Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the external links noticeboard
This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links policy.
  • 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 II.
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

List of company registers[edit]

Well, this is my first time behind the curtain here at Wikipedia (long-time user and financial contributor) so not sure how to go about this. Someone, and I won't mention whom because apparently I have to notify them with some string of characters I don't understand; someone keeps removing the links on this very useful page that lists all government registry websites and when you click on the name it takes you there. Apparently there are some pedantic reasons why the links shouldn't be there but it kind of makes the article useful to people who use it. I read the WP:EL thingy and I really think there is enough wiggle room to allow the links to stay. Especially considering that every time someone takes out the links someone puts them back in. Now I wonder is it the people who use the article that are taking them out or is it someone who really has no use at all for an article about company registers? Its locked now so I'm here trying to get it unlocked and the links put back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Westernerer (talkcontribs) 19:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. The links don't belong.
Given Company registers doesn't exist, why does this list? --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, how about instead of deleting nearly 40,000 carefully gathered and useful links they get moved to External Links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Westernerer (talkcontribs) 21:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC) The Westernerer (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly the same reasons as datasets discussion above. --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the reasons you are referring to. It seems that 'the dataset is being used in some reasonably visible or important way' to me. Especially registries where there is only a single source per nation/state. The Westernerer (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There are a couple threads in that discussion. One being an interesting "how to improve the article/list entry Notability requirements" (the discussion about sources, etc.). Another being "Can the Lists of datasets article have external links in the list", which resulted in a No. Datakeeper then removed all of the external links from the article and has been working to improve the article. Stesmo (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm here to disagree again with the narrow reading of WP:EL. Specific articles as indicated in the datasets entry, maybe, but I don't see how this applies everywhere. I think List of company registers more closely resembles this list: and should have the external links included. Or, again, if you, with the keys to but not the need of this list, could allow the external links to be moved to External links instead of erasing them out right a list that serves the public good can be saved. Considering how often the edits were reversed we can see the clear usefulness of this list for any one other than a wikipedia editor.The Westernerer (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the newspaper article with external links in the body of the article / in a stand-alone list. I've fixed that article as well. You seem to be ignoring that the List of company registers article *already has external links in the EL section* pointing to lists of company registers. There is no reason to add hundreds more to the EL section or the body of the article. Stesmo (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, instead of 'Thank you,' it seems you actually just meant that you're thankful in general (unless you misunderstood my intentions there?). Anyway, thanks for only mostly dismissing my thoughts, I understand I've no standing here and you think you already have a large enough body of discussion to justify editing and locking the lists (or articles as you keep calling them) as per the pertinent panel's conclusions. Oh, one last thing, is this related to the bitterness about the search engine brouhaha that's got everyone pissed here or did this list just get unlucky at random? The Westernerer (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, those links at the bottom are far from comprehensive and are hardly a substitute for the comprehensive volunteer maintained list here.The Westernerer (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinging recent-ish contributors: @ as custardMelanieNOnel5969Robin of locksleyRprprSERutherfordStephenM.S.LaiStesmoTamilMuthuWillyinnorway Bazj (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep the link for each register where as yet no article exists for it. It seems to me the whole purpose of WP:EL is to stop the addition of a whole load of promotional crud. Company Registers or Corporate Registries or whatever they're called in each jurisdiction are government agencies performing a legal function, not businesses plying for trade. Short of creating a stub article for each corporate registry, how else is this material to be presented?
The article is useful for verifying articles about companies. It's too valuable a resource to be eviscerated just for a zealous adherence to WP:EL. Bazj (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you address WP:NOTDIRECTORY? --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Ronz, That would be an argument against keeping the article at all rather than addressing the external links within the article. But since you ask, certainly I can...
Government agencies: Lists of diplomatic missions which links to 200ish lists of diplomatic missions. I think 2002 diplomatic missions dwarfs the scope of 200 company registers.
List of central banks.
Others: Lists of hospitals in Africa, Lists of hospitals in Asia, Lists of hospitals in Europe, Lists of hospitals in North America, Lists of hospitals in Oceania, Lists of hospitals in South America, Lists of military installations, Lists of wind farms by country, Lists of universities and colleges, Lists of banks, Lists of companies, Lists of corporate headquarters by city, Lists of cathedrals, Lists of mosques, Lists of magazines, Lists of newspapers, Lists of radio stations, Lists of television stations in North America, Lists of restaurants, Lists of curling clubs... ad nauseam. Bazj (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:OSE, but thanks for the list of articles. No, it's not about keeping the article specifically, though that is indeed an option here.
