the incorrect article and reprinted it without checking.

To those editors who quickly removed the false material, well done. To the editor who added it in the first place, please don't vandalise Wikipedia articles, even for "globalisation experiments". To the journalists who got the obituary wrong, you're welcome to base your articles on Wikipedia entries but you should also check out the page references at the botttom and not just cut and paste the main body of text. Euryalus (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty disturbing experiment, but in terms of the story in the context of Wikipedia, it definitely does not warrant an entire section in this person's bio. Maybe one sentence? It's much more suited to Wikipedia and its various sub-articles. Joshdboz (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I think even one sentence is giving the isue undue weight in this article. Jarre didn't make the statement and was an incidental bystander in this editor's "globalisation experiment." To a large extent the hoax is not even about Jarre - his death was just the vehicle for the vandalism. And if the amterial is not relevant to jarre, its not necessary to detail it in his article. perhaps Wikipedia, perhaps nowhere.

Also, material in an article also needs to be notable and I seriously doubt this event will have anything other than a transient attention. In (say) five years, will anyone be talking about Fitzgerald and his fake quote?

Having regard for the above, I'd propose the sentence be removed entirely. If people feel its notable enough to put in the article on Wikipeida, they are of course free to move it over there. Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Even Dilbert has something to say about this [5] --Deepak D'Souza 12:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should overhaul our standards. If people are going to rely on information in Wikipedia, we need a process other than "consensus" to prune the false entries. Whether it's a "test", deliberate sabotage, or ideological viewpoint pushing, there must be a better way to stop it. Treating this lightly only postpones the day when Wikipedia will be regarded as a reliable source.

Can we set up a Wikipedia:Vetting committee? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a good case for this proposal. This is not a case of a pervious consensus being formed to include the false infomation so this was not an issue with WP:CONSENSUS to begin with. Secondly, is there really much the proposed vetting committee could have done to prevent this? Unless I am missing something The commettee would have be informed and take time to make a ruling on the issue. During that time the quote would probabally have been removed and added several times meaning this could very well have still happened. --76.65.143.204 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that the quote has been reported by reliable sources, it can be put back in the article. Wikipedia rules don't require the quote to be real - they just require it to be verifiable. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As it's been mentioned before, Maurice Jarre is not notable for that event, so it shouldn't appear here. However, if the event is indeed notable enough, perhaps it could be mentioned in the Wikipedia article in the "Cultural significance" section? Laurent (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Many things are mentioned in reliable sources but they don't all deserve inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Things like giving undue weight to a minor event, and including details that are not actually about the subject of the article (but might or might not belong somewhere else) are the issues here. Euryalus (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It doesn't belong in a biography. Orderinchaos 01:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia but I'm saddened by these discussions:

• It seems to me that omitting any mention of the hoax from the article is a disservice to future readers, because when people encounter the quote somewhere else they won't find anything on Wikipedia to warn them that it's false. From what I've read the argument for omission seems to be based on the admirable desire to adhere to standards (which unfortunately in this case are more of guidelines, as the constant debate demonstrates that they're subjective) or aesthetics ("Wikipedia shouldn't be cluttered...") rather than the question of what best serves the needs of readers/researchers. If someone can provide arguments for why readers would be harmed by this specific inclusion (rather than generalized arguments), I'd appreciate hearing them. GCL (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Many posters are quick to attribute the hoaxer with base motives such as selfishness, attention-whoring, or vandalism, without any first-hand knowledge or citation of reliable sources for their claims. In this they are pretty much doing exactly what they criticized the hoaxer for: making unsubstantiated claims they know cannot be proved. GCL (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Several posters criticize the hoaxer for harming Wikipedia's reputation, and while that's a valid concern, I believe in this case it's greatly overstated. Regardless of the hoaxer's motivation, the exercise demonstrated a small amount of Source Error (errors on Wikipedia were quickly corrected) and a large amount of User Error (reporters who don't check their sources, and news sources that don't retract their errors). Personally, I believe readers should treat Wikipedia and any other source with some healthy skepticism. Ask yourself this question: do you really want readers to treat Wikipedia or any other source as entirely and unreservedly authoritative, or do you want them to be critical thinkers who double-check claims before relying on them? Which do you consider better for society? The poster who said "Treating this [sabotage] lightly only postpones the day when Wikipedia will be regarded as a reliable source" seems like an auto executive who, criticizing a report that people who don't fasten their seat belts are likely to get hurt, says the report "only postpones the day when cars will be regarded as safe transportation." GCL (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue the fake quote issue is not actually about Jarre, its about Wikipedia (and its use by journalists). If anything therefore details of the fake quote belong at the article on Wikipedia ratehr than here. There's no need to include in Jarre's article details of something he didn't say but were falsely attributed to him by someone making a point about an unrelated issue. I agree the issue is about "user error" rather than "source error", but in either case the error was neither by nor is particularly relevant to Jarre, who is invovled simply because he had the misfortune to pass away at the time the hoaxer thought he'd do his experiment.

