Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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)
    Shortcuts
    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:

    Indicators
    Defer discussion:
     Defer to WPSPAM
     Defer to XLinkBot
     Defer to Local blacklist
     Defer to edit filter

    2024 United States drone sightings

    [edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at 2024 United States drone sightings § AARO external link. – Anne drew 02:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Should the list of external links at Structural equation modeling#Software be retained? Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Structural_equation_modeling#Software. - MrOllie (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, it's not a list, but a table with links in one column, which is acceptable under WP:ELLIST.SMasonGarrison 04:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Canada NTS Map Sheets

    [edit]

    Is {{Canada NTS Map Sheet}} ok to use in article text? I normally see it used in infoboxes instead of in text, but sometimes an NTS map is mentioned in the body of an article (e.g. Nahta Cone). Volcanoguy 21:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Volcanoguy, I'd suggest moving that link to the infobox or the ==External links== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question. The link is provided by the {{Canada NTS Map Sheet}} template when an appropriate map sheet number is provided in the template. I looked at WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO, but I couldn't figure out if such things should be linked in the body of an article. Individual map sheets are unlikely to have their own WP articles and the map sheet numbers aren't very useful in the article body unless they're linked. Volcanoguy 02:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Second sentence of the guideline, we normally don’t link from the body of the text. There is no need to link to 104G7, the sentence needs a reference to the decision. The link is and can stay in the infobox, where it belongs. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I meant. I would not put the link in this sentence:
    I would put the link in the infobox. I would consider putting the link in ==External links== (if you thought it had something interesting for a reader). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And as ref, maybe https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/bcgnws/names/9012.html or (if findable) the original sources mentioned there. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New Muses Project

    [edit]

    Yearlongbread (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been systematically adding links to the New Muses Project - https://newmusesproject.com/. While this is bordering on spamlinking, I looked into it a bit more closely. The New Muses Project appears to have just enough independent coverage to support its own article, if someone were to write it. It seems to be associated with Yale. The links to individual composers, which is what Yearlongbread has been adding, provide lists of reference materials and Youtube links for a sample of their music, as well as brief bios.

