Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

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. (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: Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard. For cases involving blatant spamming, please file a report at the spam project. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. This board is not intended for generalized discussion about the external links guidelines themselves, which should be handled at the guideline talk page. To mark a report resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

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

Turner Diaries and Hunter

There is a copyright dispute on my talk page over external links on the William Luther Pierce articles about the fictional novels Turner Diaries and Hunter. Both of these books explicitly state on The Internet Archive that they are no longer in copyright and public domain, have been at this online library for 5 years, have thousands of downloads and no dispute of copyright has ever been taken up against them. Can someone please come to my talk page for arbitration?Pussypimples (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

To give my side of this:

1. The dispute concerns The Hunter, a book by William Luther Pierce written in 1989. PP is attempting to insert an external link to its listing on the Internet Archive, which claims that it is public domain and was released as such by the National Allianc÷e.
2. Problem the first; the book, absent an explicit revocation of copyright, is still copyrighted: It was written in 1989, and so is within the existing copyright terms in the United States (our hosting jurisdiction, the IA's hosting jurisdiction, and Pierce's jurisdiction of residence).
3. Problem the second; the NA didn't write the book, Pierce did. There's no statement or evidence presented that Pierce transferred copyright to the NA.
4. Problem the third; even if Pierce did transfer copyright, "someone claiming to be the NA says it's public domain" does not constitute a release. We don't know that they are NA-associated at all, much less that they're authorised to work as the NA's legal agents. Ironholds (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

To begin, WP:EL states that a link can normally be included to "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work..." The question then, is whether the Internet Archive legally distributes the work (not whether it is in the public domain). The Internet Archive distributes the work based on permission from the National Vanguard, the book's publisher (according to Hunter (Pierce novel), anyway). In my mind, then, this boils down to solely a factual question: does the National Vanguard have the right to permit others to distribute the work, and if so, has the National Vanguard actually given this permission? I am no expert on copyright law, but I'm under the impression it is ordinary that the author gives the publisher such a right, and that if the publisher asserts this right, it need not be questioned by us unless challenged by the copyright holder. That leaves us with the question of whether the National Vanguard actually did give the Internet Archive permission. Knight of Truth (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I just want to note that I find it questionable whether it was indeed National Vanguard that uploaded the book. (But even if it were, I don't think we can make assumptions about their right to distribute it on the Internet Archive, and unless Pierce assigned the copyright to the publisher, they certainly can't just go and say it's public domain.) wctaiwan (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the most straight-forward way would be to ask National Vanguard directly? If the publisher says the work can be distributed freely, why should we have any more worries than when the publisher says the work is for sale? It is not reasonable to question the (usually private) agreement an author has with a publisher if there is no evidence that there is a dispute over it. We do the same thing when, say, we link to an article in a scientific journal that publishes its articles online; no-one asks to see the copyright release the author signed. Knight of Truth (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Er. What? No. That's not how it works at all. Yes, publishers have a license to distribute; without that, they're not publishers. This does *not* mean that they have the full rights to the work, including the ability to declare something to be in the public domain. That's what's under discussion here, and is most definitely not standard: does the National Vanguard hold the full copyright to the work, and if so, have they released the work into the public domain. This is not ordinary and is perfectly legitimate to question. Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

But as I said, the question is not whether the work is in the public domain, merely whether National Vanguard can (and actually did) assign its right to distribute the work to the Internet Archive. Policy is to link to copyrighted works so long as they are legally distributed, whatever copyright status or license (from public domain to CC-BY to a custom license) that may entail. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Then you're simply wrong. Again, the IA's listing claims the work is public domain; that's what we're trying to establish here. If the uploader was not the NA, it is a copyright violation and we cannot link to it. If the uploader was the NA and they lack the authority to release copyright - which, I will remind you, is not an authority usually given to publishers - it is just as illegitimate a release and just as problematic to link to. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor who removed the links to turner diaries and hunter suggested on my former talk page (pussypimples) that he was essentially politically and socially motivated (my interpretation) because he doesn't like links to hatebooks/hatesites from wikipedia. This is in spite of the fact the external links in question are indisputably relevant to the articles. This effort to remove the links smacks of lowbrow POV warrior activism which is decidedly unacceptable at Wikipedia. I did a search on Google, Bing and Yahoo using a variety of terms associated with these books and the IA listings come up on the first page every time. If there was even a shadow of a doubt they were in copyright violation certainly they would have been removed long ago. Ironholds has not provided any prima facie evidence these novels are in copyright violation other than pontificating passionate speculation. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks are also unacceptable at Wikipedia, y'know. Again, the onus is not me to show that the work is copyrighted, because US law mandates that a work of this age is copyrighted unless explicitly released by the copyright holder. We do not have any evidence that the NA is the copyright holder, and the fact that someone claiming to represent them uploaded it is meaningless without some kind of verification. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

