Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 5

ReviewRoot.com

TobiasK (talk · contribs) has recently been adding links to ReviewRoot, a review aggregation site. It seems useful, but I'm not sure if it meets the EL guidelines. For example, he added http://www.reviewroot.com/index.php?subject=Apple_iPad&page=show to the iPad page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's his own site, thus he's link spamming. They should be removed. - MrOllie (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's your interpretation that it's spam. The fact that it is more useful than the links deleted in favor of links to reviewroot.com is a valid reason why they shouldn't be deleted. It kinda seems you're action-hunting/mocking a bit - especially new users. If it isn't clear what to do, you should start a discussion on the topic - not delete them before so! TobiasK (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not interpretation that it is a WP:COI for you to use WP to promote your own site on many different WP pages, as you have recently attempted. As for "more useful," one, that is a matter of opinion, and two, that is not necessarily a criterion for inclusion. The links you removed were to well-established review sites that are widely known to many in the field. I don't think your site is in that category. And even if it is, there is still the conflict of interest problem - you are not allowed to post links to your own site, no matter how notable, relevant, or useful it is. Therefore no discussion is required. Jeh (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with user trying to force EL to inappropriate fan site

At Talk:The Prisoner one editor is insisting a link to a fan site, or even a link to a news page on that fan site, is acceptable. The fan site itself appears to have no history that one can attribute like one can with Memory Alpha, and thus would seem to fail most of WP:ELNO. Some additional input would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• theunmutual.co.uk: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.theunmutual.co.uk

Added {{LinkSummaryLive}} template for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You want input? How about not prejudging the issue with your subject header for a start. Barsoomian (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Barsoomian,

I realize that it's irritating to people who disagree with the characterization, but I don't think you need to worry too much about it. The regulars here (including Qwyrxian, who seems to have responded to this request) are pretty used to seeing such claims, and fairly adept at discounting them as nothing more than one (probably frustrated) editor's current opinion.

If anyone else is interested in adding a comment, the discussion is at the bottom of Talk:The Prisoner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This link may require a closer look at its overall use and appropriateness in multiple articles. I also ran into it on the Portmeirion article. --- Barek (talk) - 14:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly dispute Masem's statement that the site in question fails "most of WP:ELNO". At most, it fails item 11 in a long list of criteria, as it isn't the site of a "recognised authority" on the subject - though what would count as such an authority in the specific context of The Prisoner I'm at a loss to know. My own view is that the link is acceptable in this context, and also to the Portmeirion article, however as the consensus seems to be that it fail WP standards, I've removed from Portmeirion three other fanlinks which have essentially the same problem. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The person who created/starred in it would be a recognized authority. However, if there really were no "recognized authorities" on a given subject, then that's not a bad thing. Most articles don't actually benefit from links to blogs and such.

Thank you for your efforts to remove those inappropriate links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't think the Unmutual is inappropriate. But if the WP view is that it is, then consistency demands the removal of similar links too. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Applying WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL

Abahlali baseMjondolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all, more of a general question here. When is a list of videos in an article (for example, at above article) appropriate? Should a list like that be pared down and combined with an External links section? WP:VIDEOLINK addresses issues with YouTube, but defers to external link policies. Would the links in the above article be considered spam? I would appreciate any clarification in applying these policies. Thanks, The Interior(Talk) 08:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you concerned about Abahlali baseMjondolo#Films_About_Abahlali_baseMjondolo specifically? It's possible that it was intended as a sort of WP:FURTHERREADING section, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable to consider them WP:External links and to consider combining it with the rest of the links under the ==External links== heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting advice about two external links

Editors are discussing whether two external links are appropriate for a page, at Talk:Rod Coronado#External links. Advice from more editors would be welcome. (Please discuss this at the article talk, rather than here.) Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

They're still waiting for a response, so if anyone's got a few minutes, please have a look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing for the bump, and thanks Quiddity for responding. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a grave

Now i know this has come up before. But i am wondering were i would go to talk about all the Find a grave links in articles that lead to Find a grave bios that are unsourced and generally contain POV statements. Moxy (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The best choice might depend on what you wanted to accomplish. Perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) or a content WP:RFC (set up on a subpage in the WP namespace) would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only thing that Find a Grave should be used for is verification that the subject is dead and the location of the subject's remains. Beyond that, it's a self-published source of the worst kind. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#We need to talk .Moxy (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Input requested for an EL at paraphilia

There are two editors (myself and User:Bittergrey) who disagree over whether to include http://individual.utoronto.ca/ray_blanchard/index_files/EPES.html on the paraphilia page. There is a history of involvement by both editors with the subject matter, which prevents neutral discussion. Outside opinion is needed. Reason's to include the EL include:

1. The link is relevant--It links to the faculty webpage of Ray Blanchard, a top expert on paraphilias, and provides a questionnaire of paraphilias, written by Kurt Freund, one of the top most cited researchers of the paraphilias.
2. The material is notable--It has been cited in dozens of relevant documents.[1]
3. The content of the questionnaire would be excessive to include on the page itself. (WP:ELYES)

The basis of the conflict is that the beliefs of advocates don't always line up with all the statments scientists make. User:BitterGrey is an advocate for persons with paraphilic interests. User:James_Cantor is a colleague of Ray Blanchard's (and has himself published peer reviewed research articles on paraphilias). BitterGrey believes that the EL is self-promotional for James Cantor, and James Cantor believes that BitterGrey is deleting EL's from James Cantor as part of spreading the dispute he is having on the WP page about James Cantor...and previous disputes. Some neutral opinions as to the relevance of http://individual.utoronto.ca/ray_blanchard/index_files/EPES.html on paraphilia would be greatly appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to the three-hour old discussion on that page, "Bittergrey's use of this page as a battleground for his POV. If it included points relevant to EL, instead of focusing on personal accusations, it might have been more successful at reaching a consensus. BitterGrey (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to user:James Cantor - As I said, please stop adding cites linked to yourself, that is the actual issue here. When alleged experts edit wikipedia in their field they are unable to not propagate their personal POV and as this reflects, self publicize their own work or the work of their associated colleagues, and it always leads to such disputes as this. We just need simple widely read publications to cite, like the new york times and suchlike. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge Off2riorob's earlier statement that he has a problem in general with experts editing pages of their expertise, as "They have a mountain of conflict of interest and as such are so involved to be unable to edit in that area in a neutral manner." For the time being, however, that is not the consensus of WP.

One should note also that we are discussing an EL that has been on paraphilia, without incident, for 18 months. To discuss it as if it represented some sudden gotcha violation to some warning "as you said" is to spin it.

Finally, the appropriate thing to do is precisely what I did: Bring the issue to a neutral talkpage relevant to the issue. Although you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to disrupt WP because you believe as a matter of principle that experts are incapable of NPOV.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding, it is your claimed expertness that is the problem, wikipedia editors don't require any level of expert at all, an expert wikipedia editor to me is one that edits in a WP:NPOV manner in multiple fields. This is not a gotcha at all, this will be repeated and ignoring your responsibility in the issue is not a good sign. Its like this, a user with a strong personal issue and clear POV in a certain field, comes to wikipedia and starts editing his field, it is unavoidable that they want all the article to reflect their POV , after some times of this, other users start to notice and come and start NPOV-ing the articles and that is what is happening here now and at multiple articles in the experts field of narrow editing, the expert that has been editing his field then starts warring and wiki lawyering and going to multiple noticeboards in an attempt to keep the articles as they have edited them, much disruption ensues. I expect you know it was added eighteen months ago because you added it .. here you are your own blog as an external link. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment suggests we may be having a language problem. Although I would certainly agree that the phrase "expert editor" seems to suggest "someone who edits with expertise," I use the phrase "expert editor" as it's defined in WP:expert retention. I would never claim that I edit WP with any expertise. To the extent I am a real-world expert is for others to opin, but the consensus of my talkpage would seem to suggest that I should consider myself one for WP purposes. (And being so deemed yields no privileges, I assure you.)

I can only repeat what you don't seem to be understanding: My bringing to EL/N the issue of whether an EL (written by a man I never met) should be added to paraphilia is precisely what my responsibility is. (And I am happy to do it.)

Because you are clearly interested in me rather than in the point of this noticeboard, however, I suggest we move this to one of our talkpages.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Is is posted further up the page, User:James_Cantor is a colleague of Ray Blanchard's. Your don't seen to be listening, so a discussion anywhere is going to be valueless. The link I provided showing you adding your own blog to the article reflects an example of the whole issue as I see it, this external link is a very minor reflection of that. Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here is a link to when James Cantor originally added the EL in question[2]. (The similarity in URL isn't coincidental: James Cantor, Ray Blanchard, and Kurt Freund are all associated with that facility.) BitterGrey (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's please stick to the facts of this case and save personal bickering for your respective talk pages. As an uninvolved user, I have several questions:

1. James Cantor: You state in the third person above that Ray Blanchard is your colleague and yet further down you state that you have never met him, even though you both seem to be from Toronto. Please clarify your relationship to the author of the EL.
2. James Cantor: Which of the WP:EL criteria, by number, do you believe apply to this case?
3. Bittergrey: Which of the WP:EL criteria, by number, do you believe apply to this case?
4. It would appear that the EL is a non-peer reviewed academic article by an expert in the field. Does anyone dispute this?
5. Why is there no suitable peer-reviewed article for what seems to be a common subject in this field?

Thanks. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC) UncleDouggie: Thank you for the appropriate focus on the issue.
1. I meant that I have never met Kurt Freund; I am indeed a close colleague of Ray Blanchard. The content of the link (a questionnaire of paraphilias) was written by Freund and is available on Blanchard's website.
2. If I am correcting interpreting "by number" to mean the numbers given at WP:ELYES, then the relevant one is #3, "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to...amount of detail."
4. Correct.
5. I'm not sure what this is asking. The EPES (the name of the questionnaire), has been cited by several dozen peer-reviewed articles: [3].
— James Cantor (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The EL is basically a list of questions that might be asked about paraphilias, one of hundreds or thousands of such possible lists. It might not be a bad list, but lacks any insight or significance of it's own. Using a search of Google scholar give only one academic result"Freund"+"Paraphilia+Scales"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0.

In addition to lacking merit, this link was placed under a conflict of interest. James Cantor, Ray Blanchard, and Kurt Freund are associated with the CAMH lab at the University of Toronto[4][5][6]. Furthermore, James's advocacy includes removal of competing research and negatively editing ELs to others (e.g. [7]). Coinicident to the addition of the link to Kurt Freund's Scale, material about the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid was removed[8]. As they were now, My attempts at discussion then were met with personal attacks and accusations[9].

Finally, this particular link was part of an extended campaign of promotion of himself, his workplace, and the club that the three of them belong to. Here is a brief survey of ELs added by Cantor, based on change descriptions, going back to june 2009. (I'll expand when time permits) Please note that the two non-conflicted, non-spammed ELs that James Cantor has added are included to give a balanced result.

ELs to personal blogs or place of work, placed by James Cantor:

4 june, Penile plethysmograph, http://individual.utoronto.ca [10]

4 june, Sexological testing, http://individual.utoronto.ca [11]

28 june 2009, Sexology, http://individual.utoronto.ca [12]

14 july 2009, Paraphilia, http://individual.utoronto.ca [13]

18 march, DSM-5, http://individual.utoronto.ca [14]

22 april, Hebephilia, http://individual.utoronto.ca [15]

23 april, Catholic sex abuse cases, http://individual.utoronto.ca [16]

16 august, Hebephilia, http://www.individual.utoronto.ca [17]

11 sept, sexual addiction, http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca [18]

contested[19]

escalated to AN/I[20] External links to SSSS (club), placed by James Cantor:

28 june 2009, Sexology, http://www.sexscience.org [21]

restored under conflict [22]

12 july 2009 Sexology http://www.sexscience.org [23]

restored under conflict [24]

12 july 2009 Sexology [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexology&diff=prev&oldid=301706560

restored under conflict [25] Other linkspamming:

http://aliceingenderland.com (not sure of association) 15 august, Androphilia and gynephilia [26] 15 august, Transvestic fetishism [27] 15 august, Transvestism [28] 15 august, Transgender [29] 15 august, Cross-dressing [30]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_crimes.html (not sure of association) 4 april Gregory M. Herek [31] 4 april Hate crime [32]

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SexualandGenderIdentityDisorders.aspx 18 march Paraphilia[33] 18 march Sexology[34] 18 march Pedophilia[35] Other ELs promoting himself 22 april Debate on the causes of clerical child abuse[36] -interview with James Cantor ELs maybe OK (included to avoid NPOV)

19 december 2009 Sexologies: European Journal of Sexual Health (Revue Européenne de Santé Sexuelle) http://www.europeansexology.com [37]

11 august 2009 Sexology http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/Entrance_Page/entrance_page.html [38] (EL to non-SSSS website restored). Perhaps the soundest argument for the merit of this particular EL, and most of the other ELs above, is that only one conflicted editor sees the need to add them, and feels the need to add them personally in such great number. 15:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC) (Sorry - I was rushing to get this together and get out the door. BitterGrey (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC) )

Um, if we can separate fact from spin, just for a moment, we might re-apply UncleDouggie's questions to each of the above and get the same answers to each. They all provide neutral information, all in proportion to how it appears in RS's, etc. They all are accompanied by one or more explicit statements from me about my associations with them (e.g., [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], ...), and the editors of the pages on which they have appeared have accepted them, except for persons with who have histories of content disputes with me (and are off-wiki activists regarding the topic) who dispute them to make a point while avoiding any discussion of actual content.

If you, or EL/N, or anyone else would like to review them, to evaluate each for appropriateness to their pages, I would by happy to discuss them. WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or WP:IDONTLIKECANTOR) is not a valid a reason.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not assert such issues on to good faith users. It is your conflict of interest additions and your self promotion that is the only issue, wikipedia is not improved at all by such promotional additions. To help you understand, its like this...lets say...Margaret thatcher comes along to wikipedia..she has retired and has free time so she starts editing wikipedia articles about articles related to her personal narrow field of opinionated expertise and adding links that support her POV and links to her own articles and her friends articles and she becomes the main contributor to some articles in her field .. do you think those articles would be neutral and unbiased? Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If Thatcher had snuck around, hidden who she was, and had no history of adding a wide variety of information about British history unrelated to herself, then I would certainly want to check the content.