    What do other people think? If this is a useful resource, I don't want to just rip them all out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I clicked on 4 or 5 addition diffs, and 3 of them were complete lnkfarms already. Not really a decision on the links, but this is spamming and not in line with WP:EL, do these really add so much more? Dirk Beetstra T C 19:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, sometimes the links are added on top, above subject official website. I say remove all, discuss individual re-insertions by others. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, Thanks for opening a topic to discuss this matter. I've been adding links to the Wiki pages of several composer profiles, since the information included on the composers' New Muses Project profiles is the original work of a team of musicology graduate students and young professionals in the music world and often compliments (rather than reproduces) the information included on the Wiki pages. My goal is not to spam Wikipedia but rather to add an additional, original, and tailored resource for those who are looking to explore the composers in question further. I am happy to add new links / move the ones I've already uploaded to the bottom of the External Links sections, as @Beetstra recommends. Otherwise, I could also add these profiles under the References section or anywhere else that may be appropriate. Again, my goal is not to promote New Muses Project but rather to ensure relevant information is available and accessible, particularly since the composers featured New Muses Project are all members of historically underrepresented communities (gender, race, location, etc.). Please let me know your thoughts, and thanks so much! Yearlongbread (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at https://newmusesproject.com/hazel_scott and I think it's an appropriate link for Hazel Scott. On the basis of this single spot check, I wouldn't bother with a mass blanking. I might recommend a different description, however. It says "Hazel Scott (New Muses Project)" and I think that something like "Hazel Scott – videos and recordings at the New Muses Project" would work better. Or even "Yale's New Muses Project", if that's technically accurate.
    Yearlongbread, the point isn't really to put yours at "the bottom" (though that's fine), but to follow the convention that the WP:ELOFFICIAL link should be the first. There isn't a set order for the rest of them.
    I suggest only adding the best pages from NMP. The ones that happen to show off the NMP to its best advantage (presumably a desirable goal for the NMP) are also the ones that are best for Wikipedia's readers (highly desirable for us). In particular, if you have an excellent page and the existing links are lousy, then that's a good article to add the NMP link. And if, while you're doing that, you could please remove any WP:ELDEAD links, then that would be great.
    If you really want to add all of NMP's links, you should be adding them to Wikidata and asking for an entry in Template:Authority control. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing/Yearlongbread The point I was trying to make is that on George Walker (composer) there now are 9 ELs, on Florence Price 12, and on Amy Beach there were already 15, on Marion Bauer already 11. This is just 'I want to add external links, regardless'. That is not what we do, we don't dump external links just because WP:EL is not specifically prohibiting them. There was an argument made that the added link was similar to other links, that is a specific reason in WP:EL to NOT add the link. We are careful in what we add. I still would consider to revert, and then maybe a considered re-addition in some places (or, indeed, better to Wikidata and get them in Authority control). Or see if you can expand articles and use the material as a reference (and not just put it as a reference), our article on Maria Anna de Raschenau is rather short and lacks an image, and I see material being used on this project that could be used to expand the article, the two arias/oratories on themusesproject are not even mentioned in our Wikipedia article. Or e.g. write Pedro Ximénez Abrill Tirado ... for this composer we do not have an article. And that is what WP:EL is suggesting to do, not finding excuses to just violate WP:NOT/WP:SPAM. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think there is also information in newmusesproject.com/hazel_scott that is not in our article on Hazel Scott yet. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing / @SarekOfVulcan / @Beetstra Thank you all for your comments and thoughts. For now, with your approval, I am going to finish adding the best New Muses Project profiles (which I believe will be a couple dozen), prioritizing both the best NMP pages and composers who don't have extensive Wiki pages. While I am updating these links, I will also make sure to keep the composer's official website at the top of the External Links list and will also check for dead or inappropriate links to ensure that this section of the Wikipedia entry remains professional and organized. At some point (hopefully in the not too distant future), I will look into the "donate data to Wikidata" option and will also begin writing the Wiki pages for any composer who doesn't yet have a Wiki page (such as Abrill Tirado), although these jobs might have to wait until I have a bit more time in summer. Thanks again, and hope you all have a great rest of your week! Yearlongbread (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yearlongbread Please wait with that until we a better consensus, I still believe that some of the links should be removed, or should be used better as references. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have an example in mind of one that's better suited as a reliable source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just gave onetwo above. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just reverted these latest additions. I do not think we have consensus for these additions to external links sections, with suggestions being made for other uses of these links. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned that if we add these as refs, then someone will claim WP:REFSPAM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So back to the original idea, wikidata/authority control. And just be sensible as to how and wher to use them as references. If one really starts to edit it should not be an issue, but if one tries to use any coatrack to hang their hat then yeah, maybe the reality is that this someone is more a refspammer than someone who genuinely wants to improve. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Opinion polling

    [edit]

    Hello editors. Over time, it seems a practice has developed where external links are used in tables on election polling pages instead of references (see for example Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election). Wherever I come across this, I try to convert it (especially the current ones). However, I’ve recently received criticism about it (see Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#External_links), mainly because it would make the pages even larger. I was curious about how you all feel about this. Dajasj (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Now those pages have 'mixed' referencing styles, and the way it is on Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election it gives extreme prominence to the external link over the results which is what the table is about. For me, what are now the external links to the polling entity should be wikilinks to the polling entity, and a column 'references' should be added. That is how generally tables are formatted, we are to avoid external linking in 'prose' (where I think tables are 'prose' here), and it makes a clean referencing style. If you want to group the references, you can even 'split' them into separate reference groups. And if it is only the size of the page, then I don't see any issue (we have way bigger pages). The information is in the polling results, and the size of the page is there not an argument. (Unrelated question, what is gained by being able to sort those columns, formatting in most of them is rather non-uniform?). Dirk Beetstra T C 15:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They should be references, not external links. Yes the reference will contain that link, but right now these are tables that are primarily about external links when that isn't the point of them. They're not supposed to be a collection of external links, but referenced polling information. Canterbury Tail talk 16:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely agreed. CR (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do people believe that 200 URLs will make 2,000 refs? It is because the article is expected to grow to 10x the size? Articles can easily have two thousand refs, but they can't have two thousand Wikipedia:Citation templates because of the Help:Template limits. You might need specialized (single-source) citation templates, or to manually format all the refs.
    You can get advice about that problem at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]
    Moved from WP:VPP