When someone publicly admits on my talk page about being politically motivated to remove highly relevant information from Wikipedia articles because of its conflict with their personal ideological and social belief systems, it undeniably is the epitome of anti-intellectual (lowbrow) POV warrior activism. By no means is criticizing the confessed bias to be misconstrued as a personal attack either. I looked closer at the two said novels in question and it appears they were added to IA in early 2010, which means they are about to turn half a decade old (as listings). The items appear to state they were published by National Alliance, the organization founded by the deceased author Pierce. Given the defacto age of the library listings, their 5-figure combined downloads, conspicuous copyright liberation statements and linkbacks galore to the National Alliance, it's pretty clear that the items are not in copyright violation. The onus is now on you to prove the items are in copyright violation. You have not provided any proof to support your claims, even though you have been given numerous days so far to show any kind of evidence. All further responses from here on out are going to be: Please show us proof the items are still in copyright. The onus of proof and evidence remains on you. If you don't have proof just be honest and admit it, so we can end this dispute with the links staying in their respective articles. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "defacto" means what you think it means, but it's clear that we're done here. You have a tremendously flawed understanding of copyright law, and in the absence of any ability on your part to revisit that, there's nothing useful to be said. Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please try to make a more concerted effort to stay on topic next time. The focus of this arbitration has nothing to do with you expressing any unresolved feelings or speculative opinions regarding my understanding of copyright law. The focus of the arbitration: determine the copyright status of said novels. Your responsibility to provide proof they were in copyright violation resulted in you providing not even a modicum of evidence other than musing about wondering. All you needed to do was spend a few minutes searching the Internet to discover who occupies the director seat of the publishing organization in question. Since you didn't do so, I decided to find out for myself. It appears that the Grand Pooh-bah of this organization is Kevin Alfred Strom who can be found at http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com and then ask him. Just contact him and find out if the said novels are in copyright violation or not. What we need are precise answers not substanceless circle talk. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That's entirely on-topic because you are labouring under the tremendous misunderstanding that the onus isn't on the person claiming that copyright is released. Have Strom contact OTRS - which is not hard (I wrote the darn page) and validate that it's out of copyright. Until then, the links should be removed. Ironholds (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The said novels listed on IA clearly state they are public domain and not in copyright, you have failed repeatedly to show even as much as a modicum of evidence or proof they are in copyright violation. Again, the onus is upon you to prove they are in copyright violation, not the other way around. You are the one claiming they are in copyright violation, not me. You need to back up your claim, not lecture about curious speculation. The said books in very non-vague terms explicitly state their status, and have been listed on IA for 5 years unmolested. Moreover, the fact a POV warrior activist confession was publicly made that the motivation to remove these very relevant links is politically and sociologically motivated indicates a wanton disregard of mutual good faith (good faith is a two way street and it appears you have not lived up to your end). It's up to you now to prove the items are in copyright violation, and so far you have yet to do so other than pontificate in mind-numbing circles. It's time for you to deliver something of substance, it's time for you to provide proof, it's time for you to present evidence, so until then, these highly relevant links are to remain unmolested. If you can't provide even an iota of evidence or proof the said novels are in copyright violation at least show a scintilla of integrity and admit it. Again, until you provide proof or evidence the links remain. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? I've made no such declaration of being a "POV warrior activist". This is clearly a waste of both our time. Ironholds (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor who deleted the relevant links from the articles about novels hunter and turner diaries did so on the stated pretext of "copyright violation" but then reversed himself making a public confession on the pussy pimples talk page that he was removing said content for personal political and sociological reasons. This is clearly a surreptitious failure of mutual good faith and a disgusting example of clandestine POV-activism. Based on the editor's public admission of personally motivated bias, it appears "copyright violation" was really meant to be nothing more than a ruse. The reason it is a ruse because the said novels clearly state their copyright status and you have refused repeatedly to provide any proof or evidence otherwise. If you can't provide even an iota of evidence or proof the said novels are in copyright violation at least show a scintilla of integrity and admit it. Again, until you provide proof or evidence of copyright violation the links remain. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Because I work in copyright, I was asked to review this. There is no evidence that this content was hosted by anyone with authority to do so. It is not hosted by the Internet Archives directly, but is in the "community texts" section - [1] - these books can be uploaded by anyone who creates an account, which makes it the equivalent of Scribd. Internet Archives does to verify the copyright status of these works. It simply asks in the upload form that you only add content you have the right to. To make sure of this, I uploaded a "book" myself - within 10 minutes of creating account. I could have done it in 2, but it took me a few minutes to find a verifiably PD document they didn't already have. ([2]) This opens up content hosted there to fraudulent claims of copyright status, as anyone can host any content under any claim of license. In accordance with WP:ELNEVER: "If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it." Given this, there is additional reason to doubt the veracity of this PD claim and this is compounded by the fact that the book contributor is listed on the site as "Dr. William Luther Pierce" (in case that changes, as evidently the description has been altered by the person who uploaded the book within the past few days), which is obviously patently untrue, as the man died in 2002. As we have reason to believe the content is hosted in violation of copyright, these links need to be removed in accordance with policy. We do not keep them until there is proof of violation; we remove them on reasonable doubt, which we have, until that reasonable doubt is removed. They should not be restored pending consensus that they are appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MRG. I'm going to remove the links now. GBH, either have the relevant people validate the release through OTRS, or those links aren't coming back - no, not even if you write Yet Another 1,000 Byte Talk Page Comment explaining how I'm a terrible person who can't be trusted. Ironholds (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Oliver, I never said you were a terrible person, those are your own words. I said moreorless provide definitive proof the items in question where not what they claimed to be (no longer in copyright), and not provide conjecture or talking in circles. MRG, those novels have been live for five years on Wikipedia and no one ever brought a copyright claim against them. Any search on any top engine, shows those listings on the first page results. The editor who deleted the links initially stated he did so for reasons of bias.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What I actually said was I admit I'm in part motivated by my desire not to see hate speech linked directly from Wikipedia, but even if we were to disregard the nature of the content, Wikipedia tends to be conservative on how we handle copyright, and this just isn't good enough. Please stop mischaracterising what I said ("public confession") and slandering my character ("POV warrior"; a casual look through my contribs will show that is patently untrue) with every comment. As far as I'm concerned, we're done here. wctaiwan (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