If Thatcher had acknowledged herself, openly invited editors to check each change, and cited herself only within WP:SPS, then I would...well, want to check the content.

To reverse your analogy, let's say that Galileo decided to edit WP and found that the pages relevant to astronomy were missing relevant information because the inforamtion was published only in Latin, but that he had an English-translation available on his website that he added as an EL. You assert that it should be deleted, without further comment, and the actual content of the link should not even be discussed by the otherwise uninvolved editors at EL/N. That is a problem for WP process.

If any article is even close to me being "the main contributor", do please back up your claim. For the articles in question, the great majority of my edits (over the past year, anyway) are to talkpages and are typically responses to questions posed to me.

Very clearly, your suppositions about me are not about me; they appear to be about an image you have developed on the basis of other people's behavior. As I said before, and as UncleDouggie said, this is not the place for your beef with me (or with expert editors in general), and I reassert my recommendation that the discussion be moved to one of our talkpages or other appropriate forum.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My comments are not about some preconceived idea they are about you, Imo a user that adds their own blog and what are basically the blogs of their mates that hold the exact same POV as themselves sand then complain when other users notice and remove the self promotion simply disrupt the neutrality and balance of our articles, the best articles are written by uninvolved ordinary users with no specialist knowledge at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Bittergrey: Please sign your comment properly above and respond to my questions on the EL that James Cantor brought to this noticeboard. You can start your own section on problems with other ELs, but please note that general COI issues belong on the COI noticeboard.

James Cantor: My question #5 is related to why this is the only reference for such a list. Is this list of questions generally accepted by the academic community as valid?

Bittergrey: Are you fundamentally opposed to any such list? If so, do you have references to back you up as to why it is bad? Are there competing lists that are more generally accepted?

—UncleDouggie (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

UncleDouggie, if we had a page dedicated to the hundreds or thousands of questionnaires on the paraphilias that exit, I wouldn't be adverse to this one being on that list. This would permit balance among the many, many questionnaires. However, given that we don't have such a page, I don't think the paraphilia article really needs an EL to one particular questionnaire. I accept that this list of questions has particular importance to it's sole advocate, the one person who originally inserted this EL and so many others to himself and his coworkers. However, Wikipedia has policies in place specifically to prevent its use for self-promotion (and friend-promotion). I don't believe the paraphilia page needs an EL to one particular list of questions, and I don't believe that list of questions should be selected according on one editor's conflicted interests.

I'd be willing to compromise; perhaps one of Masters and Johnson's or Alfred Kinsey's historic and unarguably notable questionnaires, especially if the EL is to one or the other respected institution? BitterGrey (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)(dab link replaced BitterGrey (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

If I am reading you correctly, you are asking why the list was never published. Freund died before I could become curious about any specific work of his, but I can say that, in general, questionnaires such as that one were not typically published as independent peer-reviewed articles in those days. Journal pages were too scarce and expensive, and the accepted thing for researchers to do in those days was to say in the article something like "questionnaire available upon request" and send it to whomever asked. Today, such information would often be included as "supplemental data" in a journal's e-repository. The EPES is indeed generally accepted, such as by being included in The Handbook of Sexuality Related Measures (Routledge) [45]. Other examples: [46], [47], and the results of the google search I put up already.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

James Cantor, the first two examples you give include it in a list of many questionnaires[48][49]. This suggests the the EL you are advocating was just one of may possibilities. The third example uses questions scored on a scale of 1-5, with particular interest in one's father[50], while the EL in question scores only from 0-1 and apparently doesn't use the word "father"[51]. This suggests that not even those two researchers had standardized around one particular questionnaire. Collectively, this suggests that even your best evidence supports my position.BitterGrey (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I found the connection between Gregory M. Herek's blog, posted by James Cantor in two locations [52][53] and James Cantor: Both are editors for SSSS' journal[54]. There was no disclosure of their relationship. This makes James Cantor's claim that those ELs "all are accompanied by one or more explicit statements from me about my associations" completely false. (Previously, it was effectively false. If others had not been watching for his conflicted editing (e.g. [55]), he might still be self-promoting as MariontheLibrarion (e.g.[56]), with no disclosure whatsoever. BitterGrey (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I must say this is all getting quite silly. Presumably being a "consulting editor" in this particular area of science isn't much different from others: It's basically just a list of experts. When an article is submitted that falls in one of the editors' field of expertise, they get an email with a request to either referee it or pass it on to a suitable referee. It's unpaid, and I don't think consulting editors usually meet in person, other than by accident on a conference.

The general pattern that I am seeing here is the idea that experts should not be editing Wikipedia because they are experts, and that any silly reason will do to drive them off. That's not going to fly. Hans Adler 23:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The original issue is that an EL was placed under a conflict of interest. Further checking showed not only that a large number of other conflicted ELs were placed, but that the conflicted editor who originally placed them is willing to misinform this noticeboard to avoid loosing it/them.BitterGrey (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans Adler, I noticed that you were involved in the recent discussion involving James Cantor at AN/I[57]. The two issues are separate, although there are some similarities. For example, James Cantor attempted to misrepresent his edit history there too[58] but there it was stated as a generalization. The distortion here was stated as a fact. This is about self-promotion, not education. A real expert would better handle his generalizations and facts anyway. BitterGrey (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

While some others may disagree, I'm delighted to have experts improve articles so long as they write in a way that is understandable to everyday readers rather than just academics, they permit other editors to improve on their words, and they don't exhibit COI behavior. In cases were the only acceptable ref or EL would present them with a COI, the addition should be discussed on the talk page before it is added. There are a few other long-time editors active on this article, but not many. I would suggest in such a case to ask for help from WikiProject Sexology to review the applicable discussion. For the start of such a discussion, I would ask James Cantor if BitterGrey's compromise of using "Masters and Johnson's or Kinsey's historic and unarguably notable questionnaires" is acceptable, and if not, why not? If a consensus can be reached among established editors that the EPES is the best solution, then it should be added as it does seem to conform to WP:ELYES #3 and WP:ELMAYBE #4. However, I'm concerned about the long-term stability of the EL given that it is on a faculty page. Perhaps if the EPES is sufficiently notable, the questionnaire should be placed in it's own article. The EL states that "these scales have not been copyrighted for commercial purposes, and any clinician or researcher who wishes to use them as they are, or to quote them, or to modify them for his or her own purposes is free to do so." I'm not clear on exactly what rights, if any, are being retained. If clear copyright permission can be obtained, an article is a possibility. Again, WikiProject Sexology seems like the right place to raise that question and James Cantor should not under any circumstances create such an article himself. If an article cannot be created, I recommend pursuing publication of the material in a journal or some other place that will provide for a long-term, stable link. The same logic should be applied to the other instances raised by Bittergrey.

You may want to wait a day before taking any action to see if others have a different opinion, although I don't know how much other input we will see for a section with 59 refs. :-) I'm glad to not be part of the AN/I discussion. Thank you both for your interest in improving Wikipedia. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand, that next action would be to wait for an answer to UncleDouggie's question in the second paragraph. BitterGrey (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think it would be best to open that discussion on the article talk page, to get the most visibility from editors familiar with the material, and to post a link to the discussion at WikiProject Sexology. The participants in this noticeboard aren't the most qualified to judge which questionnaire is best. If the results of that discussion still leave doubt as to the best treatment of the EL, then please repost here and we will be happy to help further. —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, James Cantor escalated this EL here because he recently escalated another of his conflicted ELs to WikiProject Sexology [59] and then to AN/I but didn't receive support.BitterGrey (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Between the two locations (this and the one on the article's talk page[60].), evaluating this particular EL has involved upwards of 73 refs and 6300 words. While James Cantor might get a social and/or financial benefit from promoting himself and coworkers, the rest of us are not compensated for our efforts. The rest of us don't get paid for this. In the interest of closure, I'd like to observe a non-consensus for re-inclusion of the EL. BitterGrey (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Part two

• I don't think any dispute involving James Cantor and Bittergrey is truly resolvable, with any measure short of a Wikipedia administrator willing to make difficult blocks. If BitterGrey is thwarted in his desire to remove this link, then there will simply be a "new" problem tomorrow.
• I think that Bittergrey and Off2rio need to read WP:PPP -- repeatedly, if necessary, until they really "get" the idea that Wikipedia values product over process, and that consequently perceived procedural violations (e.g., not providing a perfect disclosure of conflict of interest) are never valid excuses for challenging content. If you oppose this link because it violates WP:EL, that's fine (just tell me which ELNO number is the relevant one); if you oppose it because of the identity of the person who originally added it, WP:YOULOSE.
• I think that Bittergrey and Off2rio should also go read WP:COI, because they have clearly failed to grasp the voluntary nature of our recommendation for disclosure. Perhaps WP:COI needs a new section, "What is not a conflict of interest?", in which we say things like "Doctors can write about medical diseases, teachers can write about teaching methods, professional auto mechanics can write about cars, professional artists can write about art..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"If BitterGrey is thwarted in his desire to remove this link, then there will simply be a "new" problem tomorrow." In terms of accusations of ill will, I'd have to say that it even ties "Bittergrey's use of this page as a battleground for his POV," the title James Cantor selected for this discussion on the original article's talk page. You two must really hate me. The assertion that Wikipedia policy is unimportant was disturbing, but not surprising. That one about assuming good faith is particularly important.

Those who have read the above discussion will know that I've provided ample evidence that the EL violates the external links policy at multiple points: EL#ADV "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent", and ELNO#4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website.". I did a quick survey of the ELs that James Cantor has added, and found an undeniable trend: most of the ELs were to friends and/or coworkers. I suppose we could also add WP:ELPOV, since only one non-standard questionnaire is being linked, and not any of the other questionnaires, including the more important ones by Masters and Johnson or Kinsey. Even the questionnaires' own authors hadn't standardized on it. My attempt at compromise[61], echoed by UncleDouggie[62], remains unconsidered.

By the way, it was the pattern of COI edits that gave MariontheLibrarion away; Cantor didn't volunteer.[63].

Now if we can get back to the discussion at hand: "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." While others have asked questions, and others have joined in attacking me personally, I'm still not seeing adequate justification or a consensus for the EL.BitterGrey (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's get this done.

• BitterGrey: Please provide suitable alternate ELs for us to evaluate. Your links above were to an overview article and a dab page.
• James Cantor: Once we have the alternate ELs, please comment on whether they would be acceptable or not.

—UncleDouggie (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

UncleDouggie, I'll make some time to find those links. BitterGrey (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kinsey's Survey results are at http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/ak-data.html. (Since this discussion seems predetermined against me by prejudice or apathy, I took the time to complete the Kinsey Institute's current live surveys[64] first. BitterGrey (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems to be the driving reason for perpetuating this conversation, could we add:

• WhatamIdoing: Please express why you thought it necessary to intervene here, with personal accusations so late in the conversation, while not giving any indication of having read the preceding conversation? While I would like to think that I could help dispel your assumption of ill will against me somehow, it might be too much to hope for. BitterGrey (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I replied here because I reply to basically all lengthy disputes on this page, and have since the day this noticeboard was created. A quick look at the page's stats may prove enlightening to you. I assure you my decision to join this discussion is not the slightest bit personal.
    Because of your reputation, I have almost zero expectation of this noticeboard being able to resolve this dispute. It's like trying to resolve a marital dispute by creating a schedule for which spouse takes out the garbage: Nobody actually gets divorced over the garbage, and claims that 'I'll divorce him the next time he forgets the trash' are hyperbole and only symptomatic of the real relational dysfunction. Similarly, IMO even an ideal solution for this external link won't prevent the messy "divorce" underway at the article; the link is just a symptom of the mess at the article.
    However, if you'd like to prove me wrong, then I suggest that you quit wasting energy on recounting perceived insults, and actually provide the information that UncleDouggie has repeatedly requested from you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Like many prejudices, WhatamIdoing's can't be disproven. It the discussion about this EL gets resolved, he'll dismiss it as trivial; the garbage gets taken out but the problem remains. If it doesn't get resolved, even if due to people diving in and hijacking the conversation just before closure, then he'll consider it yet another example of my "reputation" at work. Do others in this discussion share this prejucdice? Is it even worth my time to try?BitterGrey (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you can expect a very fair hearing from UncleDouggie -- assuming you choose to answer his question, of course. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping to hear from a plurality of others on whether they shared your prejudice. If there is only one, then the best I could ever have hoped for was a draw. BitterGrey (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you keep refusing to answer the question, I think I can guarantee that you'll "lose", no matter how sympathetic any of the dozen regular editors are to you or your views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone who was engaged in honest conversation here invested time in hope that a consensus consistent with Wikipedia policy could be reached. Unless you are willing to set aside your prejudice, or a plurality of other editors are willing to keep you in check, all of us who invested in this conversation - and Wikipedia as a whole - have already lost. BitterGrey (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Upwards of 85 refs, 7,900 words, and counting. BitterGrey (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing and I were both involved in the creation of this noticeboard, along with a few others. I appreciate her consistency in keeping the board running during my wikibreaks. I have always found her reasoning on particular ELs to be very sound. Obviously, there is a lot of personal history in this case of which I'm not aware, and I'd like to keep it that way if at all possible by focusing on the matter at hand. If we can distill this ArbCom worthy discussion into a clear-cut EL issue, I can bring in several other long-term supporters of this board to give us an opinion. There is no need to fear that the decision will be dominated by WhatamIdoing. However, no one is going to take the time to read this section as it stands because anything this long is clearly not just an EL issue.