None are relevant. None have links like List of company registers. All you've done is show that the article under discussion is the outlier. So why does this directory of links deserve to be an exception? --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Two had some minor problems with their External links sections, which I removed [1] [2], though they are not directly relevant to this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the rationale presented by Bazj above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:ELBURDEN, I've restored the article to a version without the links. I don't see consensus swinging toward inclusion, and editors have had a month to make a case. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:External_links#Links_in_lists have an applicable exception here?: "This section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria." SERutherford (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Help: I have several issues. Exactly what are we debating here, the list article or improper use of links placed in the body of the article not as a reference but just an external link, and improper adding of external links in general to articles? I picked one example from the List of newspapers in Sri Lanka
  • | ''[[The Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka)|Daily Mirror]]'' || [[English language|English]] || Daily || [] || [[Wijeya Newspapers]] || 1999 || 76,000 || <ref name="wnp">{{cite web | url= | title=Wijeya Newspapers Limited | accessdate=April 18, 2012}}</ref><ref name="allb"/>
This was a proper removal as that link did not belong. I also looked at an example of external links removal, here, and that link did not belong. I could argue against one or more of the others there also.
    • If we are discussing links like above (and not the article) then I would have to "not vote" Delete or Not keep.
In reply to "Short of creating a stub article for each corporate registry, how else is this material to be presented?": The external links section is NOT a place to indiscriminately add material to Wikipedia just to have it nor is adding extra links in the body of the article acceptable.
I personally don't see the encyclopedia value in a world-wide listing of registry authorities but as pointed out above, since Wikipedia is changing to a directory, I guess we can add a yellow and white page section, add phone numbers, and evolve into a true all inclusive vehicle for listing everything in the world. According to the above (list of lists) rationale, if accepted, I can now argue for the inclusion of any list I like. We have a list of prostitution companies in Nevada, so why not a List of Triple A garages in Nevada then other states. That would give editors something to do for a really long time. There are "54 million members (Triple A) in the United States and Canada". How about a List of war veterans with only a right arm (then break it down for each limb), and then get really creative. Think about it; I bet there aren't 54 million people looking for a list of places to get laid in Nevada right?

I guess in the scheme of things, and considering I can look up a list of prostitution companies on Wikipedia, this List of company registers, that probably should be List of company registers worldwide, seems proper since we have:

I guess I better start my list of Triple A garages, anyone want to help? Note: I will be totally against cluttering up of external links sections concerning "... instead of deleting nearly 40,000 carefully gathered and useful links they get moved to External Links." If that is on the table then get rid of them. Otr500 (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
If you're threatening to make articles that you know are inappropriate, you're risking a block. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ronz: I am assuming good faith but your words did ring out as a threat on what you chose to perceive (subjective) to be a threat. If all you got out of my comments was some perceived threat to degrade Wikipedia then you might want to practice reading instead of "skimming" comments. Wikipedia is being degrading almost daily and you deem it important to to warn me that IF I am threatening to make articles that are inappropriate I am risking being blocked.
  • First: I suppose you have not bothered to look at my editing record but just skimmed over and picked what you liked from the comments according to your interpretation.
  • Second "My list" (if you would have bothered really reading), that I mentioned, would actually be the List of Triple A garages in Nevada. That is really obvious hypothetical rhetoric as well as the others. Now, if you deem this inappropriate then I challenge you to start a discussion to have me blocked if that is your meaning. I will submit to you that I can not imagine one editor (except possibly you) or admin that would consider such an article (the list of garages) "inappropriate", as meaning deserving a block, considering we really can find a list of cat houses on Wikipedia. There are also lists of lists that refer back to lists and blue links are used indiscriminately to make content circular. Are these the result of "Wiggle room"? I suppose the lists of lists exampled above should certainly be reasoning to create or "keep" yet another list. I would also assume that reasoning should follow that if we have one list this means all are fair game? That sort of thinking would certainly be a slippery slope to doom.
  • Third: I am not even sure why you chose to single out hypothetical examples unless you are for the many lists of lists, maybe the external links section being used to include everything not Wikipedia, or possible that you support adding 40,000 entries to the external links section.
  • Forth: You must have seriously confused me with some new editor that might exclaim, "Oh shit I might get blocked". Would you suppose because I am honest and do not have an actual agenda but Wikipedia improvement that I would worry about being blocked over BS? Especially when the words "inappropriate articles" would certainly be subjective.