.GingerBreadHarlot, it doesn't matter how long it's been here. What matters is whether they're policy compliant. We remove content that has been published longer than five years on Wikipedia routinely. Yesterday, I blanked material that was published on Wikipedia in 2006. We address problems when they're discovered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wctaiwan, please stop intentionally twisting what I wrote, which is clearly documented above. Please make an effort to comprehend what people write concerning issues, without your feelings being hurt, this is not about your emotions or personal attacks. You publicly admitting that you were partly motivated to delete the links because you did not want "hate speech" linked directly from Wikipedia is an ostentatious act of POV warrior activism, because the links were undeniably highly relevant to the article and this was never disputed. I respect the decision to have the links removed because of potential copyright violation. My intention for providing them was to make it easier for editors to verify claims about the articles in question. Now it means people have to go to oligopoly search engines if they want to find the original items, instead of through Wikipedia. Given the links were relevant to the article, your personal political feelings are irrelevant about the subject content, other than copyright issues which were addressed here. I don't know what country you live in, but in the United States of America we have a constitution that provides freedom of speech and protects its citizens and websites like Wikipedia from political correctness and censorship. I never said you were a POV warrior, I was criticizing your behavior as POV warrior activism and I am correct in stating so. Now, what I need to do is criticize your behavior of twisting people's words, make efforts to comprehend what people are saying and not twist their words (see above if you need reference), it's not a personal attack. We are done here, carry on. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reaffirming the futility of reading your arguments, through trying to suggest that the First Amendment applies to Wikipedia in any way, shape or form - or that it supersedes copyright law. The "addressing" of the copyright issues was confirming that the copyright issues exist, and so the links were removed. With that, this discussion is entirely pointless to perpetuate - particularly a week after it's winded down - and given that gap in time, it's impossible to interpret your comment as anything except an attempt to get the last word in and sulk off. Grow up. Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Er. What?" - Pompous communication is detracting and neither proves nor disproves facts. Disagreeing with you does not require of anyone to "grow up". My legitimate concern is about the defending of politically correct POV advocacy as part of the pretext for copyright issues that the editor admitted above. However the irony of you falsely directing this kind of infantile attack on me ("Grow up") is that you are the one who attempted a generally immature tactic of retorting with the suggestion about how "terrible of a person you are" (see above), this a childish red herring and not acceptable behavior for a serious discussion about an editor confessing POV activism as an undercurrent for "copyright issues". The fact remains, I was addressing the behavior of said editor, not making personal attacks and I am making no personal attacks against you either. Moreover, I'm now addressing your own personal attacks against me, now asking that you control yourself and refrain from the repetition of them. This issue is resolved for now. Until the organization who publishes these books provides clarity on the status of these books "Turner Diaries" and "Hunter" that are in dispute, I accept the current decision of the copyright monitor for the time being. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Linking to Prager University