If you are more concerned about the issues that are larger than ELs, perhaps it's best to move further along the dispute resolution path. If you think that resolving this particular EL will be helpful, then please answer my questions. Take as much time as you need, we're not on the clock here. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded yesterday[65]. The invitation to sink even more of my time here, when no one else is willing to indicate that they are listening, is not comforting. BitterGrey (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Kinsey survey you linked to was a very general one pager that doesn't seem to have relevance to the article. I didn't fill it out and go on to the next pages. For an EL to be useful, it has to link directly to the information that is relevant to the article. The results page you linked is interesting from a standpoint references to further develop the article, but it doesn't seem that it would replace the EL that James Cantor inserted. I also haven't seen anything on the Masters and Johnson surveys from you. Finally, I think the third level headings you added to this section are needlessly inflammatory and are unlikely to get you support from other editors. The dialogue between WhatamIdoing and yourself can stand on its own. There are better ways to break up this long section if so desired. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Kinsey's survey had so much impact because it was a survey of the general population. As a result, it could show that "some 12% of females and 22% of males reported having an erotic response to a sadomasochistic story"[66]. It also showed that "10% of males in the sample were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55, and 8% of males were exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55."[67] Results like these have helped to reduce the marginalization associated with paraphilias, and contributed to the later reclassification of homosexuality as a non-paraphilia. Surveying only those who admit to being paraphilic is a lot easier, but would have been unable to have such a large effect. It could only have shown that X% of Y-iles are into Z. Data about them, not us. Please note that I linked to two surveys; one is the summary of the historic Kinsey survey, and one is the live survey at the Kinsey Institute. I wouldn't be adverse to adding ELs to both, but think the EL on the historic Kinsey survey is the one that most belongs. BitterGrey (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Kinsey data covers a wide variety of topics, including many not related to paraphilia. I don't question the historical significance of the surveys in any way. However, they do not include data on many of the specific topics mentioned in the EPES. Some of the data from the Kinsey studies may be useful as a reference in the article. The EPES link on the other hand only has the actual questionnaire and not any results obtained from using it. We still don't have an actual questionnaire to replace the EPES EL with. We started down this path because Bittergrey claimed there were better questionnaires available. Bittergrey: Is this still the path you want to pursue to challenge this EL? —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Some updates:

• The Kinsey Institute offers an extensive interview kit, including the questionnaire, answer form, etc. It didn't show up in my initial search.

• Data from Kinsey's survey is still being used by a wide range of researchers. For example, Blanchard, Cantor's coworker who wrote the COI EL, used Kinsey's data to support his own big discovery[68]. Since the questionnaire in the EL doesn't include information on brothers and sisters, Blanchard couldn't have used it to get birth order information. In contrast, Kinsey's survey does have birth order information, and differentiates brothers and sisters.

I'll restate that second point, so it doesn't get lost in all the previous material discussed. Even the author of the questionnaire in the COI EL used Kinsey's data - from Kinsey's questionnaire - to confirm his big discovery: not data from the questionnaire in the COI EL. BitterGrey (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Paraphilia: Alternate questionnaire

BitterGrey: Thanks for finding the link. It is clearly an important questionnaire regardless of its use by Blanchard. I note that it is not linked from any other articles. James Cantor: Your turn. Please comment on the suitability of the questionnaire link provided by BitterGrey. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I was actually quite surprised by the proposal to use the Kinsey interview as an EL on the paraphilia page, since the Kinsey interview doesn't include the paraphilias. (!) So, although it is notable, it is not a meaningful replacement in any sense; it does not provide the same or equivalent information. Indeed, it does not provide information about paraphilias at all.

(A caveat: The Kinsey interview does include information partly relevant to one paraphilia: zoophilia. There is a question about sexual contact with animals. It is not actually a question about paraphilia, however. The Kinsey interview was designed in the 1930's for use with college students, many of whom were rural. The question was meant for sexual outlets involving animals more than for zoophilia proper, as we consider it today.)

— James Cantor (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Second note: UncleDouggie wrote earlier that "The EPES link on the other hand only has the actual questionnaire and not any results obtained from using it." One should not mistake that to mean that the EPES has not been used in peer-reviewed articles; it has indeed been widely used for that: [69]. It is not clear to me whether a list of pubs being part of the EL relates to whether the EL meets WP:ELYES etc.— James Cantor (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick scrolling over the questions shows...

• homosexuality Q326, etc.
• pedophilia Q342, etc.
• sadomasochsim Q186, etc.
• voyurism Q343, etc.
• zoophilia Q98, etc.

So yes, the survey does include the paraphilias. Perhaps this is another semantic stunt, like James Cantor's assertion that homosexuality was never a paraphilia[70].

By the way, the 182-item Google (not Google Scholar) search that has now been claimed twice[71] as evidence of notability for the COI EL is trivially insignificant compared to the Kinsey Survey's 462,000-item Google search. BitterGrey (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Bittergrey, what percentage of the items in your preferred link are (in your opinion) obviously and indisputedly about paraphilias, using a modern, mainstream definition of paraphilia (e.g., not including same-sex attraction)? (I'm looking for a general estimate, not a precise answer.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, given the vagueness of the "modern, mainstream" definition of paraphilia and the insistence on indisputability, I'd have to say somewhere between >0% and <100%. My main point is that the assertion that "the Kinsey interview doesn't include the paraphilias" is obviously false. BitterGrey (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Skipping over Bittergrey's continued baiting of me:

1. Irrelevant. Homosexuality is not a paraphilia.
2. Off-topic. "Sexual contact with a child" (the behavior) is not the same as pedophilia (the paraphilia).
3. Off-topic. Watching a movie "with sadomasochistic content" is not the same as sexual sadism (the paraphilia) or as sexual masochism (the paraphilia). Moreover, the question is not actually about sexual masochism nor about sexual sadism. That is, even if one did answer yes to the sadomasochistism question, would the reader conclude that the examinee is sadistic or masochistic?
4. Off-topic. Peeping (a routine prank) is not the same as voyeurism (the paraphilia).
5. Off-topic. Sexual contact involving an animal (mostly by rural adolescents in the 1940s) is not the same as zoophilia (the paraphilia).

I don't know what Bittergrey's use of "etc." refers to.

In sum: Bittergrey is asking to replace a questionnaire about the paraphilias with a questionnaire not about the paraphilias. The Kinsey questionnaire contains 4-5 questions that are (at best) semi-related to potentially paraphilia-related behaviors (but not about the paraphilias themselves), interspersed among several hundred questions that are entirely unrelated to paraphilias, whereas the EPES contains 104 questions directly related to nine specific, widely-recognized paraphilias (masochism, sadism, fetishism, cross-gender fetishism, core autogynephilia, pedophilia, hebephilia, voyeurism, and exhibitionism) and zero questions outside of the paraphilias. Thus, which will make WP the better resource for a person seeking extra information about paraphilias?: a set of nine complete questionnaires (including the reliability statistics for them) spanning all the major paraphilias or a general questionnaire in which a reader could find a partly relevant question after skipping 71 pages of documentation about how to fill out Kinsey's 1938 record form and culling the 5 maybe-relevant questions from the 300 irrelevant ones (none of which has any reliability statistics).

— James Cantor (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) "Etc." means that there are items not included on the list. For example, the question listed for zoophilia wasn't one of the six in the "Animal Contacts" section. This seemed fairly clear to anyone willing to accept it. After "the Kinsey interview doesn't include the paraphilias."[72] was shown false, the next argument is that it had only "4-5 questions that are (at best) semi-related to potentially paraphilia-related behaviors"[73]. I could easily find other questions relating to specific paraphilias, but suspect that they would be dismissed as flippantly. For example, sexual contact with children is alone enough to receive a diagnosis of pedophilia. Please note the "...or behaviors..." item in Criterion A[74]. The "...has acted..." phrase in Criterion B is hard to miss. This is according to DSM IV, written by the APA. To avoid becoming personal or assuming ill will, I won't go into speculations about why someone who claims to be a sexologist seems to be unaware of this. As for homosexuality no longer being considered a paraphilia, I believe we discussed this as one of the effects of the Kinsey survey, a few thousand words ago. However, I wouldn't be surprised if those who weren't following this conversation missed that part. BitterGrey (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to James Cantor about my comment on the EPES link not including any results: I didn't mean to indicate any prejudice in my comment. It was merely an observation in the event that either of you wanted to comment on the value of having results or not, which you have both effectively done. I don't think that an EL necessarily needs to have hard data to be meaningful, it depends on the specific situation.

I believe we have enough information at this point and I don't think it would be productive to continue the battle any further. Thank you both for your in-depth arguments. I will work over the next few days on packaging this into something manageable that we can get other opinions on. I have a full plate for the next 48 hours, but I'm sure this will still be here when I free up. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.— James Cantor (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that we also have a (terrible) article on kink_(sexual). The nutshell explanation here is that every paraphilia is also a kink, but not necessarily the other way around. Also, the article on paraphilias lacks a section on assessment instruments/questionnaires, which are almost certainly discussed in independent (of Kinsey Inst. or CAMH) secondary sources, so potentially both ELs suggested here can be discussed in text rather than have this tug of war over which is better in the very last section of the article, which seems less likely to be read anyway. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If this was a matter of someone adding sourced information on Freund's scale to the Kurt_Freund article, there wouldn't have been such a conflict. ( The self-cite guidelines are more liberal than those relating to COI ELs. ) As mentioned in the initial discussion [75], that article doesn't even mention Freund's scale.

Tijfo098, thanks for changing the heading on that first discussion from James Cantor's initial "Bittergrey's use of this page as a battleground for his POV"[76]. A tactic used in modern surveys is to ask similar questions and contrast the results to check for consistently. If the two answers are different, something is fishy. Any summary of these discussions should include a contrast of James Cantor's arguments there and here. At only three hours' duration, that discussion was inarguably more concise. BitterGrey (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this, I've just been very busy. I'll get back to it soon. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Before the above comment, this topic had been idle for eight days[77]. On this board, idle topics are archived after ten. BitterGrey (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why in the world do you think I posted the comment? I know perfectly well when the archiver kicks in. I hope you're not planning to use all the new anchors you just added, many of which duplicate mine. I can post the discussion topic anytime you want. The only thing still missing is the arguments for your proposed link, so you may want to rethink rushing me at this point. I do have a life. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I just bumbled in here because someone mentioned the noticeboard in relation to another matter. I haven't followed up other pages of this discussion so, if it's redundant, please forgive the waste of time. Of the 25 or so Google Scholar results for "Erotic preferences examination scheme," all but this are written or co-authored by Freund, Blanchard and/or Watson. The only assesment of the scheme I found on a Google Books search was this:

The Erotic Preferences Examination Scheme (EPES; Freund et al., 1988) is a self-report measure of a variety of paraphilic interests. It has been shown to discriminate between paraphilic and nonparaphilic individuals on a number of incices, and as such may indicate the presence of an uncharacteristic form of paraphilic behavior, if not the specific form itself. A more informative psychometric profile on this measure has not been reported in the literature.
– Tamara M. Penix, P. 427

.

Anthony (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To expand on Anthony's finding, the one Google book result includes five other self-report measures, as well as other categories of questionnaire, each with their own lists of questionnares. As discussed nearly a month ago[78], this EL might be acceptable as one of a long list of questionnaires but including it only or as part of a short list would give it undue emphasis. It is _a_ questionnaire, but by no measure _the_ questionnaire.

Upwards of 93 refs, 10,800 words, and counting. It is now over twice as long as the questionnaire in the EL being discussed (4,800 words). BitterGrey (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

George Burns used to joke that he wanted to live to be one hundred, because very few people died over a hundred. This coming Monday, this debate will be one month old. Even the person who posted the original EL has stopped paying attention and needed to be asked on his talk page to respond to a question here[79]. This reminder was four days after the most recent question[80] and thirteen days after his last comment here[81]. This debate might continue to grow older and longer. However, given that it hasn't reached a conclusion yet, it likely won't.

Out of curiosity, what is the longest EL/N debate ever? BitterGrey (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated addition of UN Portal links

A question for the experts: the links added by this new user, do they pass muster or not? I have removed one of them, at World Health Organization, along with a few other unrelated ones. I can't rightly figure out what those links are supposed to provide or what their function is in the EL section separate from the "main" links to the (mainly) UN-related articles the links are appended to. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems reasonable to assume that sarah.rattray@undp.org (the "For more information" email at the bottom of the page[82]) is user:SarahRattray, I'd say this is a COI EL inserted into multiple articles, some repeatedly, by a user who apparently does little more on Wikipedia than insert links to his or her webpage. I'd say that is a pretty clear no. BitterGrey (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Having a conflict of interest doesn't actually prohibit an editor from adding links. We even directly encourage them in some cases, such as thoughtful links from museums (see WP:GLAM#Links). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

hrbaportal.org does not appear to be a museum. The GLAM FAQ links back to WP:EL anyway.

To provide some background, Drmies, there are some in Wikipedia who are willing to permit so-called experts to use Wikipedia to promote themselves and their organizations, hoping that they will also contribute to the development of Wikipedia. As a result, posting and reposting one's personal blog to several articles might be OK for Dr. Someone but not for Mr. Someone. Others of us disagree, since this amounts to a PR bribe and would result in a double standard. The official Wikipedia guideline states "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide." This guideline clearly was not followed in this case. BitterGrey (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

See the relevant definition of "should". A person who owns, maintains, or represents a website "should avoid" linking the website. There is no rule that this person "must not" link the website. The rule is the same for experts and non-experts alike. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, give it a rest. All indications are that Drmies is correct in his interpretation and removal of the links. "the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article." Furthermore, "repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.". BitterGrey (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think most of the EL additions are terrible, even being that the probable site maintainer is adding them. Most of the articles deal with the UN and human rights and development. The site is official and is not a blog as well, so it holds some merit and is relevant. The the addition of links to the WHO, FAO, UNFPA and ILO articles could be removed IMO.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

<--Thank you all for weighing in. I had not noticed the name on the About page, though I browsed around a bit--I was still wondering precisely what those portals were. So there is a clear COI, that much is clear, but how nefarious that is is a matter of contention. If I could ask you all, should such a portal be treated as a "subset" of the main UN (etc.) page? (In the way in which we typically allow one main link, but no more separate links to part of that site.) I admit I am in the dark on that one, but I like to err on the side of caution and think that one link is enough, that the main site would somewhere link to these portals. Second, is it a useful source to link to for the reader of our article? I'm inclined to think they might pass muster. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd welcome others to share their thoughts on how official that website is. UN.org doesn't appear to mention hrbaportal.org[83] and it appears to only be available in English. BitterGrey (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a project of UNDP, and therefore appears on the agency-specific website (undp.org).

I am not convinced that it's a particularly useful link for the average reader of most articles. It appears to be aimed at someone who already knows what a "UN Practitioner" is. I might accept it at very closely related articles, but others, like United Nations, seem inappropriate. The main UN article should not be a directory of UN-related websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(editconflict)

Seems to be official, in that this page and this page at the UNDG links to them prominently, as does this page at UNROL (Rule of law#United Nations), and other UN sites.