I doubt the hoax is that notable beyond its current media bubble, but that would be a matter for discussion at (say) Talk:Wikipedia rather than here.

I don't agree there's anything improper about attributing bad motives to the hoaxer. The definition of vandalism is "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." This is exactly what the hoaxer did (and admitted to), so calling him a vandal seems entirely accurate. His motives for the vandalism might be as pure as driven snow, but in Wikipedia terms it remains vandalism. Euryalus (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is well known that anybody can put anything in this online encyclopedia - thus it is subject to constant vandalism. Journalists ought to rely on reputable sources. While Wikipedia is a good information source, all users of it should not use anything they find here unless they find it somewhere else. The student proved this point very well. The fault is not his, it is the fault of those that did not check his sources. While his timing and methods may have been inappropriate, there is a good lesson to be learned here on our part, not his. 173.58.147.214 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not his fault jouranlists didn't check more than one source in writing their obituaries. It is his fault that vandalism occurred to this article. I'm not calling him a bad person (I've never heard of him before), I'm simply calling him a vandal of Wikipedia pages. But we're way off topic - this is a conversation better placed at Talk:Shane Fitzgerald (hoaxer). -- Euryalus (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia hoax II

I THINK THAT GUY WHO PUT THAT HOAX QUOTE DIDN'T REALLY MEAN TO VANDALIZE.AFTER ALL, HE ADMITTED TO IT, WAITED TILL NEWSPAPERS TAKE BACK WHAT THEY PUBLISHED,...I MEAN,... IF HE WERE JUST INTERESTED IN MAKING A LITTLE PRANK... HE WOULD HAVE LEFT IT AS IT IS... I THINK HE WAS MORE INTERESTED IN THE RESULT AND EVEN TOOK HIM A MONTH (I THINK) TO TAKE BACK WHAT HE PUT THERE... -BEENG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.25.98 (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That certainly stays here because so many actually believe what WP say are facts. And this is a good reminder why they should NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - the article is about Maurice Jarre and he is not notable for that hoax, Shane Fitzgerald is. So either we write an article about Shane Fitzgerald (which probably wouldn't survive because of WP:SINGLEEVENT) or we integrate this stuff in an article about notable vandals, notable hoaxes or equivalent. Laurent (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If Shane perpetrated a second hoax would that get around this WP:SINGLEEVENT problem? Sarah777 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, provided it wasn't essentially a repeat of the first and also received some coverage in reliable sources. Even then, with two minor hoaxes to his name he would still probably be non-notable. But let's assume he becomes a famous and constant hoaxer - that would possbly justify an article about him while still not justifying reference in this article to his first and fairly minor hoax, the temporary vandalism of the page. Euryalus (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Laurent - It's not our job to make political or social statements in articles, we're meant to write encyclopaedic articles. Orderinchaos 01:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I usually refer to WP:NAVEL and WP:WEIGHT as the reason we don't add news about the article to the article itself. We have that {{Press}} template, you know, "mentioned by multiple media organizations", to document any curiosities like this. Wikidemon (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not including a mention of the hoax in this article, given the worldwide attention it has received, is a joke, and is the precise reason why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think, Crotchety Old Man, that the hoax showed that many MSM journalists take Wiki very seriously indeed! Sarah777 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The "hoax" is a good example of why no one should trust a single source for information, particularly if that source can be edited by anyone. John Paul Parks (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I will add, however, that deliberate insertion of false material into Wikipedia, or any other source, is wrong. John Paul Parks (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe people really believe that Wikipedia is a credible source of information. What a laugh. And the people on here try so hard to make wikipedia look equivalent to Encylopaedia Britanica, but it isn't. I have seen so many false statements and false facts here on wikipedia it isn't even funny. I once tried to edit the "Kill Bill" movie article to say that at the very end of the movie she is seen crying and laughing in the bathroom. I got into an edit war with someone and then got a violation for vandalism. All one needed to do to verify that I was correct was to watch the last 2 minutes of the movie. Wikipedia is bullshit and you all know it. It is nothing more then a collection of miscellaneous trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamisonhalliwell (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it makes sense that your edits have been reverted since you didn't provide any source. How can Wikipedia becomes a "credible source of information", as you say, if it starts accepting unsourced edits from anonymous users? Wikipedia is far from perfect and everybody with some sense kwows it, but it's still a very good starting point when researching a topic. Laurent (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not an unregistered user. I just don't know how to sign my comments. How do you cite something that happened in a movie? If someone dies in a movie how should I cite that? If someone laughs in a movie, how should I cite that? What I had written was something you could visibly see in the movie itself. There was no two ways about it. Jamisonhalliwell (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

