Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the external links noticeboard
This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline.
  • Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links.
  • Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed.
  • Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide.
Sections older than 10 days archived by MiszaBot.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

Defer discussion:
Defer to RS/N
Defer to WPSPAM
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter

Discussion on external links to Allmusic and Discogs on the reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion on the appropriateness of external links to Allmusic and Discogs on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Musician Discographies from Allmusic and/or Discogs. — Newslinger talk 01:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Does this conspiracy site meet our guidelines.[edit]

This[1] been added to Skull and Bones by User:Nocturnalnow. I removed nn earlier version[2] and it was replaced with this one. It's clearly a conspiracy site: "For about the past ten years I have been studying secret elite groups. The average person has almost no knowledge of them and there are very few sources of information. These secret groups include the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, The Knights of the Garter, The Knights of Malta, The 33rd Degree Masons, the Rhodes Scholars, The Skull and Bones and the Trilateral Commission. What is needed is a historical roster of the membership of each of these groups." S&B is indeed a secret society (note]] that I was never a member and although I must have met students who became or were members I'm certain no one ever told me they were - I thought it was all very silly at best. The Bilderberg Group publishes its attendees, I see no evidence that the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission has a secret membership, the Order of the Garter is very public as are of course recipients of the Rhodes Scholarship. There's ohviously a BLP issue as well. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

So who is author Eric Samuelson, J.D.? As far as I can tell, this is just "a website" maintained by "a guy". No idea why it would be used as a link. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Great question. I will get back with details about Samuelson, but just to start, he is a J.D. (Juris Doctor) meaning he has attended and graduated from law school and thus is an Officer of the Court; and I bet just that puts this link ahead of many other external links which we have included in the encyclopedia. But I will provide more details later in the day. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
As we all know, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field." Although, it is not clear to me that having a JD, or rather, claiming to have a JD, would put this link ahead of any other external links. We're talking about an article on a secret society - not an article about legal practice. Aside, a lawyer is not necessarily an officer of the court. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Doug Weller for bringing this up. I do not believe it is within our NPOV mission for any of us to be using the "conspiracy theory" label unless its in reference to an article which uses that label. Who am I or any other editor to decide what is or is not a "conspiracy theory"? For example, someone (not me by the way), might label the Gulf of Tonkin incident as being a well intentioned communication screw up yet, according to our article, "but the Pentagon Papers, the memoirs of Robert McNamara, and NSA publications from 2005 proved material misrepresentation by the US government to justify a war against Vietnam." which could reasonably fall into the broad, vague and selectively applied term "conspiracy theory", especially before the Pentagon Papers and McNamara's memoirs came out.
In fact, before the Pentagon Papers came out, the theory that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was already being speculated by many as being a CIA project and establishment press called that speculation a "conspiracy theory".
"Conspiracy theory" is simply an over-used term that acts as a shiny object to shut down thinking or discussing any event whatsoever. "That's communism" was a similar shiny object back in the 50s applied against things like Social Security or food stamps..
Now, if you believe that all other external links are to information which is 100% verified, then That's something worth using as an argument against this particular external link, but otherwise, I do not think this particular link should be singled out because of some tangential connection to what someone says is a "conspiracy theory"
So, I'd prefer to have this discussion about the usefulness of the link to our readers and I'd prefer to drop the shiny object term "conspiracy theory" from the discussion as it is much too pejorative a term for an intelligent conversation, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I also say that what Samuelson has written about other clubs or organizations is not particularly relevant because as Doug says, the others all publish their membership lists whereas Skull and Bones do not. However, I do think the word "secret" can apply to almost all organizations, including corporations, when it comes to their inner administrative decisions, and there is nothing wrong with that. To make the word "secret" some sort of pejorative term is a big mistake, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::So we ignore the fact that he thinks there's a conspiracy about Rhodes Scholars or Knights of the Garter? We're going to have to disagree about conspiracy theories, they are real and affect the real world, QAnon being just the latest - the first conspiracy theory to have been called a potential source of domestic terrorist by the FBI. This guy's not in that category of course, nor are the conspiracy theories he's promoting. So, we have:

ELNO 2 "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting."
ELNO 11 "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), 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 who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

"In addition, although the article isn't a biography it falls under our BLP policy. WP:ELBLP says "In biographies of living persons, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP." Doug Weller talk 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you are saying. I just noticed List of Skull and Bones members which is a much better approach in any event. Thank you for your time and discussion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Does this site meet our guidelines.[edit]

So I am trying to restart this sub-section leaving out the pejorative and non-established description of the site as a "conspiracy" site. If that "conspiracy" description is to be accepted then I feel someone must present evidence to show it to be a "conspiracy" site. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This is absolutely not necessary. You've already replied above about the author's J.D., it gets too confusing to have a subsection while there is relevant information above. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
This is not an appropriate link for that page. Per WP:ELBURDEN, it should not be included unless and until there is an actual consensus to include it, where the minimum definition of "actual consensus" for this purpose means "established editors other than Nocturnalnow believe that its inclusion would improve the page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Need to reach a consensus[edit]