At any rate we still do not need 40,000 more useless (to the general reader) additions to Wikipedia external links. "If" there are not copyright issues, or other reliable source reasoning, it would be far better to have more references. The actual best practice, if the material warrants inclusion on Wikipedia, would be to create articles, but that may be a stretch considering one of the comments above. "Short of creating a stub article for each corporate registry, how else is this material to be presented?", and the answer I suppose would be put all the entries in an external link right? Wait! Maybe the following comment has merit. Otr500 (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
How about we move on to other issues. This is dead. --Ronz (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have external links put into footnoted citations, similar to Elasticsearch? The template {{cite web}} could be made to work as these are almost entirely governmental/ministry websites. SERutherford (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User Chillatulit appears to be inserting external links to similar articles on corporate pages.[edit]

His 13 April contributions all appear to be external links to TechStory corporate page - with a column of material related to the Wikipedia subject -- the rest of the space relating to the corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User warned. - MrX 11:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Broadcast media articles[edit]

Please take a moment to review and comment at WT:External links#What's so special about broadcast media articles?. --Izno (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Chonburi F.C. external links[edit]

I have a question about This is appears to be an English fanpage of the Thai soccer team Chonburi F.C. The team's official Thai language page can be found at, but there is no link to this particular "English" page. The team also has its own Facebook account, but this also doesn't link to the English page "Club website" appears to be a web hosting service with no association to the team. I am assuming a good faith effort is being made to post accurate information in English (possibly translating stories found on the team's official website), but I do not know if any of that is approved or verified by the team. Would any of that make a difference as to whether linking to the site is considered acceptable per No. 11 of WP:ELNO? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Atheist Murderers[edit]

This link has been added to Criticism of Atheism by user:Krshwunk - Atheist Murderers. Apart from the offensiveness, it doesn't add to the article and seems to have been written by a religious person (possibly Krshwunk) with a great big axe to grind. I've tried discussing it on the article's talk page, but I'm not getting anywhere. I don't think this link belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. PepperBeast (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I support PepperBeast's assessment of the dubious nature of the link in question. The link is to a site ( with no acknowledged owner or contact details and appears to be the work of a single person (whois gives the registrant as Julian Ahlquist, and a page on the Catholic website[3]) quotes Ahlquist as acknowledging that he is the creator of I have also reverted the link, but user:Krshwunk has added it back in four times. -- Jmc (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
In response to user:pepperbeast, I would like to know what exactly offends you about the link and why your offense merits deletion of the link. People can be offended by anything, as many are no doubt offended by many things on the "Criticism of Religion" article, for example. Also, I would claim the link very much adds to the article "Criticism of Atheism," as it supplements many details of the article regarding atheist murderers, some who have murdered in the name of atheistic ideologies (mirroring how the "Criticism of Religion" page talks about people murdering in the name of theistic/religious ideologies) and various other people who have themselves admitted that atheism contributed in their motivation for committing murder (as can be seen with Jim Jones, Andrei Chikatilo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Craig Stephen Hicks, Kip Kinkel, and Jeffrey James Weise). Also, if I am a religious person, does this disqualify me from making a contribution to Wikipedia? If I have an "axe to grind" as you say, does this also disqualify me? Should we ban edits made by people whom we view to have "axes to grind" even if their edits themselves do not break any actual rules? Again, you have presented no good reason why the external link is actually inappropriate. The link pertains to the article, giving many further details on the subject, as many external links are designed to do. From my long experience of the subject, the list provides just the details many people seek when researching about critical views of atheism. In response to user:pepperbeast, yes, Krshwunk is Julian Ahlquist and he made the list and, yes, he is me. Again, does this also disqualify me from Wikipedia? Does not mentioning my name and contact information on the list get me trouble? Well, as of now, all that is on page (at the bottom). If people have legitimate reasons for banning this link, I would like to hear them. If there has been some error in scholarship, for example, please tell me. The list has copious footnotes to back up each fact mentioned. Accusations that it simply offends some people, that its author is religious and critical of atheism, that it does not mentioned who wrote it (not true anymore) are not legitimate reasons for banning it from Wikipedia. Or have I missed something? If so, please tell me so we can sort this out. Krshwunk (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Given that Julian Ahlquist is now acknowledged to be the author both of the page and of the link in question, we're in a position to determine whether the link is to a reliable source. It would seem to me not to be, on the basis that Ahlquist appears not to be (to quote from WP:RS) "an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."
On that basis, I would contend that the external link does not meet WP standards and should be removed.