However, the links are really only helpful where they are to specific subpages. Eg this addition is helpful, whereas some of the links just to the site's homepage might not be (eg this one).

Regarding how to interpret the "rules": context is everything. The rules (on wiki, and in life) are written to help prevent people from doing harmful things. The extreme and obvious example here, being the blatant spamming of a commercial website. In less clear-cut cases, the context needs to be examined (as with GLAM sites). In this particular situation, all we probably need is a few polite sentences to the user in question, explaining some of these viewpoints (or her acknowledgment that she has read this thread).

The end goal is building an encyclopedia, not enforcing the letter of guidelines. (That's the whole point behind WP:IAR). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Right--and let's face it, often one person's spam is the other person's useful information. Policy may not help us much here, but we could surely reach a consensus--though it might be without the original contributor, since they seem not so willing to enter this conversation. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Drmies, between Quiddity and myself, we've covered the range of possible policy positions. The trend among other editors seems to be that some of the ELs might stay and some should go. I'd say that it would be a safe move to take the initiative and remove any of the ELs you don't think belong. BitterGrey (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As long as the various perspectives are understood, then I'd say that: the majority of the links to the root page could be removed, and the remainder of the links to specific-subpages at hrbaportal could probably be usefully retained (or turned into citations). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

LInks to gunknowledge.com

Resolved

A user has been adding links to quite a few articles that go to gunknowledge.com. For example [84] and [85]. The links are listed as a link to an owner's manual for various firearms. I just get a bit nervous when I see someone adding so many links to one site, and I don't even know if the manuals there are copyright violations, or if this is really linkspam, etc. Looking for some input. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to call it like I see it. I think it's linkspam. They are adding it on massive amounts of pages and placing it above the official website for these products. The hosting of these manuals appears to be questionable, at best, with regard to copyright issues. I'd remove them. That said, in one of the example links above, the user did replace a link that needed removed (the forum), so I'd keep an eye and make sure I remove all inappropriate links, not just revert the addition of this link. --13² 18:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding lots of manual links because they don't currently exist. An owners manual is a pretty important piece of information to be included in an article. The forum link I removed was irrelevant, it linked to a generic manufacturer forum that didn't did any specific information on that particular model. Otherwise, we should include a link to every forum that has topics on that article entry??? Forums that slightly cover an article shouldn't be listed in the external link section, but owners manuals should. They are directly relevant, and often not available from manufacturer sites. There is no copyright violation, companies send them out freely for liability purposes. K-Swift (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I misread your comment about the forum, please disregard that part. K-Swift (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that forum link. In general, links to internet forums should be removed per WP:ELNO#EL10, so if you run across any more, even if they're not as obviously irrelevant as that one, please feel free to remove them.

I agree that manufacturers normally want to have safety information distributed as widely as possible (which makes you wonder why they're not posting the manuals on their own websites). However, that doesn't change the fact that the manuals are copyrighted by the company. It's sort of like a politician giving a speech: Even if the politician would like to get a copy into every voter's hands, it's still his (or her) speech, so if you want to run the whole thing in your newspaper, you have to get permission from the politician. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to do a couple of things. Re the manual links, I started replacing links with direct links to manufacturer manuals on their websites where I can find them. I suspect more of them are available. It's a good idea to always check for that first. Re the copyright issue, I think we need to find out whether we're allowed or not. If they have copyright, then I don't think we can link to them on some third-party site based on WP:ELNEVER. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for External Link on Wudang Chuan

I have been working on the Wudang Chuan page for years. I get nothing but resistance when I try to dichotomize the Chinese martial arts into Wudang and Shaolin. This current link supports what I am trying to convey as the way Chinese define and dichotomize their martial arts: http://www(DOT)expo2010china(DOT)hu/index.phtml?module=hir&ID=767 Can I get a clearance to use this single page as a "modern Chinese usage" reference ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyKirchhoff (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That article seems to be more dedicated to planning a trip to the expo than on cataloging the various styles of Chinese martial arts. The EL itself might be OK, but it might not work as a reference to support your point. Please be aware that headers like "Before You Change This Page" and phrases like "I have been working on the Wudang Chuan page for years" suggest a sense of ownership that isn't in line with wikipedia policy. BitterGrey (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where any of the material in the article has very much, or anything at all, to do with the Expo. My request for the link was to strongly reference how the Chinese dichotomize THEIR martial arts. Please enlighten me with the correlations you see, and how you believe the article fails to catalogue Chinese martial arts. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is the title "World Expo Shanghai", or the article's original title, "Kungfu Expo". To take a step back, Wikipedia has external links to provide information not included in the article. It is clear the you are trying to affect the article content with this. This is done using reliable sources which are covered by a different guideline than external links. The reliable sources noticeboard is here but you also might want to consider the discussing this at the relevant project page here first if you haven't discussed this there already. BitterGrey (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Linen - commercial links

I'd like some advice. I reverted a new user's addition of a link as COI, as she was clearly the webmaster of the site, and it was part of a company website. She's asked why her link was removed, when others on the page were of the same standing. She has a point. Could someone take a look at these sites and see if they are acceptable as external links (i.e. they are not overly promotional)? The first is a museum, but its only informative link seems to be to a list of companies.

• Living Linen Archive
• History of Irish linen
• Irish Linen - The Fabric of Ireland
• History of linen

Many thanks, VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just edited the article and removed the "Living Linen Archive" link because it seemed low value to me. The other links could be argued about, but they seem reasonable, and good enough to not worry. That includes the "History of linen" link which is not currently in the article and is the link recently added and removed. In principle, each link could be used as a reference (if reliable) for useful information, or if nothing useful that is not already in the article, the link should be removed. At any rate, that could be left to the article talk page as it does not look a problem to me. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Aside from Johnuniq, "History of linen" is the Artisan Euro website which mainly sells products, I would remove that one. "History of Irish linen" is the Thomas Ferguson Irish Linen website, which is a company that sells linen as well. I would remove that one. "Irish Linen - The Fabric of Ireland" points a user to linen producers but the website appears to be for a historical record society. So, I think it has encyclopedic value and doesn't warrant immediate removal. Its description can we worded differently.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't quite see the difference between "Irish linen - the fabric of Ireland" and the other two sites. This site is also set up to market linen. The artisan site is a courtesy link to extracts a book written on linen. The advantage of the artisan link is that it isn't so Irish focussed. I suppose what I would like is clarity on what criteria to apply to separate good external links that are attached to commercial sites (and all three of the acceptable ones have good information) from opportunistic marketing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

With "Irish Linen - The Fabric of Ireland", I didn't see the website directly selling linen and it seems to exist for my encyclopedic purposes. For the others, if the sites main goal is to market their linen and they have a little history section, that is a different story. It promotes the website and its marketing.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Levee

Had this posted on my talkpage yesterday, had a quick look myself to see if there were any problems. I couldn't find anything blatantly wrong, though I'm listing here to get a second opinion. Below is the original message:

Dear Acather96, I just added a very good link on an engineering trick the flood engineers used to protect the river levees against seepage and collapse. And to be honest, with the exception of my new ex link, only one other ex link deals with the construction and history of levees. The rest of the links are agenda driven and are hijacking the page or politics and the New Orleans flood. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The user has a point. I removed the New Orleans links, one was a petition, the others were promoting some site or agenda. The Delta Works is already wikilink'd in the article, so I removed that EL as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Justia

A bot removed my link to a docket page at Justia in an article about a court case. Did I do something wrong? Boo the puppy (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not, although I'm not sure that typical readers really care about the schedule for the court case.

XLinkBot plays the odds: In general, if a brand-new editor links to, say, MySpace, or some other website that has been previously identified as a common problem, then XLinkBot will revert it (once), on the theory that it's probably not a desirable link, because new editors can't reasonably be expected to know about the WP:External links and WP:Spam advice.

You don't need to worry about this incident: Your account won't be blocked, nobody's mad at you, and you can keep editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (And thanks for your welcome!) The reason I added the link is because the docket isn't just the schedule, it's a set of links to all the filed briefs in the case, which are interesting if a reader wants to see the underlying arguments and the complaint in the lawsuit. Boo the puppy (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Facebook

I noticed that Facebook utilizes Wikipedia images. The first image on the top of an article will show up on a FB "Page" or as a pop-up thumbnail/icon at a link. I also noticed that when an image is added to an article, it doesn't show up on FB right away. Are the delays because the image needs some kind of approval? If a FB "Page" has a title that is redirected to another Wikipedia title, will the image (from the article you are redirected to) show up on FB (seems to) ... and, if not, can an image be placed on the redirect that will? (even though it would not normally be seen on Wikipedia ... due to the redirect) J-klem (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC) [ Hyacinth (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)]

I have no idea. I don't think this is the appropriate area for such a questions as well. I am not sure where you can go on WP to find out how FB mirrors the articles. Was this comment transcluded from somewhere else? --NortyNort (Holla) 12:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Open wiki?

This wiki, meritbadge.org, allows anyone to sign up for an account and edit, after their email address is confirmed. It says it has over 8,000 users. Any thoughts about whether this is an acceptable link, per WP:ELNO?   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you are still around Will. Since editing is restricted to registered users only, it is closed in a sense, although it could be more closed. I glanced through it and it looked stable, without any signs of vandalism, edit wars, etc. Some of this stability might be due to the absense of controversial topics. In my opinion, it shouldn't be excluded due to ELNO #12. BitterGrey (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If giving them a disposable e-mail address is sufficient to make changes, then it's still an open wiki for our purposes -- but open wikis aren't absolutely excluded.

However, I count just nine active editors in the last two weeks, which I'm not sure really rises to the level of "substantial number of editors". (For comparison, WOWwiki typically has that about many active editors every two hours.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

BitterGrey, my understanding of a "closed" Wiki is one which requires specific approval or an invitation from the sysop. With this wiki, it appears that account approval is automatic so long as the email is validated.   Will Beback  talk  00:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Worldcat - spam?

Is this spamming? or legit?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Worldcat isn't a commercial organisation as far as I can tell. It looks very similar to IMdB being a good EL for movie stars.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Worldcat is run by a consortium of libraries. They recently added pages for specific authors, which is what the editor is adding links to. I agree that it's comparable, though more reputable, than IMDB.   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL doesn't have separate standards for commercial and non-commercial sites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The analogy isn't perfectly apt, but it looks sort of like a DMOZ-for-books page. I think I'd give it a pass... subject to all the usual issues, e.g., it doesn't result in too many ELs in the article, editors at the page aren't objecting, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:commercial - fair enough, I wasn't clear what I meant: they're not trying to sell you anything, which does matter in EL policy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mineral Museum Madness

Looking for additional opinions on whether or not to include the Mineral Museum Madness Blog in the EL section of the new-ish article Arizona Mining and Mineral Museum...

The inclusion or non-inclusion of the link is not clear-cut. This is a blogspot blog, but it's maintained by a named person[86]. The blog owner is a supporter of the museum that is the topic of the article. He established the blog to oppose a recent state government decision to convert this state-operated mineral museum into a history museum. The blog postings are largely opinion, but they include some news content, and the blog creator has included some background information pages that I find informative. It seems to me that this blog adds unique value to the article. Although there are three other ELs in the article (official websites for the mineral museum and two nonprofit organizations formed to support the mineral museum) that are good information sources to supplement the article, none of them has current information about the status and future prospects of the museum -- and they are unlikely to provide up-to-date information on changes that occur in the coming months.

The link was first added by an anon (another anon also has added it at Polly Rosenbaum Building, where it doesn't really fit), and it's been batted back and forth a bit (deleted by a bot, re-added by me with the edit summary "restoring minumad blog; it's a signed blog with a fair amount of relevant information; it's not RS, but I think it's OK under WP:EL" and deleted by SarekOfVulcan with the edit summary "not sure a criticism blog is suitable here"). I think we need some additional opinions. --Orlady (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not too much to say beyond what I already did. I'd also love to hear some more opinions on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #11 states that we should avoid: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" So, I think the decision on whether to keep it or delete it rests more on who the author of the blog is than on what he says. Blogs are by definition opinion pieces... and we have to ask whether this specific person's opinions are worth pointing our readers to.