• prageru.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • WhosOnMyServer.com (--Ronz (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC))
• prageruniversity.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • WhosOnMyServer.com (--Ronz (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC))

There's currently a TfD for {{PragerU}}, a wrapper for linking to Prager University (PU), where several people (including myself) have !voted in favour of deletion 'cause of PU itself, rather than the function of the template. Nyttend has pointed out that we should seek consensus for that elsewhere. Personally, I believe that linking to PU, on account of its overt slant, to be contrary to the spirit of the encyclopaedia. Alakzi (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi summarises my position well. The TFD has basically been a mix of "delete because the website shouldn't be linked at Wikipedia" and "keep because it's a useful way of presenting links to this website, as long as they're here". Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am the first editor of {{PragerU}}, and I'd first like to thank Alakzi for putting this discussion in the right place. As I understand it, the discussion here is just about whether Prager University lectures can be listed as "External links". This is not a proposal to blacklist the site, or otherwise prevent its use as an inline citation. Right? (I'll have more to say depending on the answer to that.) DougHill (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. Alakzi (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

OK then. Under your proposal, would we still be able to link to Prager University on the Dennis Prager page, and if such a page is developed, on a Prager University page? DougHill (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No one has answered this question. Under Alakzi's proposal, the answer would seem to be no. If this is not correct, could someone please make a more specific proposal? DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This proposal is about not linking to PU in any manner that it may appear educational. PU is a propagandist institution; we're not here to promote its views or its speakers' views. Per WP:ELNO, links to be avoided include:

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.

Other commenters here appear to have interpreted the issue differently. Alakzi (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As the original TfD nominator, please allow me to explain the issue. Prager University is a website that publishes short videos of speeches by notable people--similar to TED Talks, but with a politically ideological goal. ([3], [4]) DougHill, the creator of the template, has added the template to every (or almost every) Prager U speaker that has his or her own article. (examples: 1, 2, 3) The question is not whether Wikipedia can link to Prager U. Rather, the question is whether links to Prager U should be systematically added as external links to all or most such articles. This strikes me as violating our policies and guidelines surrounding promotion and neutrality, specifically WP:PROMOTION, WP:ADV, WP:ELPOV, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and WP:BALASPS. I could certainly see a Prager U lecture being cited as a primary source in limited circumstances, but that is not at all what we have here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop saying "every" when you know it to be untrue. And please answer my two questions (this is the more appropriate forum anyway). Even if it were every lecture, which one of those specific policies would it violate? (TNTFNOT) And, are we still in violation of that policy? DougHill (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• this is confusing to me. There are at least threefour issues being discussed or at play here:
  • with regard to the template, the TfD has a note saying that discussion is ongoing here. In my view, the template is just a tool for some editor(s) to promote Prager U more conveniently, and doesn't serve any useful goal with regard to the public getting access to useful information. So delete the template.
  • With regard to the source, that would be a case by case decision with regard to the article and the content it is used for.
  • With regard to the behavior of any editor whose edits are focused on adding links to Prager to WP articles, that person would likely be warned that WP is not a vehicle for promotion, they would be warned that their account is a WP:SPA and would be asked if they have a conflict of interest or are a paid editor and warned about advocacy, and if many of the links were found to inappropriate they would probably be blocked for spamming/WP:NOTHERE.
  • with regard to adding many instances of links to Prager U as external links if I came across this, I would systematically go through and delete them all, as I would if I came across anybody spamming a link across WP, which is just plain WP:PROMO for the target of the link and is an abuse of WP (per WP:PROMO). Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (added comments on 4th issue, the one here, namely EL Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC))