-- Jmc (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no rule in Wikipedia that says that external links must only link to pages written by a Wikipedia-acceptable reliable source. In fact, WP:EL states, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" are to be considered for external links. The list has tons of footnotes of knowledgeable sources, as I have said before. So, even if you deem me an unreliable source, you still do not have a basis for deleting the external link. Krshwunk (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if you can't see what's wrong with trying to "criticise" atheism by creating a stereotype of "atheist murderers", I'm not sure how to explain it to you. However, footnoted or no, the page isn't criticism-- it's a smear. PepperBeast (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You actually have to explain why this link isn't a criticism rather than say, "Oh, I'm sorry, if you just can't see it." You actually have to give reasons. The list never claimed that all atheists are murderers if you actually take the time to read it, which I assume you have not. In any case, the list is undoubtably criticizing atheism. We're actually passed that point. The issue at present is whether the author (me) is a reliable source. I have provided some information regarding that at the end of the page as a link on my name. Krshwunk (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's actually up to you to establish that the page *is* criticism, but basically, the page presents no understanding of what atheism is, let alone any critique of that. In fact, it really has no analysis at all-- just a cursory attempt at knocking over a strawman atheist and a lot of "look at these atheist murderers"! PepperBeast (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Pepperbeast, I am confused as to why you are offended about an article lending evidence to the notion that atheists can be murderers. Apparently you do not find it offensive that the Wikipedia page "Criticism of atheism" mentions that there might be a connection between atheism and violence. If you do not have a problem with the page, you should not have a problem with evidence that supports the claim, which is what the article is.BlazePhillips (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
But the article is *not* the evidence that supports the claim. The claims made in the article have sources. It is *extensively* referenced. The link in question isn't a reliable source, and trying to prove that atheism is bad because some atheists are murderers is as ridiculous as proving that religions are bad by slapping together a list of, say, Baptist drunks or Buddhist child molesters and tacking on to the end of other articles. PepperBeast (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So correct me if I'm wrong (because I don't want to misrepresent your argument). You are claiming more than one thing: you are claiming that it is not a reliable source and you are also saying that it is a bad criticism because it does not prove atheism is bad. These are two different points and they can be addressed separately. As for your first point, as far as I am aware, external links are not strictly "sources" as the related Wikipedia page does not reference it. You can go to "Wikipedia:External links" to see how the rules for external links differ from the rules on WP:RS. As for the second, Krshwunk never said that his article proves atheism is bad. Criticism does need to take the form of proof. It can alternatively lend evidence that something might be the case. In this case, it is saying that there might be a connection between atheism and murder. More importantly, it is countering the claim that religion is the only motivation that causes people to murder and thus further counters the common atheist claim that a more widespread belief in atheism will reduce murders. Regarding relevance, the article is supporting the claim on the Wikipedia page "Criticism of atheism" that some forms of atheism and violence may be connected. If you take issue with that, confront the Wikipedia article rather than this external link.BlazePhillips (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
User:pepperbeastYes, look at these atheist murderers, as in, actually look at the site. At the risk of sounding redundant, the list criticizes atheism by showing how people have murdered in the name of atheistic ideologies and how various other people have had committed murders with atheism being part of their motivation (ONCE AGAIN, look at the list's description of Jim Jones, Andrei Chikatilo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Craig Stephen Hicks, Kip Kinkel, and Jeffrey James Weise). This would qualify as criticizing atheism, unless of course, I have to be more meticulous and first establish that murder is an object of criticism as well. Is that it? Do I have to establish that murder is wrong before I criticize atheism? Also, as said before (you need to read the thread more carefully), Wikipedia does not demand that external links qualify as reliable sources. Also, the list is not saying that all atheists are bad either. Where did you get that? You obviously have not read the site. If you have a criticism of the page, you actually have to address what the page says. Krshwunk (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I note that user:Krshwunk has a record of adding similar ELs to WP articles. For example, the history of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious shows (1 May 2013) the deletion of an EL he added, with the comment by the deleting editor that they are "removing site that fails WP:EL rules quite dramatically - just some crazy fringe theory on a free blog site by some random person off the street". -- Jmc (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I consider the EL in question to come under #11 in Links normally to be avoided: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority", where personal web pages are defined as being "created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than on behalf of a company, organization or institution [and] primarily used for informative or entertainment purposes but can also be used for personal career marketing, social networking, or personal expression" (my emphasis). -- Jmc (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The EL links to a webpage (again, my webpage) that does not fall under the criteria you mentioned. It is not a blog, it is not some fan site, and it is not a personal web page, as it does not contain content of a personal nature, but rather of various intellectual subjects (some of which may have an entertaining value but that is certainly not the goal of it). It is certainly not used for personal career marketing, social networking, or "personal expression" (i.e. it's not about me ... it's not of a personal nature). The site is about philosophy, theology, history, and a couple interpretations of films. I'm just a teacher and have never made any money from it. I just want to educate and get people to think. Therefore, you cannot dismiss the EL on the basis of what you said. Krshwunk (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised this thread has gotten as long as it has. This is clearly neither a WP:RS, nor a fit WP:EL, and it was added by someone with a COI. There's no way we should be including links to it from anywhere. All of the discussion about atheists, criticism, etc. is secondary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I see Krshwunk spammed multiple articles with links to his site. I've removed all that I saw. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You need to be more specific than just saying "it was added by someone with a COI". This forces me to read the entire COI page, and so far it does not seem clear why it is a conflict of interest. Are you saying that the author of the article cannot take part in this noticeboard discussion? Or are you saying that the person has a conflict of interest with the actual page "Criticism of atheism" because he is religious. That would seem to be a problem if that is what you are saying, because I can imagine many religious people edited "Criticism of atheism" just as I can imagine that many atheists edited "Criticism of religion". Be more specific.BlazePhillips (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Rhododendrites, for future reference, am I unable to make any external link from any Wikipedia page to anything on any page of a website that I own/manage/contribute to? Is that what you mean by COI? I looked at the rules for COI, and I couldn't find a precedent for that. If there is, I would very much like to know so I can avoid any future incidents of this sort. Krshwunk (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am also surprised that this thread had gone on as long as it has, but for the opposite reason. The whole point of external links is that it should be much easier to post than sources in a page. Yes, there are guidelines as to what to put and what to avoid. I went to the Star Wars Wikipedia page and saw the external link to the Star Wars Facebook page (which also seems to be a COI), yet #10 is avoid social networking sites with no exceptions listed. You can go to other popular Wikipedia pages and clearly see how they bend the guidelines (not rules) of the external links. But in the example of "Atheist Murderers", I can't even see how it bends any of the guidelines clearly. Instead, it provides interesting, useful, and relevant information to "Criticism of atheism". So why do you think people are trying to find rules against this more than external links on popular pages that go to personal sites.BlazePhillips (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"conflict of interest" in this case doesn't require much nuance. If there is a connection between you and a site, then you shouldn't add it to an article. Nobody's saying you can't participate in discussions (here or elsewhere), and nobody's saying being religious (or irreligious) gives someone a conflict of interest. But, again, even if you didn't have a COI it wouldn't be an appropriate external link because it's not a reliable source. It is a site with an obvious agenda, does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, does not have editorial oversight, it is self-published, etc. (any one of these is problematic). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So would it change it if I added the article as an external link, because I am not the author? That is an easy fix to what is arguably not a problem (I understood it to be a COI if the actual Wikipedia page is related to the person). You should cite a specific line or rule on the conflict of interest page to back up your claim that a rule was broken. Regarding the reliable source issue, we have gone over it more than once now. An external link does need to be a reliable source in the way Wikipedia defines it. That is partially the point of external links. If it does not fit as a source, it is a good candidate for an external link. That is why there are separate rules and guidelines for external links. Please read the thread and/or the external links rules beforehand so we don't have to be redundant.BlazePhillips (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Clearly a massive violation of WP:POINT. This blogger has an ax to grind, and is making religious attacks against another religious opinion, which has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, instead of just saying it is a general violation of a whole page, cite the line and say what is the specific violation. In this case, I am not bringing up other examples to try to discredit a rule on Wikipedia. I have no problem with the rules. I brought up the Star Wars example to highlight the fact that the rules for external links are more guidelines, because it said "what to avoid" and not "what is prohibited", so they are definitely not hard and fast. On top of that, I am also saying that "Atheist Murderers" doesn't clearly violate any of them.BlazePhillips (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "ax to grind" has already been used at the start of this conversation, and it is as unclear as it was when it was first used. For all I know, you could consider the people who contributed to the page "Criticism of atheism" to have an "ax to grind" and you could also say that the page is a "religious attack against another religious opinion", as many have said that. So would you say that? Why or why not?BlazePhillips (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Which isn't the case. The article is a reasonably balanced piece *about* criticism of atheism. It is not, itself, an article criticising atheism. The article is not axe-grinding. The link is. PepperBeast (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So you are saying that the page "Criticism of atheism" is providing the information on criticism rather than actually criticizing it. I agree with that. However, the page draws from sources that do criticize atheism of course. One example from the page is "Edmund Burke wrote that atheism is against human reason and instinct." Presumably Edmund Burke had an ax to grind and his writings could indeed be offensive, but it is still allowed to have sources from Edmund Burke on Wikipedia, because there is no rule that says sources cannot have an ax to grind. In this case, it is not even a source. It is an external link.BlazePhillips (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone without a COI wants to make an argument for this site as an appropriate external link, this can probably be closed. As far as I can see there is clear consensus among other participants here (and it seems rather obvious). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Saying there is a consensus when it is four to two is somewhat of a weak claim. Instead of answering my questions and addressing my argument, you resorted to ad populum, and for all I know, the participants against the link could have COI (because it is still unclear what constitutes COI). That is why you need to rely on actual arguments, but Rhododendrites, you have yet to back yours up.BlazePhillips (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it would be four to one now given that Blazephillips and Krshwunk are to be considered the same users (we're brothers, not the same person).BlazePhillips (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