While I know nothing about the man mentioned in the article, I think Shane Fitzgerald did a great thing. He helped out wiki. You should help me start his Article. --I iz guy... so iz u (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC) The college student proved a point and like he said, Wikepedia passed....Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.188.2 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC) HE was 82

The Shane Fitzgerald article has been nominated for deletion here: [6]. Laurent (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Did hoaxer commit other vandalism?

Take a look at Special:Contributions/86.42.227.123 before anyone makes Shane Fitzgerald out to be some kind of great investigator. He appears to have edited Maurice Jarre, Blessington, and Guppy. I know an IP address can be shared by multiple users, but there is a similarity in the spelling and grammar of these edits, and in the general nature of the changes. It looks like three clear cases of childish vandalism to me. So the media got duped by his latest vandalism, Fitzgerald watched with glee for a month, and he eventually stepped forward to take credit and stoke his own ego. While there are lessons to be learned, let's not help him get famous over this! Taquito1 (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I went to the page you cited, and when I click on the time and date, I get an old version of the page, as edited by (that IP).

When I click on "hist" I get the revision history, but the revision history doesn't show anything for the dates indicated. Why not?

And when I click on revision histories after the date, that IP's edits aren't shown. It skips from the 12th to the 18th. Why is that?

69.212.37.115 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)NotWillDecker

I'm not sure what you're looking at - the IP in question edited the page on 30 and 31 March as shown here. Those same revisions appear in the article history at the same dates and times here. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NotWillDecker, at the contributions page here, click on (diff) to see the edits made by that user at that time. The resulting page shows additions and deletions. In the case of the IP in question--the one used by Fitzgerald--you can see that vandalism was committed at the Guppy page (something about puppies), and at the Blessington page (something about Blessington is the coolest), as well as at the Maurice Jarre page.

Taquito1 (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you seriously need to look again at the edits. Saying they have similar spelling and grammar is completely false. Also the other edits were in 2008 so its obvious they were not the same person. Gune (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Information about hoax--attempt to reach consensus