It has come to my attention that Nikkimaria is removing Find-a-Grave as an EL from some (but not all) articles based on the reasoning that there is already a picture of the grave in the article. While pictures of resting places are a feature of that website there is other information available. Of greater concern to me is the precedence this sets in regard to other external links. For example should the links to IMDb be removed from film articles that have a complete cast and production list or from actor articles that have a complete filmography. I've started this thread to try and reach a consensus about this kind of criteria for excluding a website that otherwise meets the guidelines as an EL. If the consensus is to partially exclude a site then IMO that should be added to the instructions at Wikipedia:External links. Thanks ahead of time for any responses. MarnetteD|Talk 03:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD, links to Find-a-Grave have historically been accepted when they provide unique resources such as images of the graves of the subjects. In cases where there is already an image of the grave in the article, what additional value do you feel this site provides? Keep in mind that the site's textual content is almost entirely user-generated and/or unlicensed copies of newspaper articles, both of which are problematic in terms of the EL guidelines. As to instructions to partially exclude a site, does Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites fit the bill? The description there for both Find-a-Grave and IMDb appear consistent with my understanding of practice. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) All of those things apply to IMDb as well. The reason I started this thread was my concerns over "the site is okay for some articles but not others" situation. Whether the site should be used at all is a different conversation (I think there was one in the past but I could be wrong) and probably should be discussed in a separate thread. MarnetteD|Talk 03:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hah you added that link while I was typing the above :-) This one will save anyone reading this a little scrolling Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find a Grave. Based on what is there you edits look to be within the guidelines. Though you might wait a day or so to see if other editors feel that there is any reason to discuss "consensus can change" in this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 03:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I tend to leave Find-a-Grave links only in STUBs, very small articles, etc. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Why would it be a problem for a site to be okay for some articles but not others? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on copyright status of documents hosted by Semantic Scholar[edit]

There is a noticeboard discussion on the copyright status of documents hosted by Semantic Scholar. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Semantic Scholar. — Newslinger talk 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


Any thoughts about an interesting new template {{CodeBox}}? See Template talk:CodeBox#External links. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It was deleted at the request of the creator, after a discussion on the talk page and at WP:VPT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding more than dozens of links on Divya Dwivedi[edit]

Two users are adding the dozens of links on Divya Dwivedi and making wikipedia as linkfarm. I removed the links as per WP:ELMIN, WP:ELNO and WP:LINKFARM but users are reinstating it and saying that it is in accordance with the external links policy without citing specific paragraph or specific policy. First one editor did it here, then here and now, they made separate section named further reading and added those same links in which non-notable works, her three interviews' youtube links (she gave only three interviews till now, btw) of her are included. This can be found here. Already section Talk:Divya_Dwivedi#On_External_Links was going on and when editor was loosing debate then he created another section named Talk:Divya_Dwivedi#Adding_the_section_"Further_Reading" in which he started whataboutism. Now, there is possibility of edit war, thus, I am not removing it but seeking guidance on few questions.

  1. As per WP:ELMIN, only one official site is enough then adding these much site can be allowed?
  2. And what actions can be taken against such editors who are adding these much links without including notable work, her all interviews and her regular newspaper columns which are obviously not notable.

-- Harshil want to talk? 02:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Harshil169, thank you for the message. But I don't understand why you would have to escalate all edits with this page very aggressively! I am informing some of the other editors here @CASSIOPEIA: Speculative Boting @JGHowes: @Kautilya3: All that you can find in Talk:Divya_Dwivedi#Adding_the_section_"Further_Reading" is sufficient to understand the role of "Further reading". You seem to misunderstand my citing numerous instances as "Whataboutery". This is plain wrong. Legality in communities like Wikipedia are not formed by centralised authorities, but conventions. These pages that I have listed here are of reputed philosophers and some of them are highly rated Wikipedia articles. The "Further reading" criteria says "The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject. However, the section should be limited in size." See an excellent use of "Further reading" in this article Alain Badiou. But what is extremely worrying is the fact that you have filed a non-factual report here! There has been no change in "External links" since you removed all links and added just one. Neither I nor has anyone else reverted the edits you have made to "External links". If this concerns the new section "Further reading" it should have taken place in the talk page dear Harshil169! WWorringer (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@WWorringer: As you’ve said it’s for notable work, nit for random interviews on youtube and her columns which are not famous. You’ve added the same links which were there in External link section which is obviously transferring. Administrator will look at the content and will decide whether not notable books should be here or not. And yes, in my suspection, you and Speculative Boting are associated with each other and I’ve opened WP:SPI for it. It seems only purpose here’s to promote work of Dwivedi as you and speculative boting did at multiple articles. — Harshil want to talk? 05:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Harshil169: As a fellow Wikipedian, I want to give you advise that please don't open Sockpuppet investigations without any reason, as you did in past. It is a wasting of time. It also discourage people. It is OK to add dozens of links in 'External links' and 'Further reading' sections, if they are useful. I have done the same in several articles. Wikipedia has no any strict norms. We can Ignore all rules at one point, when it prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. --Gazal world (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gazal world: This is their editing behaviour. Most of the edits of them are to include work of Divya Dwivedi and Shaj Mohan in different articles, and later adding wikilinks in it. Isn’t this obvious that both are associated with each other? I read WP:SIGNS and here I can see it. Let checkuser check the IPs of them. Harshil want to talk? 10:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (1) All the book reviews can go in the Further Reading section. There is no limit, except common sense. Please include WP:full citations, and make sure that both favourable and unfavourable reviews are included. (2) Any self-sources, i.e, own commentaries, interviews etc. should go in the External Links section. But these should be limited. I would suggest, no more than a couple. Once again, please provide Full citations where possible. (3) Aggregations of the form XYZ's articles at ABC, should be removed. They have no place on Wikipedia. Finally: all the editors need to focus on the content more and stop making comments on each other. Otherwise you are likely to end up at WP:ANI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)