As inquired above, am I guilty of COI because I created an external linked to a site that I own? Again, the COI rules don't seem to disqualify that. If they do, I would like to know details on that because I could not find them. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krshwunk (talkcontribs) 00:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Krshwunk, the conflict of interest is that you have a relation with the information that you are adding - you own the site that you are linking to. Now, that does not forbid you to edit with that type of information (it is not 'forbidden' to link to your own sites and similar), however, care is to be taken. The general practice in such cases is strict BRD - boldly add, if someone complains (reverts) you don't add again but argue in favour. That is also in line with WP:EL, though that is a bit stricter: the burden of proving that a link is actually needed on a page is on the person who wants to add it - which IMHO goes a bit further as it would require reasoning before addition, and in case of this link (where you are biased as the owner and hence would more likely consider it a net positive) you might have been better on the safe side of suggesting on the talkpage and allowing sufficient time for discussion (or just leave it at a suggestion). Pushing it, especially with a COI is certainly not the way. And reading through this discussion does not show any such reasoning of why this external page is adding sufficient information to what is already there in the prose on Wikipedia, and/or covered by the other links that are there (and with that taking into account that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm - we are not here to add external links, even if they are on topic and relevant, your first aim should be to include information in the article itself). (as such, I also oppose the addition of this link). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write this, Dirk Beetstra. I am glad to hear that adding a link on Wikipedia to a webpage I have does not necessarily disqualify me. Now, I would say that one reason why the webpage adds sufficient information is that much of the information it has is not on Wikipedia. I've checked quite thoroughly during the time I made it. Furthermore, no list like this exists on Wikipedia, even though the information on it, as well as the concise and convenient manner which it was meant to have, is often sought after by people researching things dealing with the "Criticism of Atheism." I agree that Wikipedia should not be a "link farm," but, on the other hand, part of Wikipedia often involves including external links for more information on a topic, which is why Wikipedia has external links, and which is why people are allowed to add them. Besides, the "Criticism of Atheism" page is not overloaded with external links either ... in fact, currently, it doesn't have a single one (unlike, incidentally, the "Criticism of Religion" page). With that said, would the problem be solved if I essentially turn my webpage into a Wikipedia article? Would that satisfy all the objections? Or, as far as you could see, would that just create even more? Krshwunk (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
You should not add links to your own websites in general. And in this case the link is problematic in the extreme. It should of course not be added. There is a reason noone else has compiled that kind of list. And there is a reason this "information" is not on wikipedia. Namely that it serves no purpose other than fueling polemics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no rule against linking to one's own website. Why should the link "of course" not be added? People actually HAVE created lists of this kind, but never this level of detail. Why do you put "information" in quotes? Are you accusing the list of falsehoods? If show, where are they? Please take not of the footnotes. Also, the list doesn't just serve polemics, it was designed to counter the common atheist objection that there are no atheist serial killers or mass murderer, something that I have heard very often and sought to correct. I know some people don't like hearing it. But sometimes the truth matters, even if it sounds offensive. Thanks. Krshwunk (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Many people regard Wikipedia as an opportunity to boost incoming links to their website, but they are (eventually) unsuccessful. There is always the faint possibility that a spammer might be posting links to a useful resource (useful for an encyclopedia), so there is no blanket rule about external links. However, the website in question is known to not be suitable in terms of providing additional resources for encyclopedic articles so it will not be accepted regardless of how much lipstick is applied. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
So, you're saying that one cannot link Wikipedia articles to their websites? Again, that's not actually in the rules. What do you mean by "the website is known to not be suitable in terms of providing additional resources for encyclopedic articles?" Frankly, that sounds like a Catch-22. There can be no external link to a website unless that website has had an external link to it before? The fact is, the webpage DOES add additional information, as much of it is not on Wikipedia. And what on earth do you mean by "lipstick?" I would request you use plainer speech because your point here has genuinely eluded me. Sorry. Krshwunk (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If your website were suitable then someone else would add it. It is however not suitable, and even less so for being added by its own author who is clearly promoting their own personal beliefs in contravention of Wikipedias mission and values.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is the website "not suitable?" This has still actually not been made clear in any way. And once again, there is no rule on Wikipedia that a person cannot add an external link from a Wikipedia article to his webpage. Also, lots of the things on Wikipedia promote all sorts of personal beliefs. Look at the "Criticism of Religion" page, for example, as it has an external link "The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum." Obviously, that promotes a certain personal belief. But if you have something very concrete to say on this subject, please tell. What on the webpage is so objectionable on the topic of personal beliefs? Again, be concrete. Pick something particular. Please don't be vague. Please let me understand you. Krshwunk (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krshwunk: That the information is not there is not a reason to add an external link, nor is that there are only a few there (as WP:EL states: "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.". The former could be a reason to expand the article and using the site as a reference for that (though it seems that it was already disqualified as a reliable source as well) - again per WP:EL: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.".