Also... I am not sure whether WP:NPOV applies to linking ELs ... but if it does, we also have to consider whether linking to this blog would give the author and his opinion undue weight (and it might be resolved if we balanced it with a website that presents the opposite POV... for example, a blog from a historian who supports the conversion) Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

[EC: Composed before seeing Blueboar's changes to his comment] Regarding the desire to counteract this with websites from the other side, it's unlikely that there is going to be any web content that is both relevant to the mineral museum article and expresses opinions opposing its continued existence. The other side (which is led by the governor of Arizona) are supporters of creating the Arizona Centennial Museum; if they have blogs (not that I've found any), their focus would be on cheerleading and fundraising for their proposed new museum, not trashing the old one. Thus, their opinions would belong in the nonexistent article about their proposed museum, not in the article about the museum they would eliminate. Ostensibly, the viewpoints of supporters of the Centennial Museum would be expressed on the Arizona Centennial Commission website (I found a blurb about the museum in a PDF on a Google-cached page from this website, but I can't find the same content on the actual current website) or the Arizona Historical Society website (the state gave control of the mineral museum to this organization; its website lists the Mineral Museum and links to the museum's official webpage on the website of the state agency that ran it previously; there also are some board minutes about plans for the new museum) or the Arizona Centennial Legacy website (no mention there of "Arizona Centennial Museum"). --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless the blog is run by a recognized authority, remove it per WP:ELNO #11. That's really all it boils down to. There are issues with NPOV too, which do extend to external links sections, but, bare bones, either it's written by a recognized authority or it's not. --13² 18:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Link to minor political party spammed (with added copyvio)

Srsm1820 (talk · contribs) is adding a link to the webpage of the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement with an Alexia rank of 21,010,742, which is pretty low. This seems purely promotional and has even been added to Category:1797 in Scotland. The username is also questionable. I've just noticed that the link on the category page is not to the home page, but to a copyvio copy of an article from the Independent, which probably is another reason not to use the link at all. Before I take any action, I'd like some comments. I'll notify the editor. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Physical exercise

I removed a link to this page from the article; an editor left me a note on my talk page saying they found it useful. The site isn't that spammy, but in my opinion it's also not that notable/reliable. Your opinions are welcome. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a valid, helpful external link IMO. Something a reader would certainly find useful. -- œ^™ 08:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me either. Unless I'm just missing something, I think it's fine to keep. --13² 21:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

William Boyd (writer) and youtube links

I have written a profile article on this writer, only to have it removed by an editor, Yoenit. Part of this profile contained youtube links, and the editor says on the talk page: With regards to the youtube links, I believe they violated wp:youtube, but if you disagree just say so and we can take it to the external link noticeboard. Yoenit (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Boyd_(writer)" Can someone review this and say if these links can be retained or not? Ivankinsman (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The YouTube links appear to be copyright violations of copyrighted interviews. We would do better to error on the side of caution and completely remove them. --13² 04:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal sites hosting files

According to WP:ELNO we say that we should not link to "blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.", but what if there is a section on a personal site that contains an archive of (in a specific case) electronic newsletters. It might be OK per WP:ELYES as it says "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work". It might still be OK according to WP:ELMAYBE since it "contain information about the subject of the article". // Liftarn (talk)

The possibility of serious WP:COPYLINK violations seems high. Unless the person who owns the blog also owns the (copyright to the) newsletter, then you should not link to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OSV.com

Yesterday, an editor added links to OSV.com, Our Sunday Visitor, to a number of Catholic-related articles, such as Sacrament, Stations of the Cross, and Tree of Jesse. I reverted them as linkspam, since they were mass-added, but another editor has restored a couple of them. I'd like some more opinions on the suitability of these links, please. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sarek, I concur with your reversal. These links are absolutely unsuitable--OSV is a commercial organization that cannot claim to speak for all Catholics, certainly not on doctrinal topics, even if the Sacraments article was written by Monsignor Francis Mannion. Besides, what do these articles add? But I'll spam a bit myself, by adding the Sacraments article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, folks. I'm one of those two editors and also OSV's web director. The other was Christine Meadows (Cameadows), who is our company librarian and probably our nicest employee. We definitely had no spamming intentions, though by definition, I now see how those edits were interpreted. SarekofVulcan sent me a form message after one of my restores to alert me to potential conflicts of interest. I respect that and also appreciate your objectivity in asking for others' input on whether or not links are suitable. I, of course, saw the links as adding value. And while I still recognize their value, I also understand now that new content should really be contributed to the Wikipedia articles themselves with links best used for citing references. With that in mind, we will be studying articles concerning our subject matter for ways to improve the articles themselves. And before we make any more edits, we will take more time to study Wikipedia etiquette, conduct, rules, etc. Thanks, Patrick Mardian (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, Patrick. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask at my talk page, and if I can't answer you, I can probably steer you in the right direction. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Patrick, let me state, for the record, that my strong remark above has nothing to do with the absolute value of your site--it's purely a matter of EL policy, which is pretty strict. And I can imagine that the articles that were linked to can be of great value to lots of people. All the best, Drmies (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd like to say that if every person at Wikipedia was as professional, thoughtful, and responsive as Patrick Mardian, then Wikipedia would be a better place. Thanks—all of you—for not letting this molehill turn into a mountain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding extenal links from fxwords.com

I find the links from fxwords.com useful but the site is blacklisted instead. While planning to put the external link on wikipage for Ichimoku Kinkō Hyō to the subpage 'ichimoku-cloud.html' from the fxwords site, I came to know about the blacklisting. I feel that the link can be considered amongst reliable sources and can be added as an external link. I wish for a discussion on the matter.Diptanshu^Talk 15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please add all new topics to any discussion page at the bottom of the page. Any topics added to the top of the page my be overlooked and may not receive any discussion. I have not had a chance to look at the link or why it was blacklisted yet, but I'll do so when I've got some time. --13² 18:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this the best place to discuss un-blacklisting a website? Is there another page that might be more useful? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The site is listed at meta:spam blacklist as being added in 2007 (related discussion). The site looks to have been spammed, and has not changed in content since 2007. This does not seem a candidate for whitelisting or removal from the blacklist. --Izno (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Discogs

I would like to know what is our stance on using Discogs as ELs for the music related articles. They are considered highly unreliable, and are generally a spamming link, since they donot provide anything extra to understand the article. I'm asking this as a user is continuously inserting the links in the Pre-Madonna article, against the usage of better reliable sources like Allmusic. We need a discussion and need to change WP:EL to reflect this. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Like imdb, it's generally not suitable as a citation, but if it offers any information beyond what we or another EL does have (or would ever have, if we're following EL very strictly) then it might be suitable as an EL.

There are many Featured Lists that link to (and sometimes cite) discogs, eg Phil Collins discography, Mariah Carey albums discography, Load Records discography, Faith No More discography, and Isobel Campbell discography. Some Featured Articles are promoted with Discogs citations or links, eg Fantasy Black Channel (though it has since been replaced with a better citation).

Regarding that specific Pre-Madonna article, [87] has details on the artwork and photography that neither we nor Allmusic contain. [88] has more details on the tracks' musicians. It doesn't seem like a problem, to link to the site for now.

So, similarly to imdb, if it doesn't contain anything pertinent and unique, then it shouldn't be linked, but if it does, then it can be. (Unrelatedly, I dislike both imdb's and discogs' recent redesigns. blech, AOLification)

Also, the items in the EL section should be formatted with these templates: {{Allmusic}} and {{Discogs release}}, not with citation templates.

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot for explaining. The reason the {{Allmusic}} template is not used is because the template is not updated to reflect the new urls for Allmusic. discogs I will add. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that you aren't required to use these templates—you can always choose to format external links by hand—but we would prefer that you didn't use the citation templates under ==External links==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Webcite.org

I have noticed a user adding links to webcite.org as backups of the actual links in articles. This was done in good faith, so this is not about that user or any other user that does the same. However, it looks to me as if in many cases, we are thus linking to copies of copyrighted material, posted there without permission of the owners of the rights. This is done to prevent dead links and the disappearance of linked content, but frankly, we shouldn't link to copyright violations to solve the problem of dead links. The site is linked to in some 1,700 articles, so this may be a significant problem. As this page indicates[89], "Copyright and license for all content archived by the WebCite® system are retained by the original authors of the archived pages. If you are the author of such a page, and would like its content removed, please contact us." they don't have the permission to copy these pages, but just wait for anyone to complain before removing anything. This is quite contrary to our policies, and comparable to things like Youtube, which are strongly discouraged in our EL guideline.

Should all, some or none of the Webcite links be removed? Has this been discussed before? Are there similar sites with the same problems? Fram (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Afaik that site is perfectly fine to use (as long as the original site that it is archiving was acceptable). Our documentation advocates using either webcite or archive.org, in numerous places, such as at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations, Wikipedia:Link rot, Wikipedia:Using WebCite, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup

These templates include a parameter that can use it: Template:Cite web (and most of the other [cite xxxx] templates), Template:MultiPageCiteArchive, Template:Citation

See also: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WebCiteBOT, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WebCiteBOT 2, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-06/Dispatches#Checklinks, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 26#What's the latest gossip on Webcitation.org?, Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 2#Removal of WebCite URLS, and many more.

So, it's equivalent to archive.org.

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thát does not make it right, Quiddity. We should not be linking to known copyright violations. If all those guidelines/policies/discussions advocate the linking to this site, and this site is regularly in violation of a copyright, then it might be time to actually update all those sites and push to a good deal of care in using them. That is in a way also what we do with YouTube - if it is a likely copyright violation, then the link goes, even if it is further useful.

In answer to Fram .. I would say, those which are a (likely) copyright violation might be good candidates for removal (or replacement by non-copyright-violating archive links). Although having a backup-link is good practice, not having them is not the end of Wikipedia, the backup link only becomes useful when the original is gone, which may not happen for a long, long time. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one US case that supports caching of web content as long as there is an opt-out clause (through robots.txt or a number of other methods) for web site owners to prevent caching. Thus, until we are told different, we cannot assume that Webcite, Google Cache, or archive.org are copyright violations and instead fall within fair use law. Thus, to remove webcite links claiming copyvio is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Masem, you mean, that even if one specific document on webcite.org is a copy of a document on the original site of that document (where it has a clear copyright statement that it should not be reproduced without the permission of the owner), and webcite.org does not have a clear description of the transfer of copyright of that specific document, then we still do not have the obligation not to link to thát clear copyright violation (I am strictly talking case-by-case, not site-wide)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, would you suggest that any problems with webcitation.org apply equally to archive.org's wayback machine? or does webcitation.org have circumstances that make it a different beast, that needs to be considered independently? We've been using them both for years, so we need to know whether we're discussing them both, or just one. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am reading from [90], "What about Copyright Issues?". The court case is specific to Google Cache, but the result of that states that there is an implied license to cache because it has opt-out methods (through several possible means) to block archiving - this creates an "implicit license" from the site being archive to allow archiving. Webcite.org further claim they have a stronger case for non-copyvio because they don't crawl (unless instructed to over a limited site range) and the purpose is for academic purposes -retaining voiltile web resources - strengthing the fair use laws. The counter-argument I'd use to say where copyvio comes into play is if a site archives everything from another site, ignoring any robots.txt-like instructions or clear requests to not archive.

tl;dr - whatever we do with webcite.org also should be applied to GCache and archive.org archive links. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To Beetstra - that's a harder case. From my academic background, I know every journal article had that language - but you can't deny common practice to xerox the article for your personal records/research. This falls into the claim of "fair use" for academic purposes that Website specifically calls out and that Google Cache was cleared for in the Nevada court case. Given this, I would still say the work is in the clear, as the court case calls for a computer-readable version to use for this "implicit license". --MASEM (t) 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Linking a Webcite page from a Wikipedia article definitely doesn't fall under "for your personal records/research" though... Fram (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure it does - we're building an educational/academic work, one of the specific stipulations of US Fair Use law. Given there is case law for this position, rather than a case where caching/archiving was found illegal, we should not consider these a problem. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How is posting a page on teh web for everyone to see (or, in our case, linking to such a page) the same as keeping something for personal record/research? That's the same as claiming that publishing a compilation of copyrighted non-fiction is "fair use" because it is intended for personal research. I don't believe that that would fly... Fram (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The court case found it acceptable in the case of Google Cache. [91]; as Webcite practices the same principles (including the ability to opt-out pre- and post-archiving, creating the implicit license), there's no reason to believe that Webcite practices anything different.

I will state that I would argue against webcite if this case did not exist because it is a questionable area of fair use as you are arguing. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Another data point is this case being argued about a newspaper, through a law firm, attempting to sue an organization when they included portions or in-whole articles from the newspaper about the organization. The judge in that case is ready to close against the newspaper, calling it a case of Fair Use. There is obviously a line that is drawn where it is Fair Use and where it is copyright infringement, but this strengthens the idea that copying articles as Webcite and archive.org do for academic purposes falls into Fair Use. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would indeed not call this 'fair use', nothing like that (that is intended for own use, not for general storage with public access). I am certainly against 'there is a copyvio here and there, so blacklist the whole site' (gets different if it is 'most is copyvio, with here and there an exception'), but I would consider care when finding those specific documents which are in violation, especially since the archive link is superfluous until the moment that the original dies .. which may not happen in a long time. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Long quote as part of an EL

• Frondel, Manuel (November 2009). "Economic Impacts from the Promotion of Renewable Energy Technologies — The German Experience" (PDF). Ruhr Economic Papers. RWI Essen. Retrieved 2010-11-26. We argue that German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country's energy portfolio. To the contrary, the government's support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This link and text is from Solar power in Germany#External links and including the long quote doesn't seem appropriate to me, and could be a way of trying to get around WP content policies (NPOV etc.)... Johnfos (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If the editor wanted it used as a source for content, they should have put the content in some form in the article and referenced it to this source. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

External links shouldn't be presented in citation templates like this. Is this supposed to be a reliable source that supports article content? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ELNO #9

I would appreciate some opinions of editors here on this edit. Am I being too exacting? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there some particular reason that the actual papers can't be directly cited as proof that they were published? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not really, except that the editor insisting on maintaining this link would then obviously be engaging in OR/SYNTH. --Crusio (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, fundamentally, the problem is that you're trying to apply EL to a question about an inline citation to article content. So IMO we (folks here at ELN) really don't have any business telling you what is acceptable: WP:EL says (repeatedly) that it doesn't apply to citations for article content.

However, speaking as an editor, rather than in the limited role of an ELN participant, I did wonder why the editor was so determined to present this information, despite an (apparent) lack of any WP:Independent source writing about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Crusio, I do think you're applying the rules a bit too strictly. What's wrong with it? You may be unfamiliar with this field and particular database. Let me explain: The Omnisterra database was set up and is still maintained in part by Jan Schlauer, a taxonomist, editor of Carnivorous Plant Newsletter, and author of many carnivorous plant species. As an expert on carnivorous plants, his database is widely used as a starting point and is often considered authoritative. It's even mirrored on the International Carnivorous Plant Society's website. As for linking directly to the search result, the user interface is a bit clunky and you need to know the exact search term to get the right results. Individual taxa are easy (e.g. enter "Drosera regia" here). A journal may use the abbreviation. I used Jan's database as a reference on my FA-class article Drosera regia (reference #15). In most cases, I think linking the way I did:

Schlauer, J. 2009. World Carnivorous Plant List – Nomenclatural Synopsis of Carnivorous Phanerogamous Plants. Retrieved 26 December 2009.

would be just fine. But with the oddity of the search for the journal, a direct link to the search result is more easy to verify. I would heartily defend its use in this case, citing WP:IAR if need be. The benefit outweighs whatever risk you perceive. Point is, the database is a reliable secondary source. To answer WhatamIdoing's question, I'm not sure all of the journal's articles are in pdf form and available online, though I haven't investigated that possibility. Anyway, why have a dozen separate (perhaps fewer if multiple taxa were described in the same article) links and references to primary sources when one authoritative, reliable secondary source will suffice? Rkitko ^(talk) 02:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply cite the original journal articles. Contrary to a widespread delusion, there is no obligation whatsoever to provide a URL for any citation. It's merely convenient to do so. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, printed (not online) references are just as valid. --Crusio (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

facebook groups and pages

There are hundreds or thousands of group links in facebook :

Group: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgroup.php

Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpage

Events: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fevent

Are these valid? should we start to remove them all? thanks James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Events should not be included as they are time sensitive. Group and Facebook pages are fine only if they are the official Facebook page for the subject of the article. --13² 00:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Event links might be okay if they are the official link for an article about the event itself. In addition to 13²'s point, there's another relevant rule: these links are acceptable only if they aren't prominently linked through another official page. So if you link SomeCharity.org, and that website has a big "Join us on Facebook" link, then you shouldn't also provide the Facebook link.