    Template:Finance links is used for large-scale violations of WP:EXLINK, specifically WP:ELMIN and WP:ELNO#13. This is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't end each article about a company with a list of links for finance bros. Can we delete the template and make the guideline clearer that this is not desirable? It has been used 1778 times. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Stock tickers are relevant information for a business to help readers to look them up further. Masem (t) 03:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but this is an encyclopedia and we are not in the business of helping readers look them up further. We are not Google and we are not DMOZ or Curlie. Polygnotus (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    DMOZ closed, and Curlie's future is uncertain. I wouldn't recommended adding either of them to any article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This example is from Ferrari#External links:

    Articles should not normally have a such a spray of external links. It might be worth asking for opinions at WP:ELN. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a noticeboard for everything! Polygnotus (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim above about WP:ELNO#EL13 is misplaced. That item says:
    • Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.
    A link to business data for a specific company is "directly related to the subject of the article" about that specific company. The links you give are deep links. That is, https://www.google.com/finance/quote/RACE:NYSE is a permissible deep link, and https://www.google.com/finance/ is an example of "A general site that has information about a variety of subjects" and not permitted for this article.
    WP:ELMIN only applies to official links. Google, Reuters, the US government, and Yahoo! are not owned or controlled by Ferrari, so they are not WP:ELOFFICIAL links for the article Ferrari. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing A link to a website about company X is directly related to company X. A link to a website about the stock price of company X's stocks is not directly related to company X. WP:ELMIN only applies to official links. Nope, it says: Minimize the number of links -- Normally, only one official link is included. If everyone else can wikilawyer then so can I. Polygnotus (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always willing to admire a good bout of wikilawyering, but I suggest choosing your audience a little better. I wrote ELOFFICIAL originally (in 2009), so you're going to have a lot of trouble convincing me that I don't know what I meant. That argument would work better on someone else.
    The text says:
    Minimize the number of links

    Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says.

    It's difficult to read that and think that this is about minimizing the number of non-official links. We do actually want to limit the total number of external links, but we don't generally worry about it until the ==External links== section has 10+ entries (and with this formatting, the "Business links" might be considered one entry). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing Isn't wikilawyering fundamentally about reading what you want to read and ignoring everything else? This is my preferred interpretation of the holy texts, and therefore it must be true. Polygnotus (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that it's true – at least, it's true that it's your preferred interpretation. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: Exactly! It is true because it is my preferred interpretation and it is my preferred interpretation because that is true. Anyway, if you wrote it, where does WP:EXLINK say that we shouldn't pretend to be DMOZ and add long lists of somewhat-related links to every article? Because it should say that. Right? Maybe you can make that clearer in the text? we don't generally worry about it until the External links section has 10+ entries That is not true in my experience, and therefore not true. People often restrict the exlink section to 1 or 2. Certainly not ten. And a stock is not a company, so a page about a stock is offtopic on an article about a company. Counting 4 as 1 because they are on a single line is the kind of number magic that gets mathematicians banned from social gatherings. Polygnotus (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The line in WP:EL most closely related to DMOZ is WP:ELMAYBE #3, which recommends "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links in articles are not acceptable." Once upon a time (including before my first edit to that guideline), that numbered point specified DMOZ as an example.
    I would not be surprised to discover that some editors believe, e.g., that only official links are allowed. It's not true, and it's never been true, but since we teach the rules via telephone game, fake rules are par for the course. "We only need one official link for that company, so I'm removing these extra social media links" quickly turns into "We are only allowed to have one external link in all business articles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ELMAYBE #3 should indeed be removed. Once upon a time (including before my first edit to that guideline), that numbered point specified DMOZ as an example. Yeah DMOZ used to be useful back before it got spammed to death. Usually social media links add nothing to a readers understanding of a company, because most companies social media feeds are an endless stream of drivel. There are exceptions tho! Polygnotus (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not found DMOZ/Curlie links to be very useful (except that once upon a time, they were pretty good spam deterrents). However, web directories that are curated by a responsible person/organization are still valuable. It's better to have a webpage that links to, (e.g.,) all the official UN statements about the subject of the Wikipedia article or all the oral histories from former members of the subject of the Wikipedia article, than to have individual links added here and there by editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Electronic Intifada is considereed GUNREL, decribed as There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed.