I did not say that these were the only reasons for adding the link. The link does contain relevant information to the article that people often inquire about in connection with the article, but the length and detail of the information would overload the existing article, as I would expect someone would say if I tried inputting it. Again, is the solution to transferring all the link's information to a new Wikipedia article called "List of Atheist Murders" or something? I'd like to hear people's thoughts on that. Thanks. Krshwunk (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
What I did say was that you could insert it once, but if it is removed after that, then it should first find consensus (and in case of COI, it is even better that you first find consensus to include, to avoid the implication of impropriety). You, however, insisted. And I see very little in trying to convince editors on content-based criteria, most of your criteria are based on the question "why should I not add this link?" --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by objecting to me trying to convince editor on "content-based criteria." I should probably know what that means and how that is contradistinguished by something else but I don't. What do you mean? Krshwunk (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krshwunk: convincing = going to the talkpage and start a discussion (at least after the first reversion, but with a COI sometimes even before the very first addition); it is not that you repeatedly insert the link. That discussion needs content based criteria, and with the primary goal to actually incorporate the information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

In summary, here is a recap of the refutations to the main objections of adding the "atheist murderers" external link. 1) Some said the link led to an "unreliable source." However, WP:EL states that external links do not need to be a reliable source, as long as it uses reliable sources in it (which it does so meticulously). 2) Some said the link led to a personal website. However, the website does not have personal information but rather is about intellectual topics, including philosophy, history, theology, and film interpretations. 3) The link should not be included because the person (me) has a COI. However, there is no rule that states that one cannot add an external link to their own website. 4) The link leads to a website that does not contain any new information about the Wikipedia article. However, the list, in fact, has lots of information that is verifiably not included in the Wikipedia article and even includes information not on Wikipedia at all. 5) The link does not pertain to the Wikipedia article. However, the link catologues many people who have committed murder with atheism as an apparent motive, thus critiquing atheism from a moral standpoint (furthermore, it counters a rather common atheist claim that there are no atheist serial killers or mass shooters). There have been other ever-changing objections voiced such as the link hurting people's feelings, being so-called "junk," and that "it just not going to be included," though these obviously do not constitute valid objections, and I trust that they will not be made again. I know a lot of people might be uncomfortable with the material it contains, but let's not object to knowledge and let's actually apply Wikipedia's guidelines as they are actually stated. So, once again, does anyone have a single legitimate reason for banning the external link? Krshwunk (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

1) Right, it just disqualifies as a WP:RS, it cannot be used as a source.
2) It is a website made for personal use, not that it contains personal information. Anyone can write something on a website and link to it - it does not disqualify a link per sé, it is however something that we try to avoid
3) That is what I re-iterate - you added it, it got reverted - you should not be adding it again, just discuss its inclusion, and if you cannot get a consensus to it being included then it will not be included. The burden of inclusion is on you, now you need consensus to include it. Having a conflict of interest makes it very likely that the link gets first removed, and that a consensus to include is needed. The reason is not directly that the link is removed because you have a coi, the link is removed because you need an independent consensus to include it.
4) Maybe, but the (your!) first goal should be to incorporate the information into Wikipedia - not just link to it and be done.
5) The article is about criticism of atheism, not about atheist murders. It is not a direct relation.
Now, over that, Wikipedia is not the place to publish your research, there are other outlets for that. Barring that you find consensus to have the link included (which is currently closer to against inclusion) the link is not going to be included. Maybe there are ways to include the information itself (where you would not refer to your own work, nor perform WP:OR, and need reliable references for every claim you insert). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1) Sure. Not an issue.
2) According to how Wikipedia defines a personal webpage (WP:ELNO), the link is not a personal webpage, because it is not a blog, it is not a fan site, and it does not contain content of a personal nature.
3) I understand the point about consensus. Not only am I hoping that people will concede after showing how all the objections thus far against the inclusion of the link are without basis, but also, to re-iterate, the link not only provides additional, relevant, sought-after information regarding the article but it also presents it in a way that is designed to be convenient and concise, such that by simply dumping it into the article will overload it considerably and utterly undo said design which, I say again, is something many inquirers into the subject have precisely appreciated.
4) Sure. I actually intend to incorporate the information into the relevant Wikipedia articles. However, the particular, concise organization of the list as mentioned before would be lost if simply distributed across articles. Now, do you think by starting a new Wikipedia titled "List of Atheist Murderers" and transferring the list onto it will solve the problem? Everything on the list is footnoted. I've asked this a couple times, and I'm curious what people think.
5) I know the article is about criticism of atheism, and the link provides further criticism of atheism, particularly about its connections to instances of murder. How is this not a valid relation? Is there a rule on Wikipedia that an external link must directly relate to the utterly universal sense of an article rather than a specific but still important aspect of it? If so, please quote me the rule. On the "criticism of religion" page, for instance, there is an external link "The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum." That link is not criticizing religion in the most general sense but rather criticizing it specifically from a moral standpoint ... which is very much what the external link that I propose does as well except with regard to atheism. Krshwunk (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1) well, a bit an issue, you can not take data from the page and use it as a reference in itself - you'd need other references (that are in the document) to do that.
2) WP:ELNO defines a personal website through Personal web page, a page created by an individual on their own account. That is what your page is.
3) The arguments are not without basis - but it does not matter, you need content based arguments in favour. It remains that it is not in Wikipedia's goals to link to your page, it aims to incorporate. People may show interest in the page, or even greatly appreciate it, but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to bring readers to it.
4) As long as you oblige the (legal) requirements (WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLP, other pillars of Wikipedia, etc.) then something like that is a possibility (I am not sure if wholesale copy-paste is a proper option).
5) translated: "the page is about cheese, I have pictures of gorgonzola on my page, which is a cheese, so it is a fit" - no, that is a violation of WP:ELNO#EL13. "... a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject". Your page is about a specific criticism of atheism.