So—don't remove them all mindlessly, but do please start removing all of the non-compliant ones (which will probably be most of them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Embedded external links

Any views on this edit at Amazon Kindle (made by IPs 58.9.x.x)? I have removed it a couple of times because it seems excessively promotional to me, and because some of it involves external links embedded within the article, and because it uses domain amzn.to rather than amazon.com (I am told that amzn.to is a URL shortener operated by Amazon; assuming that's correct, I still think we should not use URL shorteners of any kind). Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. See WP:EL#Redirection_sites. Looks like it's my turn against the IP's promotional efforts... WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Slimeshrine

• slimeshrine

Normally this would qualify as a fansite not by a recognizable member, but I wanted to see if there should be any problem linking the website as an EL in Dragon Quest because it has a lot of useful resources including a comprehensive English listing of various material released for the franchise.陣内_Jinnai 16:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm torn. I didn't find the front page at all useful, but I can see why a comprehensive list of materials might be useful or interesting to some readers. Is there a deeplink that could be used? I could imagine a link that said, e.g., "Complete list of official Dragon Quest materials", but I don't think that dumping the reader at the front page is a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There are deeplinks that could be. The problem is, for the main article there are multiple such links. That first set of links has more that would be relevant than not. Even excluding the doujinshi (fan fiction), and general merchandise items which are common for any large franchise that still leaves 8-9 relevant deep links.陣内_Jinnai 01:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Any more ideas here?陣内_Jinnai 02:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If we were a web directory, sure. But we aren't. I see no reason to link to fansites without a particularly strong reason. DreamGuy (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this comment is relevant. A list of all the products sold by a company is not a web directory. Web directories link to other websites, e.g., so you can find all of the websites about X. DMOZ (which we permit) is a web directory; this fansite is not a web directory. Linking to one non-web-directory website would not make Wikipedia a web directory, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

External links vs. External media template in Themes in Avatar

There is an ongoing debate on the proper use of the External media template in the lead of Themes in Avatar. Some editors reckon that any external link in the body of an article is a violation of WP:EL policy, while others opine that the template's use is fully justified. Would any editor knowledgeable in the area consider helping bring the debate to a conclusion and hopefully to a consensus? Many thanks and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See this version of the article. The question is about the "External videos" box in the lead, which points the reader to the Charlie Rose (talk show)'s website.

They've got a WP:Requests for comments open. The primary question is whether this (particularly important) external link should be presented in the WP:LEAD (in a fancy box) rather than under ==External links== (possibly formatted like any other external link).

As the discussion has already started at the article's talk page, please leave your there, not here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No external links in the body of an article, period. Any template that does so should be changed or deleted. We are not a web directory, plain and simple. DreamGuy (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

ELs in an infobox

I'm wondering about external links which are presented, often near the top of an article, as part of an infobox. For example the infobox in Nature (journal) has three ELs in the Links section. It just looks a bit shabby to me and not encyclopedic. Johnfos (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Only the homepage should be in an infobox. One link max there, usually. DreamGuy (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there were six external links, not three, in the version under discussion. I'm not convinced that the particular two links that DreamGuy removed were valuable, but I'm also not willing to support a "one link maximum" rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

With regards to journals and publications, it is standard to link to the current issue, as well as the archives on top of the homepage. This is because (amongst other reasons) that journals are very often linked from {{cite journal}} templates, and a reader who reaches, say, Nature could be very interested in getting a specific issue/article. If you want to remove these links, the best venue to discuss it would be Template talk:Infobox journal, but I highly doubt you'll gain consensus to remove these, as they are high-value links. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to focus on any one type of infobox. I'm trying to raise the general issue of infoboxes with a designated "Links" section which contains multiple external links. Seems like unnecessary and unencyclopedic clutter to me... Please keep in mind Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), which says:

...keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.

-- Johnfos (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We may need to focus on specifics, because of the diversity of infoboxes. I doubt, for example, that any rule we chose while looking at {{Infobox company}} (usually contains exactly two external links: one stock exchange and one corporate website) would make any sense at all when applied to {{Infobox protein}} or {{Infobox disease}} (can contain a dozen external links, and often contain little else). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Pertaining to articles about academic journals (in general), and in agreement with Headbomb, the links to the homepage, online access, and journal's archived articles are useful. It is not always apparent where the online access to the journal can be located. Furthermore, it is not always apparent where the archives are located. This actually applies even more to archives. Also, an external link to a related Society website (homepage) is relevant. So, please look at this from the point of view of an interested reader, our audience. The reader of the article can access these parts of the journal more easily with the links provided. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

SAQ external links inside article

It has been pointed out to me that WP guidelines and policies might forbid the external links in the body of the article Shakespeare authorship question. Most of the links are in the history section and go to Google book pages of the book being discussed, as in this example:

• Francis Bacon was the first alternative author proposed in print by William Henry Smith in a pamphlet published September 1856, Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shakspeare's Plays? A Letter to Lord Ellesmere. The following year Delia Bacon, with the help of Nathaniel Hawthorne, published her book outlining her theory, The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakspere Unfolded.

The links are simplified by being stripped of their search terms, and most of them go to complete, free, readable copies of the book. They were put in to let readers easily access the book.

Should these be taken out? If so, should they be put in a section at the bottom? The article is currently in WP:PR in anticipation of an FA attempt, and if they need to be cut Id rather do it now than later. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason these links can't just simply be turned into cited sources instead of floating externals? --13² 02:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Most all of them are fringe sources. The entire article is sourced by secondary reliable sources for the first time in its contentious history. I thought it would be a convenience for the reader who wanted to know more about the books, since the article doesn't have the space to go into detail about them, nor does it need to. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If they were available on Wikisource, then you could link to them inline, e.g., s:Was Lord Bacon the author of Shakespeare's plays? (a dead link, despite its appearance).

Although I personally dislike this sort of in-text link, this is one of the least offensive uses of it that I've seen for a long while. If you weren't looking at FA, I might say you should consider WP:Ignoring the rule in this instance (assuming any other editors at the article support it). But I doubt that the folks at FA would permit it; they have a reputation of not believing in IAR. (For a much more informed opinion about the likely views of FA participants, you might ask User:SandyGeorgia.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I can do that with some of the poems, and those poems that aren't there I can add to WS. The books I'll just add a ref with the book title and link (I really didn't understand at first what was meant by using it as a ref). Thanks for all the advice. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Propriety of linking to WikiLeaks 'released' documents

See prior discussion at WP:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Dispute_as_to_linking_to_declassified_material

Moved from WP:AN 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the current consensus from admins in regard to links made to specific documents on WikiLeaks?

An informal discussion on IRC was suggesting that it would NOT be appropriate to link to WikiLeaks because the site contains materials which have not been subject to formal declassification, or which represent copyright violations.

Before starting a de-link effort for a site that is controversial, I wanted a very very clear consensus. Sfan00 IMG 14:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There is now a 'temporary' list of External links containing the string 'wikileaks' at User:Δ/Sandbox 4 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think links to WL should be bulk-removed; almost every instance is a clear breach of WP:LINKVIO. – iridescent 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything on Wikileaks was created by Federal Employees in the conduct of their jobs. They are clearly in the public domain. There is no copyright infringement to speak of. Therefore, linking to them is most certainly not a violation of the linkvio policy. Raul654 (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Iridescent. Horologium (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Iridescent too. Violations galore, not to mention possible legal repercussions. Delink. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Most of the Memos are works of the US federal government or its employees acting in official capacity. Thus, they are public domain. Whether they are classified or not should not concern Wikipedia. Linking to them is neither illegal not immoral. If it is appropriate should be decided on a case-by-case basis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Classification is entirely relevant. Our policy isn't "Don't link to copyright violations", it's "Don't link to pages which illegally distribute someone else's work". Since en-wiki operates under US law, in which dissemination of classified material almost certainly counts as "illegal distribution" (it hasn't gone to court yet, but there's a reason Assange never sets foot in the US), it's a chance we shouldn't be taking. – iridescent 15:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My law is shaky in this area, but it is definitely an area we work in so I asked about the office - it is not illegal to publicly disperse secret material once they have been leaked. i.e. those documents are now considered "public access". However; there are problems with verifying the content and with primary source concerns. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Diktat in my office was that viewing the leaked material potentially 'contaminated' your (assumedly) unclassified computer with classified material. That computer would therefore have to be certified as purged of the material before you could go back to business as usual. I don't expect that is a problem for Joe the Plumber on his laptop at home, but could present a problem for anyone who works in an environment similar to mine. Syrthiss (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Iridescent. —J04n(talk page) 15:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur 100% with Stephan - linking to the memos is neither illegal nor immoral. The only thing affecting our decision to link to them is whether or not it improves an article. Raul654 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - and in that regard, wouldn't inferring anything from the original documents constitute original research? Better, I think, to link to a news article or other piece that analyzes the original material, or to articles that discuss its impact. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are OK to use as long as you do it carefully. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.. Raul654 (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And this is the point where I would say... I'm unconvinced that Wikileaks is an inherently reliable source; so would suggest that only documents recognized/mentioned by/verified in other sources (i.e. those with editorial control and recognised as reliable) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's rather hard to verify the documents without comparing them to the originals, and that's rather unlikely given the classified nature of the cables. I think you're setting up a catch-22. Raul654 (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment If it is legal per legal advice link to it. If it is illegal do not. I do not see this as being immoral. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Non-Admin Comment - Linking to public domain Govt documents should not in and of itself present an issue, the question is, do we consider WikiLeaks a Reliable third-party Source? What level of fact checking and journalistic integrity do they have (as a random website that was little-known until fairly recently, versus, for example, the Associated Press)? Can we assume that wikiLeaks constitutes a reliable source in that the documentation they have presented is a factual, accurate, unedited and uncompromised representation of original Government documents? Personally, I don't trust them any more than any other random website with an unstated but obvious agenda but that's not for me to decide. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we can safely assume that the leaked documents are authentic and undoctored. If it was otherwise, we would definitely have heard it by now. (Fox News would be shouting it from the rooftops) On the other hand, many of the observations in the documents may be erroneous (such as the speculation by one diplomat that Mommar Gaddafi was going to get rid of his female bodyguards). That is the nature of a primary source. Raul654 (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Totally IRRELEVANT! The Wikileak versions of the sources are the topic of interest of reliable sources. If they were all fakes it would not matter a bit. Even if it was shown that they are fakes we would still have the articles. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• We should be able to safely link to the NYT/Guardian/etc. pages that Wikileaks sent them; i.e. this. I suggest everyone also read the NYT's explanation of deciding to publish the cables. But I would not link to the Wikileaks pages themselves for now. We should request the WMF's current (stand-in/assistant?) General Counsel to advise us in this situation, though; I'm sure they will be able to explain this issue better. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, and should prove instructive for future releases as well. Who really expects this to be the last such release from Wikileaks? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree the linking is not immoral and from what I understand they are not copyvios either so it is not illegal either. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Let's let the actual wikipedia lawyers make that decision. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No, let's not. It works the other way round. If the foundation lawyers have a concern, they can state it. We do not assume publication is illegal unless being told otherwise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Once again I concur with Stephan - we've never asked the Foundation lawyers to preemptively get involved. I'm sure they don't want us to, and we sure-as-hell shouldn't. Raul654 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Disagree; the community has a specific concern which they can give an expert opinion on --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not suggesting passively waiting, but actively asking. I would hate to see wikipedia shut down just because a few non-lawyer editors here think that leaked government info should somehow be OK. Now, if it's in the New York Times already, that could be a different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Im not an admin but these documents do not seem to meet the Copyright violation criteria. They were created by US Government federal employees in the course of official business and therefore not eligible for Copyright protection. The information has for the most part been released as written by those government employees, Wikileaks doesnt claim copyrights over them, and the government has stated repeatedly that news agencies cannot be penalized for releasing the info (only the source they got it from, i.e. the employee that leaked it). Although I admit that there is some debate wether wikileaks is a news agency but aside from that I say we should allow them. Since the New York times and a number of other more reliable sources has copies and posted or written about a lot (and will continue to do so for some time I imagine) the important information will make its way here from them as well (and they will expand on it and clarify as more information about the various issues becomes available) which will provide futher verifiability. --Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) I'm not sure where you're making the distinction here, Bugs. There's a huge problem with linking to material leaked from a government, but only if it's the only source of the material? Why does it matter if other outlets have also reported the same information? And is there actually a legal reason why we shouldn't link to wikileaks? There seems to be a pretty good case here that there is not. If the WMF legal team informs us otherwise then fair enough, but why bring up an issue if there's no reason to believe it actually is a legal issue? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
            • It's always best to be proactive, and the wiki legal eagles should be asked first. That's why they get paid the big bucks, to answer questions like this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Please note that things that are not copyvios may still be illegal. For example, I read earlier that the U.S. government is looking into the possibility of prosecuting Julian Assange due to this release. This thread is not over the copyvio (I think it's clear that they're not copyrighted) but over their classified status, and therefore, should we link to them/is it ethical and/or to do that? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should cite to the primary wikileaks documents. If something is notable and worthy of reporting then it will be reported at secondary locations, such as the NY times and suchlike. This position will also protect us from charges of reproduction of primary classified documents obtained without permission. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this thread about linking to wikilinks, citing it, or both? As mentioned by others above, I don't think we can consider anything inferred from primary documents like these as anything other than original research, as being the interpretation of whichever editor(s) involved in adding the references. Opinions expressed in the media, on the other hand, allow us to report the media's response, response of experts who have published opinions, etc. That's an entirely seperate issue to the (non-)issue of whether we should link to wikileaks for ethical reasons or whatnot. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) There's a world of difference between publishing leaked documents and simply linking to a site which publishes them, imo. I don't see any ethical issues, either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's like providing porn and simply telling someone where to find it. Not good either way. Of course, the cables aren't porn, but they may be illegal (and they were illegally obtained; the U.S. military official who leaked them is being investigated/prosecuted). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Stephen and Raul. If Wikimedia's legal council comes back saying this is a bad idea, then we remove. Unless they do, then I do not buy "possibly illegal" as a reason to remove. As such, links to the leaked documents should be treated case by case: does the EL add value? If yes, keep, if no, remove. Also, since when was such decisions an "admin only" thing? All editors have the right to weigh in with equal merit given to their viewpoints. Resolute 16:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is this discussion being had here [at WP:AN — WhatamIdoing (talk)] rather than at the Village Pump? A mass delinking campaign (except removal of obvious violations etc.) should have the consensus of Wikipedians in general, not just the admin corps. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Uncertain about the venue, but Agree that this isn't just a question for "admin consensus". I believe at least half of the contributors here have been non-admins anyway, though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I should mention that the US government just posted a notice to all military, federal civilians and contractors that they should not be accessing the Wikileaks servers from their home or work and that they wer being monitored. That the information is still considered classified since it has not been declassified by appropriate authority and that accessing said material could constitute a violation or "spillage". So in light of this news I thougth I would mention it here. Also, the wikileaks founder (for other reasons than posting the info) has been added to Interpols most wanted list in Europe. --Kumioko (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