    It is occasionally used within the external links sections, primarily for localities within what they consider to be Palestine. Based on WP:EL, specifically WP:ELMAYBE, the permissibility of their removal by me has been challenged in good faith by @Smallangryplanet here, with no consensus except that autocorrection and I aren't friends. Another removal was reverted by @Huldra, but no discussion occured.

    I'm slowly tagging/removing most uses of EI, and was wondering whether there is an informal consensus whether or not this source is appropriate for that use, or if both positions are in line with policy. FortunateSons (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Since EL:s aren't exactly sources, this would seem to be a case-by-case thing rather than away with them all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense; there are generally links to the entire local reporting bei EI, for example here. The primary issue I challenged was referring to "occupation authorities" for organisations acting within Israel, but that's just the most obvious example. FortunateSons (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were concerned about readers being surprised, then descriptions can be added, e.g., "a pro-Palestinian viewpoint" or "a pro-Israeli article". Sometimes a pair of links from opposing POVs can be more informative than one that is superficially neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is so true. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A wikilink to The Electronic Intifada is a good start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good idea for the ones that are kept in the article, linking and clearly categorising them might help adress some of the less severe cases, thanks! FortunateSons (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d say if we were judging on a case by case basis, there’d have to be a very good reason to include a GUNREL source in the ELs, and the onus for gaining consensus would surely be on the editor arguing for inclusion not the editor removing it. No? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    coming from rsn noticeboard agree. generally seems unwise for most (95+%) cases to include gunrel sourcing in external links. but don’t think we need a hard rule saying no always, in case there is some weird case where we do need to link it User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think those weird cases might exist, but I agree with you that they are likely to be <5%. Or even <1%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No.
    But if you made the comment about "a notorious GUNREL source that is not an WP:ELOFFICIAL source for that article", I'd almost agree, except that it's kind of a pointless rule, because WP:ELBURDEN says all disputed links get removed unless and until consensus exists to include them.
    It's a bit silly of us to talk about "the onus for gaining consensus" being on one editor, since determining what the consensus is everyone's job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I didn’t mean the onus is on the one specific editor, but that the default would be exclusion and anyone arguing for inclusion would need to seek consensus that this is exceptional. (Per WP:BURDEN etc.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BURDEN applies to ordinary article content. WP:ELBURDEN is specific to external links, and it even stronger. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we include imdb and social media (as ELOFFICIAL) all the time, all EL:s has a bit of a "caveat" sort of built into it. My "question" in a specific case would probably be if it fits per WP:ELMAYBE #4. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure whether EI generally or only situationally meet WP:ELNO Nr.2, but a "not included unless there is consensus in favour" seems to be a very reasonable postion that allows for the removal of most while preserving the few uses that add a lot of value to the reader. FortunateSons (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the discussion above was that this should be decided on a case by case basis. The link here is not disputed and can be allowed on the page. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that User:FortunateSons now deletes EL-link in As-Sawiya referring to this discussion. I disagree with the removal of the article My First Settler Attack. The article adds a first-hand account of a settler attack, why should wp censor this? Huldra (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a somewhat reasonable argument could be made for this link at a (non-existent) article about this or such attacks, but a (as far as I can tell) non-notable person working for a minor activist organisation (indicated by the link being dead) writing about a non-notable attack in a generally unreliable source is IMO clearly undue for the town the attack occurred in, particularly considering it’s 20 years old, and such attacks are sadly pretty routine. If I missed some way in which this is of great significance, I’m happy to discuss it in detail? FortunateSons (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is exactly because such attacks are "pretty routine" that a first-hand account is important, IMO. Huldra (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Important in what way? Not to learn about the town, right? I don’t disagree that it’s generally important, but there has to be a better article and a better source than this. And no, first-hand-accounts aren’t great from an encyclopaedic perspective in such cases, a scholarly analysis would be significantly preferable, as this is not one of the cases where a primary source is the best one FortunateSons (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it is to learn about the town, more specifically how it is to live there. I get it that you don't find that important, but let us hear from what