People have opined extensively above on the question about whether any or how much information on the hoax is included here. It may be helpful to have people give their brief opinion summary here, leaving further comment in other sections. Bongomatic 04:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Brief mention and link to full article about hoax. Hoax is not "about" Maurice Jarre, but it is pertinent to this article. Bongomatic 04:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Not here, maybe elsewhere - possibly atReliability_of_Wikipedia#Other which is where the article on Shane Fitzgerald (hoaxer) seems likely to be merged to. The hoax is not relevant to Jarre, whose only link with it was passing away at the time the hoaxer was looking for a vehicle for the prank. The hoax itself might be notable enough to refer to somewhere, but Jarre's association with it is so tangential that including it here is undue weight. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Some mention should be made about the quote because Maurice is now famous for the quote even though he did not make it. All those blogs that have quoted him will ensure that it's not forgotten. Many articles have quotes attributed to famous people that were not made by them. "Let them eat cake." --Ezra Wax (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support for a link/mention about the hoax. I think at the least, there should be a link to a new page addressing the Maurice Jarre Wikipedia Hoax. This event should not be whitewashed, even if it doesn't look good or belong on Jarre's page (after all, this event was not a part of his "life") 12.40.50.1 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Add a brief mention. We shouldn't let it take over the article, but it has been sufficiently noted. --GRuban (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NAVEL#Articles are about their subjects as was suggested above. This guideline states clearly that articles on Wikipedia "are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves". Laurent (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Test of time? Although "notable" in the moment, it is doubtful (IMO) that this trivia tidbit will become ultimately consequential to his legacy. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

omission

This article doesn't credit him with composing the music for The Longest Day, yet the Wikipedia article on that film does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjnyc (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done : Added. Also, added "Partial list of notable films"; (there are 167 total). ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo, please.

There are plenty of decent photos; can somebody find one without copyright issues? ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Jarre obituary

I have undone a bot deletion of a link I added to my own obituary of Jarre. I totally agree that Wikipedia must not be a repository of links. That does not stop my article being perhaps the most substantial obituary of Jarre in English. Perhaps some of the volunteers who monitor this site could take a view on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.24.108 (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my re-removal - I wonder even if the other two should be there, anyway, the sequence is BRD, bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, revert again and discuss. Additions of external links should be discussed before adding when being challenged. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, Dirk, though as a rare editor here I am not sure why your word is better than mine (though it probably is). If one wants to guard against link-creep, one has to examine the content being linked to. Otherwise one is saying "newspapers good", "blogs bad", which is a meaningless criterion. Either one should get rid of all, as you suggest, or examine the value. 78.149.24.108 (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and my word is not necessarily better than yours - I don't know the subject and I suspect you may know more than me here. But for everything on Wikipedia goes, that if it gets challenged that it first needs to be discussed before re-added. Besides challenging this addition, I also challenge the other obituaries there. I really wonder what the obituaries tell that is not already in the document (and note, there is also one referenced already from the 'Death'-section). Per the intro of the external links guideline: do additional obituaries actually add anything that is not already in the document (and what notable info that is in the additional obituaries that is not in Wikipedia, should that not be incorporated in Wikipedia .. ? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes -- we have agreed all that. But then why are you eliminating my very substantial blog piece (more so than the others at least), but not removing the newspapers at the same time? Happy New Year. 78.149.24.108 (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because of what the external links guideline / the 'What Wikipedia is not' policy say - a few links may be appropriate, but we do not need all external links to the subject. I challenged the addition of the third now (as that now goes towards linkfarming, and what does the third say that the first two (I am not aware of the process that got them in, they may have been extensively discussed or in places that are generally considered appropriate, etc.), and the document itself, do not), and question the first two. Now it is time for discussion, which should take place between a number of people who are knowledgeable on the subject, and they, eventually, will come forward here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Question: do you think that any of the three obituaries actually adds something that is not in the document already?

Note, newspapers do have a preference over blogs, as newspapers have better mechanisms of fact checking (though not always thorough) than blogs (which have none; note, you say 'my article' - did you write the obituary that you want to link to?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did, and it certainly adds a LOT that is not in the article. It does so by placing Jarre in a French historical tradition. It also says much more than the newspaper obituaries. You could say that the fact that I wrote it biases me. On the other hand, it also means I know what I am talking about. 78.149.24.108 (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maurice Jarre. 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/20110525122440/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014669890 to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014669890
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907152149/http://www.moviemusicuk.us/jarre.htm to http://www.moviemusicuk.us/jarre.htm

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) 07:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)