---

• Remove links - Not copyvio or the like, but that the reliability of Wikileaks is not established - who knows how many of these documents are truly official items. Coverage of what is in the leaked info through reliable sources like NYT/etc. is completely acceptable, but not direct from WL itself. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Remove links Whether copyvio or not, these are all primary sources and using them amounts to OR and SYNTH. If someone would like to argue that some policy review would be a secondary source, I think it cannot be seen as a reliable source, because there has been no peer review or similar. --Crusio (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • these are all primary sources and using them amounts to OR and SYNTH. - the NOR policy explicitly permits the use of primary sources. To wit: Policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them... The fact that these cables are primary sources doesn't rule out their use on Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Umm if you read it the instruction you provided goes on to state that primary sources can be used if used carefully and then further descibes when it can be used. After reading it, the wikileaks documents seem to fit the criteria as a valid source that can be used. --Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • After reading it, the wikileaks documents seem to fit the criteria as a valid source that can be used. - - Yes, I agree. Raul654 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Remove links - as above, primary site for the content and no verification of reliability. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • We're talking about external links here, not about using Wikileaks as a source. --Conti|✉ 17:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • While the original question was about EL, I think we also need to consider the citing aspect of these. For example, with the news today that WL has documents that suggest China would want Korea united under SK rule, I would be worried about people using WL to source that at People's Republic of China – South Korea relations. The secondary coverage of WL's findings (eg [92] from CBC for one) would be appropriate to include as a citation, and specifically acknowledging that this is based on WL's leaked documents. As for EL, I would not use any links because they would not add anything to articles from an assured source - it would be akin to including forum posts or rumor speculation, due to the unreliable nature of WL. The same reasoning why they should not be cited. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • If we need to consider them as potentially reliable sources, I suggest that we not re-home this discussion to a third or fourth forum, but instead invite the folks at WP:RSN to join us here. In the meantime, editors can help by being explicit about any comments that apply specifically to WikiLeaks under the ==External links== heading, vs WikiLeaks as ==References==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• I disagree that we should remove them based on copyvio, their classified nature, or some sort of moral/ethical reason. But I agree with Masem and Crusio, the documents are primary sources of unknown origin. They shouldn't be used as a reference for anything except content about themselves. As for use as a non-reference external link, that would be something to decide on a case-by-case basis. As such, mass automated delinking is not the way to go about this. Mr.Z-man 17:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Remove case by case - As I mentioned above I do not feel that these documents or linking to them is inherently evil, I dont think there original research but I also dont think they are all credible and referencable. If they appear as external links I am ok with that so mass delinking is the wrong approach but I also think that they need to be verified. Perhaps we need a method of tagging these. --Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• comment We know from some of the commentry around Intellipedia that wikipedia contains material that is so highly classified that bits of the CIA thought that other bits of the CIA shouldn't have it. Diplomatic cables are slightly lower on the scale.©Geni 20:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep links. Newspapers all over the place link them without problems, if in doubt, ask legal advice. If a legal green light is on, it is quite obvious that the leaked cables are considered reliable by both governments and newspapers, and so we can safely consider them a reliable source (primary or secondary, it depends on how it's used). --Cyclopia^talk 20:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Judge on a case-by-case basis. The documents are not copyvios. They are probably not some other form of illegal. As such, they should be treated like any other external link and judged on the merits of each use. --Carnildo (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Do not cite from WikiLeaks—we don't know if the material is true or not, not a reliable source. External links can be decided on a case by case basis, but they should be tagged in case WikiLeaks shuts down due to legal reasons. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove en masse, and warn then block violators: things are designated as classified for a reason. Providing access to said documents is improper to begin with; linking to them is an additional violation. Continuing to link is worse. Blacklist as needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ouch, point of view much? Bwilkins, I've always thought of you as a level headed guy, but you seem to have a strong "counter to policy" view on this :) (notably: WP:NOTCENSORED and the legal aspect) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• No citation BUT allows EL's on a case by case basis. These are unavoidably primary resources and impossible to verify. We must allow secondary sources to do that. As to external links; I can't see an issue, so long as our usual WP:EL policy is met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmorton166 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Assess on a case-by-case basis, as we would with any link. No need to mass-delete, and the warn/block idea above is definitely too much. We shouldn't over-react and automatically toss out what could be useful information. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• No. If the Climategate emails are protected because they were stolen, then I hardly see the difference here. If anything this case is far worse. Arzel (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Climategate materials are protected by copyright, whereas US Government cables would not be. Official cables may be protected by secrecy laws, but official secrecy ends onces something ends up before the public. (You can prosecute the people who leaked it to the public but not the people that use it afterwards). Dragons flight (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Climategate emails were voided as being primary sources first and copywrite second. However, the emails were not actually copywrite material (not sure how that logic ever came to be). Regardless, the information was stolen, so I don't see how we could possibly use it. Arzel (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The talk page linked above says that links are avoided on the basis that they are copyrighted, not any more expansive theory. Unfortunately, there are specific laws and treaties regarding "contributory copyright infringement", though I certainly hope that the ridiculous make-believe security measure of not linking to documents that are easily found will not stand up even in that case. But that's not the situation here anyway.
      • Now I should also point out that where sourcing is concerned, as far as I know the Climategate e-mails were never really verified as genuine. There wasn't really any way to verify them, except having someone at the research center go through all the employees' e-mails and check that they matched the leaked version and report that to the press. But these diplomatic cables were relatively widely distributed in government circles, and their authenticity is undisputed in the press reports. A leaked unverified e-mail from one researcher is much more "primary" than a leaked official report from an embassy. Wnt (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
        • The climategate emails were almost entirely within public universities recieving state and federal funds, so from a supposed copywrite issue under the venue of public property they are the same. All of the Climategate information was available through FOI requests because the research was/is being paid for with public monies.
        • The verifiability of the Climategate emails are no more or less than these cables. Let me ask you exactly how is anyone going to be able to verify that any of these cables are true? The primary sources certainly aren't going to verify them because they are all classified information. The only way to verify that these cables are correct is to FOI them to see if they match up with the reported cables. Arzel (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I can't re-argue the whole Climategate issue here; besides, if they were public domain, then it only means that decision was clearly wrong. I'll say that I would be very happy indeed if all the research publications currently in journals coming from universities receiving state and federal funds were considered to be public domain. Unfortunately "when pigs fly" is what comes to mind. I'll also say that because so many of the cables are being investigated by journalists, who have other confidential sources besides Wikileaks to verify specific facts, I trust that any substantial frequency of fabrication would soon be discovered.
• Use on a case-by-case basis. I agree with Stephan above. There is no copyright issue here since the cables were made by the US Government, and there is no (legal) secrecy issue since protections for official secrets apply only the initial leak and not to redistribution of content that is already public. The only remaining question is whether linking to the cables themselves would be useful / relevant / reliable, etc. That's an editorial question that should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Aside from articles discussing the leak itself, I suspect that secondary sources would usually be more useful than these primary sources, but again, that's something to look at on case-by-case basis. I see no need a blanket judgment here. Dragons flight (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep all the links. The strong consensus is that this isn't a copyright violation. The claim that they should be removed because an official said he was investigating legal options is unreasonable - if we removed links to everything that might be illegal, every newspaper article in every BLP would be removed as potential libel. And I have no idea what law, if any, would ban links to documents subject to hypothetical charges - this is not "contributory copyright infringement". If there were such a law, maybe saying "you can find them at Wikileaks" or citing a New York Times article that mentions them is already illegal. After all, that's how they do things in oppressive totalitarian regimes. Now as for using them, good editing practices apply: people should not say "China wouldn't mind South Korea taking over North Korea", like all the newspaper headlines have been doing. They should say "a leaked diplomatic cable said that the South Korean interior minister said that China wouldn't mind..." in order to warn the reader that this is just wishful thinking. Wnt (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• As others have pointed out above, the material in question is in the public domain and not a copyright violation, so linking to it is not a violation of our external links guideline. While some of the material may be highly embarrassing for certain political figures, it is still verifiable and continues to be widely covered by mainstream journalists. Whether it was ethical for the material to be leaked in the first place is a philosophical debate which could be argued from many different angles.

  Wikipedia itself is comprehensive, is not censored, and often contains material which some groups consider offensive or harmful. I see this particular incident as a repeat of what happened here on Wikipedia with past "scares" such as the AACS encryption key controversy in May 2007 [93] [94] [95], The Pirate Bay trial in April 2009 [96] [97] [98], etc.

  The sky isn't falling. There is no policy driven reason to "remove all the links", and there is no reason to panic because of the controversy and media coverage, so let's avoid a knee-jerk overreaction. I'm beginning to think this is something that should be added to our list of perennial proposals. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• No need for mass removal. They are primary sources and should be treated as such. So any usage of these as secondary sources should be rectified, but otherwise, as I gather from this discussion that there are no copyright issues here, I don't see any problem with linking to them as primary sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Accept or reject on a case-by-case basis As far as I can see these links are not inherently in contradiction with WP:EL unless it can be shown that the material is illegal to host. Links to primary documents leaked by this site may be appropriate in articles where the document's text is relevant to the subject. ThemFromSpace 23:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep all the links.

  Cablegate cables are by US Government so in the public domain

  Wikileak material is most likely primary sources, so they would not be WP:RS. However, primary sources are reliable sources about themselves! When statements are made about primary sources in a Wikipedia article a reference should also be given to the primary source.

  Wikipedia is not censored.

  --- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

This is likely to keep coming up. Why don't we put together an essay or FAQ, either by expanding WP:Wikilinks or by creating a new one? Much like WP:PEREN, we can list the usual arguments, the difference between links as a source and links under ==EL==, etc. Would anyone like to take a crack at it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I decided to take a shot. Based on the above discussion, and several other discussions on the same topic, I wrote up a consensus determination which I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#On linking to classified documents. Do others agree with my summary? --Elonka 23:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've written User:Wnt/Work1, a rebuttal to User:Elonka/Work1. Wnt (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents launched. Rd232 ^talk 09:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lots o' Links

Hey folks. List of radio stations in the United Kingdom's bottom half or so links to every station's website. Is this spam, or primary references? The Interior(Talk) 22:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it's only the sections on student radios and hospital radios that do this.

Why don't you ask on the article's talk page? Perhaps someone there will be able to tell you whether these links were intended to address the {{unref}} tag at the top of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do. But in a general sense, with lists especially, how does one differentiate between a spamlink and a unformatted ref? Is it really a matter of intent? I don't deal with lists very often, and was thinking that someone here would have some light to shed. The Interior(Talk) 01:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Intent, or if you get no response and aren't adept at mind-reading, perhaps your perception of whether the links are useable as primary source references to show that the item belongs in the list.

This is one of the areas that the community hasn't quite sorted out precise rules for, so you'll ultimately have to use your best judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing. I'll take a closer look, and I'll keep in mind that this is a cloudy policy area before making any changes. The Interior(Talk) 20:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If I were you I would convert as many of the bare urls as possible into references to verify the existence of the stations. In the "hospital radio stations" section this might mean creating a new "notes"-like section to put the links. ThemFromSpace 05:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this on the theory that there is only One True™ Way to list references in an article? WP:CITE explicitly disclaims that.

Or do you think that moving the ref further from the content better serves the reader, by making it harder for them to figure out what link supports which line?

I'm sorry if this sounds grumpy, but I really don't think that spamming a bunch of <ref> tags into those tables actually improves the article from the perspective of the reader. I think we need to WP:IAR here (and possibly to leave a message on the talk page to explain that). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It comes from my opinion that bare URLs within the article (not necessarily within reference sections) are ugly and should be discouraged as much as possible and I think moving these links out of the body of the article would greatly improve its aesthetics. ThemFromSpace 03:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Two genealogics links

• Anthony Paulet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• [99]

• Amias Paulet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• [100]

The website pages linked here not only cite Wikipedia as a source, but copy content from the respective articles. I have removed the links under WP:ELNO #12: "Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." As pages that copy Wikipedia, they are not WP:RS. The longer conversation about the matter is located Talk:Anthony Paulet. As the contributor who originally placed the link is objecting, I am requesting review and further feedback. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/WMFJA032/en/US?country_code=US00:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a false characterization. Moonriddengirl has been told quite clearly that the pages at Genealogics are not copies of Wikipedia. The bio portions of those pages, copy our articles. However the pages themselves are not simply the bios. The bios are only a part of the page. The pages are neither mirrors, nor are they forks. They are reliable sources, as they do not copy Wikipedia. There are hundreds of thousands of pages at Genealogics. That two pages are copied, does not make a site a mirror or a fork. This was explained to you already. I object, to your removal without discussion. You could have simply discussed the situation, but instead you are seeking to inflame it.Wjhonson (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There was patently no removal without discussion; the last comment prior to your replacing the links today was mine, a month ago. As I have explained to you at the talk page discussion that was occurring, before your departure from it a month ago, you are welcome to cite the reliable sources they use. They are copying and citing Wikipedia; we are not a reliable source. Hence, neither are they. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Again they are not copying and citing Wikipedia. Part of one page, mixed in with hundreds of thousands of other pages, copy a part of one page here. That does not make a site into a mirror or a fork. You seem not to understand what exactly is meant by a mirror and a fork. That a site, copies a page from us, does not make them a mirror or a fork. The site itself is a reliable source. You do not get to decide for the world was is or is not a reliable source, stop trying to move the goalposts. Your first attempt was simply that they copy us, and they do not. Wjhonson (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You are perhaps not remembering the conversation. A month ago today, I explained, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. People who cite Wikipedia and who copy from Wikipedia are not reliable sources. A "fork" is a page that takes Wikipedia's content and develops it further." This is the same argument I am advancing now. You are free to cite the reliable sources they use. However, now that the conversation is at this forum, I'm sure more opinions will be forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember quite clearly the conversation. As I've already explained to you on four boards, Genealogics does not copy Wikipedia. A fork is not a "page" that does anything. A fork is a site that does something. I can copy a page off here to the New York Times online. That does not mean the New York Times online is suddenly a fork or mirror. What it means however is that you do not understand what a fork or mirror is. This page is for discussing whether your extreme use of the rule is correct, and that is all it's for. I'm not going to get into anything else here. Address directly your claim that Genealogics, the site, is a mirror or fork, or acknowledge that the site is not.Wjhonson (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Four boards? Which four boards? And if Genaologics does not copy Wikipedia, then the only reasonable explanation for the same text appearing on both sites is that you copied them.