I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:EL offers several reasons Krshwunk. Common sense offers a bunch more. WP:EL prohibits links that are advertising or COI - yours would not be, if someone else had added it. But you did, to advertise and advocate your own personal, non-notable, opinion. It also prohibits personal websites, which your site is. Secondly because of the polemic nature, the fallacious "guilt by association" argument implied, and because it would set a terrible precedent for other articles (imagine a list of Jewish or black criminals as en External Link), it is not suitable, proper, or useful as an EL. Now, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before continuing wasting other peoples time with this argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This will be my last response, as I will follow Wikipedia's guidelines for avoiding taking up people's time. To Dirk Beetstra: 1) I'm not clear what you're talking about (this could be my fault). I simply said WP:RS is not an issue here because the WP:RS does not apply to external links. With that said, the link provides numerous sources that do follow WP:RS. 2) You claimed WP:ELNO and/or personal web page defines "personal website" as "a website created by an individual by their own account" but this definition does not appear anywhere on either pages. As said before, Wikipedia defines personal web page as a website "created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature." However, also said before, the link leads to a page that is not of a personal nature. Yes, it was created by an individual (me), but the content is not of a personal nature. Therefore, it is not a personal web page as far as Wikipedia is concerned with regard to external links. 3) I certainly never said it was Wikipedia's goal to link to my page. I have also argued that the content is applicable for the Wikipedia article in question. On the other hand, I may be misunderstanding your point here. 4) All right. Thank you for your comment here. 5) If this is so, I do wonder why external links often pertain to more specific things in articles like how the "Criticism of Religion" page includes a link titled "The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum," as it criticizes religion in a specific way, namely from a moral standpoint (perhaps this needs to be removed from that page).
To ·maunus: I respectively disagree that WP:EL offers any obvious applicable reasons against the link, as I have explained in great detail over and over again, and neither do I see "common sense" oppose it. Notably, WP:EL does not prohibit someone from linking a Wikipedia article to their site (as others have admitted here). Furthermore, as just explained (again), the site is not a personal web page according to Wikipedia standards. Also, why is my opinion "non-notable"? Sounds very POV. I also don't see any prohibition against links that are "polemic" (I didn't see that word on WP:EL, but if it is elsewhere, please let me know). Also, for the last time, the website shows a problematic side of atheism insofar as it shows many leaders have killed in the name of atheistic ideologies, and also shows various serial killers and mass shooters who demonstrated atheism as a motive for their murders (usually this counts as criticism if you replace "atheism" here with "religion" at least). Furthermore, it also suggests that the common atheist claim that atheism, unlike religion, is somehow free from being involved in murder is false. Thus, the page is not merely a practice in "guilt by association." Lastly, your comparison to a hypothetical list of Jewish or black criminals is not particularly analogous, as "atheism" is an intellectual stance (or lack thereof), whereas being Jewish and black has to do with one's race. With that said, there are plenty of external links that I've seen on Wikipedia that have made me uncomfortable and express things that I personally disagree with, sometimes to a very great degree. But this by itself does not make them unfit external links for Wikipedia. What you are expressing here is a POV. And that is the main "argument" against the "Atheist Murderers" link that I have heard in this discussion (though that is not true for everyone here, fortunately). But as Wikipedia's rules stand, I will respect them and will go along with the consensus. I wish you all well. Krshwunk (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krshwunk: - with 1) I meant that the link cannot be used as a reference itself, and from the rest it is likely not suitable as an external link; 2) Personal web pages, as referred in WP:ELNO, are "pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than on behalf of a company, organization or institution. Personal web pages are primarily used for informative or entertainment purposes" - your's is a personal web page of an informative kind. It contains your interpretation, written by yourself, of material. In basis there is nothing wrong with that, but as anyone can do that, these are not the pages we normally link to - except if the writer is a known specialist in the theme (if a person/professional specialised in atheism subjects with many peer-reviewed papers on their name also has a personal web page where they publish a more personal view on the subject, then that would be one to consider - though still preferably judged by someone else and not by the person themselves). It is therefore a 'personal web page', it is a webpage published by a person themselves (as opposed to e.g. a document on, where a reporter writes the piece, and the editor decides to put it, or e.g. a paper published by a scholar, submitted to a journal, where the editor submits it for peer reviewing and then decides to publish it), 3) my point was there that your first goal should be to incorporate, not just link, especially since you have a conflict of interest with linking - see 4, 4) thank you, 5) Wikipedia is not finished, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (unfortunately) applies (WP:OTHERLINKS is the external links-discussion of the same nature). You may have a point in that that link is not appropriate either. As nature of pages sometimes shift or pages get more elaborate external links sometimes become superfluous, start duplicating (and WP:SPAMHOLE applies). Or it was simply missed and should not have been added in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Given WP:ELBURDEN and WP:BLP, I don't understand why this discussion wasn't closed after a few comments. Krshwunk was lucky not to be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation?[edit]

On the page for Adriana Lima the reference currently known as reference 7 (Adriana Lima talks about her mixed heritage") links to a video which appears to infringe on copyright. Is it valid for this reference to be used? (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)