DougHill isn't an SPA, he just pivoted to Prager-related content starting in mid-December. As for forum, I would go anywhere necessary to get most of these ELs removed. They all follow of the same pattern, the EL is simply placed in the "External links" section rather than as a source for any content. It's not practical to start a discussion on each and every article talk page. I think that's what this noticeboard is for. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As noted somewhere (TFD, if I remember rightly), and as a Dr. Fleischman says here, a few of these videos might be useful, e.g. "Person X says YYYY", cited to the video of person X saying YYYY. This would be a reasonable use of the template and the links; that's why I'm opposed to its deletion and would be opposed to an attempt to remove all links without regard to the context. If the assessment by Dr. Fleischman and Jytdog be correct, we should indeed remove most of them, but as I haven't investigated fully enough, I can't either agree or disagree with their assessment. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It just occurred to me there's a better way to do this than to sift through DougHill's contribution history. This text search shows 22 hits for "Prager University," excluding Dennis Prager. Browsing through these hits reveals that a number of these links to Prager U are actually in inline citations rather than in "External links" sections. (My apologies to all--especially DougHill--for assuming all links were in "External links" sections.) Some of these citations appear appropriate and some do not; they will have to be addressed on an article-by-article basis (not here). This discussion is intended to be about linking to Prager University in "External links" sections. Nyttend, hopefully this addresses your question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So then why not change your vote in the TfD? Either way, we are going to deal with the main issue, the "External Links", here. DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

These templates and these link additions:

• The addition of an interview of/talk by the subject with/at some journal/university/organisation/entity is failing our general inclusion standards (an interview with a subject does not very often give much extra information beyond what is encyclopedic or necessary for understanding, and what extra information is needed generally can be part of the Wikipedia page itself) - there must be a very good reason to include an interview like that, and it certainly does not belong on many pages. Having a template for that is not appropriate (and this seems to be the general use of the template at the moment). Many of these links should be removed, and consensus on each specific case should be gained on the talkpage before (re-)inclusion - convince editors that the link is one of the exceptions, or they should be used (as intended) to draw information from that expands the document (and then converted to references, which generally makes re-linking it as an external link superfluous as well). For the template, it does not need a template for the few cases where the link is appropriate in the external links section, that can be 'written out'.
• In the references: interviews with, or talks by a subject can be a perfectly valid primary source for something that a subject has said. Linking to such a video is then appropriate. We have many templates handling citations, and (some of) those can handle videos as well (note, if it is a specific statement, I would suggest that the citation is including the time when it was said in the video or when the relevant info is there). Also for that, a separate template is not needed, nor is this template appropriate for use in the references section (use a regular cite-template). (this part is indeed out of scope of the discussion on this page).

I will comment in the TfD accordingly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree except to note that Prager "University" is neither a journal nor a university. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added 'organisation/entity' .. I could even add 'whereever' ..

Just a note on the external links-part - for interviews with, talks by, videos of/by, narrations of work of, etc. (like the external links discussed here), those external links do sometimes help in understanding a subject, but it is hardly ever the case that the subject can not be understood without a (or more) linked interview(s)/talk(s)/video(s)/narration(s) (the text 'Miley Cyrus is sitting naked on a wrecking ball' is already in the article, the video of that is not adding information that can not be understood without seeing the actual video). People often insert such links as 'but it is informative to see the subject talk'-type of argument, but I argue that that, often, fails WP:EL#EL1 ("Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article"). Moreover, the choice of which interview is often biased as well (and we are also not writing a linkfarm here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Should links to Prager University in speakers' "External links" sections be kept or removed?