others think. Comments, please? Huldra (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:FortunateSons: could you please stop removing EI links until this discussion have ended? (like Iqrit, Kafr Bir'im) - Huldra (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has been stale for almost two weeks prior to your engagement with it, but sure. For the record, those are only the two original removals that started this discussion; the editor who reverted those continued editing despite being pinged here and notified of the reverts, so I’m assuming that they are either fine with this or busy. FortunateSons (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are not that many who "watch" this page, and no mention was made about this discussion on the relevant wikiprojects (I have added a link on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration now, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oral histories (or equivalent) can be good ==External links==. However, I'm not sure that the small town were one happened is always the best choice. Perhaps it would fit better into an article like Israeli settler violence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure that I agree. Eg.:If I wanted information on As-Sawiya, I would want any oral history linked from that article. We could course have a link to Israeli settler violence, for a "background", but there would be no way of knowing that there were info directly about As-Sawiya, by just looking at the link to Israeli settler violence, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would depend on the specifics. If it's something like "Let me tell you about my hometown. I've lived here for 50 years, and A, B, and C have happened during that time", then I'd put it at the town article. But if it's "Let me tell you about Israeli settler violence. This event happened in As-Sawiya, but there's nothing special about As-Sawiya in this respect; the same kind of settler violence happens pretty much everywhere", then I wouldn't put it in the town article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm reminded of Tolstoy's famous words: "all happy families are similar, every unhappy family is unique". Likewise; every unhappy event (ie settler violence) is unique, IMO. Huldra (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this information about violence came from a reliable source, then it should be included in the article with a reference.
    If the info isn't from a reliable source, then putting it instead as an EL seems like it's an attempt to bypass the rules we have about sources to push a POV.
    And looking at the article As Sawiya a number of news articles (Maan News, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz) have been included as EL. Those almost certainly don't belong there. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; Maan News, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz: they should be included in the article (if they mention As Sawiya). Huldra (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:ELMAYBE #4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
    You shouldn't use the ==External links== section for POV pushing, but the fact that it's not reliable is not a problem. For example, if a hobbyist puts up a personal website to show off their photos of their hometown, then that's okay to include (assuming editors form a consensus to do so, or at least that nobody objects), even though we wouldn't ordinarily consider that to be a reliable source.
    Looking at that article's ==External links== section, I currently see 13 links. There's Wikipedia:No firm rules, but more than half a dozen is unusual, and more than about 10 is usually too many. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I think it's very clear that all 3 of these sources being used as external links on As Sawiya push POV:
    • POICA - "Monitoring Israeli colonization activities"
    • ISM - "...a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the long-entrenched and systematic oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian population"
    • PalestineRemembered - "To emphasize that the CORE issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are the DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING (compulsory population transfer) of the Palestinian people"
    I think that the only two things in the list which don't clearly push POV are the documents from ARIJ and the survey map from 1880. Bob drobbs (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe POICA is a EU-funded NGO, while ISM is non-EU funded NGO, while PalestineRemembered is a private web-site, but with interesting and relevant pictures, Huldra (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay for external links to be biased (just like it's okay for reliable sources to be WP:RSBIASED).
    I wonder why the article has so little information about settler violence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have expanded that article with the Haaretz, Maan and Jerusalem Post info. And, without looking at the history, I suspect I was the one who added those WP:RS as EL. I sometimes do that, as it is soooo depressing expanding the article with the info. Same reason why I have written relatively little about the details on how the 1948-villages got "depopulated": just too depressing, Huldra (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic, but this might help you as well: I sometimes just add them to the talk page as „might be relevant“ or similar, and they occasionally get written into the article by someone else. It’s not perfect, but probably a better place than EL. FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Raegan Revord

    [edit]

    TWO recent threads on EL:s, Talk:Raegan_Revord#Official_website and Talk:Raegan_Revord#External_Links. If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard&oldid=1283184257"