If you copy an article from Wikipedia to the New York Times, you cannot then use the New York Times article as a reference on Wikipedia. We do not use circular references or links. The pages you are linking are compromised in their reliability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not used as a reference. The pages I'm linking are not compromised in their reliability, which you would understand simply by looking at them. The point remains that your use of the rule on mirrors and forks does not apply in this case. And that is the only point that is relevant for this board.Wjhonson (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained this to you five times now. Part of the page at Genealogics, is a bio. Part of it. Do you understand? Part. A part. One part. That one part, copies our bio here. That does not make the page a copy, it makes part of the page a copy.Wjhonson (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

One does not have to copy the whole site to create a fork. See Can I fork individual Wikipedia articles? If they have forked a single article, then that page is a fork. That they have added to it does not change that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not what occurred. The page on Genealogics existed before. With content on it. Then the bio was added. That Genealogics page's content, prior, is what I used in part, citing it, to build this page. There was no bio on that Genealogics page prior to the existence of the Wikipedia article. Once I had built this page here, he copied the bio I had created back to his page. That is not a fork of an individual article. That is the creation of a symbiotic process. The details which he has on his page, which we do not have are vital to any person researching the person.Wjhonson (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition, a "mirror or fork" is a "site that copied Wikipedia". An individual article is not referred to as a "mirror or fork" even though a person might say "I mirrored that article". It's a petty use of the term. Our EL#12 refers to "sites" that mirror or fork Wikipedia. Not to articles. CF: External Links talk Wjhonson (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did he get those details? If they are reliable, there is no reason you cannot use his source. And individual articles are referred to as forks all the time; see Wikipedia:Content fork. As to your "cf", are you familiar with our policy on WP:Consensus? This conversation splitting is clear forum shopping. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That is immoral. To cite an author's underlying source, without mentioning from where you got it, is the worst kind of scholarship I could imagine. The reason for bringing the conversation to the article talk was because you failed to comprehend the meaning of the language in the article. It had nothing to do with a noticeboard, it was about the text of the article. Stop citing policy at me, I've been here for seven years. I know the policies inside and out.Wjhonson (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not immoral to find reference to a source and follow it, using it to support your own work. It is no more than we suggest for our own site in Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Stealing the work of others, and then passing it off as your own, is immoral. We suggest no such thing. Again you're not reading the information correctly. If a scholar actually delved under the source used, to the underlying source, and then used that without citing the overlying source, and it was discovered, they would be held in scorn.Wjhonson (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The page you cite is about using Wikipedia itself, as a research tool. It does not address at all, how you should do research with other sources. Quite a different animal. As pointed out below, the suggestion you made has been claimed to be a type of plagiarism.Wjhonson (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice diatribe you two have. Good. My view on this:

There is a page on genealogics.org. That page copies part of the information from Wikipedia, part of the info is from other sources. I am sorry, but as we can't tell what is sourced from where, and what part of the information is hence correct on genealogics.org, I am afraid that I would not trust anything on that site which has Wikipedia references. As such, this site does not add anything directly verifiable to the article (if anything, a lot of that info is already on our Wikipedia page, it would in some cases fail ELNO#1, and the rest should be verified against the other source, which would make that other source thé link of choice, not this one.

Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Apologies for my part in the diatribe. I'll ratchet it down. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dirk the site cites The Complete Peerage as a source. The site includes details on the children and ancestors of the person which we do not have. Those items are directly verifiable. However, for us to cite the underlying source without mentioning the overlying source would not be correct scholarly citation.Wjhonson (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wjhonson is correct that we can't just cite the peerage book without mentioning genealogics.org, for two reasons:

1. omitting the "cited in" is plagiarism;

2. we have not verified what is in the peerage book.

The #1 issue is definitely a form of plagiarism, which at least one popular historian was caught at recently. The #2 problem may remain even if we use "cited in", depending on whether you think we need to check both sides of a "cited in" reference.

I'm undecided on these External Links. The genealogics.org site is not in archive.org's Wayback, due to a robots.txt exclusion, so we cannot refer to earlier versions without Wikipedia sourcing. The genealogics.org site does not seem too spammy, and is certainly less a fork than the typical site listed at WP:FORK. The circular reference is very troublesome though.

The English Connection book previously was in a section called "Sources", and the Peerage book was in "External Links". Now the English Connection book is stranded at the end of "References", without a footnote to it (snapshot). I would restore "Sources" and put English Connection there. I might use the Peerage book as a footnote to a specific genealogical fact in the text, with "cited in" genealogics.org, but it's dicey. The alternative is "citation needed", in my opinion. Just deleting a source that was used to write the article is troublesome too! -Colfer2 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that one of the sources I used, has now been deleted.Wjhonson (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we refer to the source without verifying it; that would also run counter to what I've said about the source's reliability. We can't use it as a reference. It is not plagiarism to find a reference mentioned on a webpage, look it up, and refer to it directly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, that's not how it works. If you find a source referenced somewhere, even if you verify it, you must still note the source which told you this other source existed and was relevant to even look at in the first place. If you do not do that, you are not following scholarly practice.

Secondly, you are still failing to address the source's reliability. You have stated that merely because part of the page is a copy of our page, that makes the rest of the page unreliable. I find that logic impenetrable. If the New York Times, copied part of a page here, that would not make the New York Times unreliable. You keep failing to address the specific point. On a page of the New York Times, they quote, an article here, the rest of the page is not a quote, but their own work. You are suggesting, that merely because they quote a page, as part of their page, that makes their entire page unreliable. To me, that argument is bizarre.Wjhonson (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

About the plagiarism issue, Moonriddengirl has a point. I found this quote, where "unexamined" is key: "Borrowing unexamined primary source references from a secondary work without citing that work is likewise inappropriate," in "Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct", American Historical Association. But it also says "More subtle abuses include the appropriation of concepts, data, or notes all disguised in newly crafted sentences." I think it's best to include the intermediate source, with see in that case instead of cited in, but maybe an encyclopedia could omit it. Encyclopedia articles are specifically mentioned as requiring less footnoting. -Colfer2 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, "with" should be "without" in your last comment I think. -Colfer2 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I've fixed it. :)

Wjhonson, in terms of their "quoting"; they aren't quoting a page. They have entirely copied your biography as the sole substantial text on the page. Evidently, they source to Wikipedia quite often. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Sites that fork Wikipedia's content or base their content on it are also not reliable. Per Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks: "Mirrors and forks are not reliable sources and may not be listed as external links in articles." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, that most certainly is how it works—on Wikipedia, which is the only set of rules that matters here.

Secondly, none of that matters, because stuff under ==External links== is not supposed to be used to support article content, and thus whether it's a WP:Reliable source is completely irrelevant.

Thirdly, the ultimate determinant for inclusion in the External links section is the consensus of the involved editors. Unless and until you can demonstrate a clear, uncontested proof of a positive consensus to include this link, the link should not be included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I do not like the idea of deleting a source. The genealogics site should be credited or the material it sources deleted. Replacing the source with "citation needed" is too theft-like. -Colfer2 (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If this website is the source for the material in the article, then it should not be listed in the ==External links== section anyway.

The usual response when (good) information is sourced to an undesirable source is to WP:PRESERVE the information by finding a better source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that the genealogics site should be credited. I agree with that. The only reason for trying to add it back as an EL was the resistence from Moonriddengirl, who is still under the false impression that the "text" on the genealogics page is what's important about the page. That shows a clear lack of understanding of exactly what genealogics is. It is a genealogy site, the most important aspect being the ancestors and descendants information, not the bio. The bio is merely window-dressing. I have explained this in a number of ways already. I really cannot see why it's not yet clear. If one of you would be so good, as to add the page back under Sources, I would support that move. I believe, that's the appropriate response in this case, since it was, in fact, one of my initial sources. As to the charge that it's not a "desirable" source, the genealogists who frequent our site, have, by their actions, concluded that it is, in fact, a reliable source. Regardless any question on that ground should be taken to RSN, not here.Wjhonson (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. as to Colfer's statement, the information on genealogics is not primary, and the sources it cites for that information, are also not primary. TCP is a secondary source, which makes genealogics as well secondary, or even tertiary, if you will.Wjhonson (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As to WhatAmIDoingHere, the page cited by MRG is a page describing solely how to use information which you find on Wikipedia. It is not a page describing how to use information. It is only for use regarding information on Wikipedia, not other sources. It is, as well, merely a document, not even rising to the level of a suggestion, much less a policy. The thing which holds in this case, is the Standards of Practice, already cited, by which, you must not use ideas and processes without credit.Wjhonson (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WAIT, Colfer and Wjhonson. If I need a specific piece of information, and I snowball through my literature, and end up in the end with the actual reference that gives me the information that is there, then you say that I should also refer to the articles which actually helped me in finding the reference that is giving me the information I needed. You mean, that if I use Wikipedia, go to an article, find a reference for a piece of info for which I am writing a scientific publication about, that I should also refer to Wikipedia? That is a total lack of understanding about how things work. Wikipedia is an unreliable source, there are however pieces of reliable information on Wikipedia, which are referenced to reliable sources. I can use those reliable sources to write parts in other Wikipedia articles, and to write articles in scientific journals.

Now here, geneologics.org is quite a good source, however on the specific page we are talking about, there is unclear sourcing, partially to a notoriously unreliable source on some encyclopedia, and to one reliable source. As the sourcing on that page is unclear, then that page is as a whole an unreliable source (other pages may be fine..). However, the peerage source is still a reliable source, and can be used throughout, but this page is not suitable on geneologics.org is not suitable as a source - all the info which has been taken from Wikipedia should be discarded, only the info from the peerage book is reliable.

Regarding plagiarism, no .. plagiarism would be to copy parts of the source. If you indeed choose to copy parts of that page on geneologics.org, without citing it, would be plagiarism, but also self-referencing Wikipedia. Simply, you should NOT be using this page on geneologics.org, you should take the peerage book, and only use on Wikipedia what is in the peerage book, and source that - in that way you are not plagiarising geneologics.org. If you use this page on geneologics.org, you use an unreliable source, you may even self-cite. Sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your example is flawed. If you snowball through literature, no one is suggesting you refer to the entire path of research in citing one source. However, if you use a source to tell you that another source exists, then you should cite both sources. Not the same thing at all. This is esp. more true when the underlying source is obscure. It's standard practice in scholarly circles, just look up the use of cited in or as cited by. It's not something we just invented.

And again you are focusing on the bio portion of that genealogics page. I am not. I never was. Our article is not sourced based on the bio portion of that page. It is sourced based on the rest of that page. That is one of the sources, from which I started to create our page. The info in that part of the page hasn't changed based on Wikipedia, it's not sourced from Wikipedia, it was there the whole time. Address that point Dirk. That the original source used to build part of the bio page here, is now being discarded merely because the author of that page, updated another part of the page with the copy here. That seems quite odd to my way of thinking.Wjhonson (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that is the point, if I snowball, the first article tells me that the second exists. That is exactly the same as what you are doing here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And I am not focussing on the bio part. You say that only the bio part is copied from Wikipedia (and I believe you), but that is unclear from the page. If you did not tell me, I would go there, I would see a Wikipedia source, and think 'what part is actually sourced where?', then I would have to look, see which part is from the peerage book, and which part is from Wikipedia, and figure out that all reliable stuff is actually from the peerage book, and that the actual geneologics site itself does not give any information that is not there from other sources.

And you do not need the 'as cited by geneologics'-type of sentences here, you can use the peerage book itself, as without checking the peerage book here, you do not know what is from that book, I would only use 'as cited by' if it was unambiguously sure that what I used and what was cited by is actual directly from the step further away source, and I trust that part properly. And even then, I think I would prefer to actually look up the original and not use the 'as cited by'. Note further, here is not used 'as cited by', it is just used as an external link, which, IMHO, does not add anything that is a) not in the article, and b) is available from better places, like the peerage book. Why not use that as a 'further reading' on this topic, and remove the external link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And now on the bare link - If I compare the specific page on the geneologics site ([101]) for Anthony Paulet, then the Wikipedia page tells already more than the geneologics page, except that the geneologics page is telling about grandparents and great grandparents, and makes it easier to follow down below his kids. Now, I don't think that, except when any of those close in the family tree (say 2-3 generations up and down) is specifically notable ('his grandfather was the .. , and the oldest daughter of his son was ...'), and that that person is not already having their own Wikipedia page (and which does not seem to be the case here), that information is not explicitly useful for Wikipedia, it does not add anything; moreover, it is available from the peerage book anyway. As such, this is per WP:ELNO #1 just not a suitable external link (and I would not even call upgrade it to a 'further reading' page - what is there further to read ..), even if it did not contain the additional Wikipedia source, but if everything on the geneologics page was sourced from reliable sources. We are not a linkfarm to link to all possible information, and I don't think that it gives us an encyclopedic understanding of the topic beyond what is already in the Wikipedia article. It is a nice place to go on with further research, but that does not mean that it needs to be linked in the external links section, it just fails that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 09:56, 17 December 2010