There has been a lot of valuable input but the discussion has gotten long enough that it might be difficult for newcomers to join in. I suggest a !vote for clarity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Remove: On neutrality, promotion, and usefulness grounds. I agree in particular with Beetstra's latest comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Remove, for my reasons above. In addition, I disagree with the ostensibly 'even-handed' approach of comparing Prager U to TED. Alakzi (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Comment": Are there any left? Can someone identify a few articles where this is in dispute? All I could find was Dennis Prager, where there hasn't even been any talk page discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs)

Yes, there are a bunch, e.g. George Gilder and Joseph Telushkin. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. These lectures clearly provide provide a quick intro into their subject's thinking and thus are "a unique resource [that] the article would contain if it became a featured article)." And while we are having this discussion here, I ask that the recently removed links be restored OR a note about this discussion be placed on their talk pages. I will have more to say here after the resolution of the TfD. DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Nothing clear about it, hence these discussions. It would help to address the relevant policies/guidelines given how strongly this looks like spamming/promotion. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  I am not clear about that either - an interview, or a talk by a subject do not necessarily provide a quick intro into their subject's thinking, nor is it impossible to understand a person's thinking by .. writing a piece of Wikipedia text. Moreover, why would these talks/interviews (as opposed to many other possible talks/interviews) provide that insight (except if this is a unique occasion where the subject is talking/being interviewed, or the specific talk is particularly iconic). A do oppose the notion that this is necessarily "a unique resource [that] the article would contain if it became a featured article)." - that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, should be made on the talkpage before adding (explaining why is this link indispensible for this page), and the burden of proof is on the person wanting to add this link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am not in favour of a black-and-white/blanket remove or keep - though I do think that many of these need proper discussion before being included and should be removed, except if they are either particularly unique cases of the subject speaking in public, and/or are particularly iconic, in which case they might kept (a keep-argument). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any examples of the latter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should links to Prager University in speakers' "External links" sections be kept or removed?

Prager University is not a university but a website that publishes short videos of speeches by notable people--similar to TED Talks, but with a politically ideological goal. ([5], [6]) Should external links to Prager U be kept or removed in articles about Prager U speakers? (examples: 1, 2, 3) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Are we gonna exhaust all bureaucratic avenues on this? I've already removed all links to Prager and nobody except Doug has complained. Alakzi (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have complained, by arguing against the TfD, apparently I am nobody.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The TfD is irrelevant. Alakzi (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just trying to gather a consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, the consensus is to remove the links and keep them out, with a few exceptional cases. It appears that someone has removed the links. --Ronz (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In the TfD, Alakzi, who started this ELN, made it clear what this was all about. He wrote: "we're censoring links that've no business being on Wikipedia." This violates the spirit and policy of wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not censored". It is wrong and contrary to this policy for those of us here to decide what should go on other pages: this should be decided by the editors of the particular pages. Now, I won't be restoring these links to the external links sections. But where I believe the links are appropriate, I will suggest them on the talk page. I have done this at Talk:Arthur C. Brooks. (I am open to suggestions as to what to say in future cases.) And I will stay out of the discussion (except to answer questions specifically addressed to me) and defer to the editors' decisions as long as the rest of you here do so as well. DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As should be obvious to anyone, I used censor in a metaphorical sense. Not every little thing we remove amounts to censorship; censorship is when we bar the inclusion of specific material to appease powerful people or groups of people. That's not the case here.

On the other hand, your suggestion that we keep out of the discussion, in the hope that regular contributors to the article will share your mindset, is overtly both dishonest and a violation of WP:OWNERSHIP. Alakzi (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that DougHill calls it "wrong and contrary to this policy for those of us here to decide what should go on other pages" when he stated exactly the opposite at the outset of this discussion. Not to mention that what he's objecting to is the very purpose of this 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.") --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment : Hi, all. I'm randomly involved here (invited by Legobot). I have read the discussion and if I understand the topic, it is about whether we should make an external link or not of Prager University in affiliated articles. Correct me, if I am wrong.

External links should always be at minimum level in any Wikipedia article, better if there is none. If there is something relevant to subject of article in any reliable source, one should better extract encyclopedic contents from it to expand the article and use the source as inline citation. Why should Wikipedia care if any notable person is speaker at Prager University (PU)? WHY? None of them seem to be notable for being a PU speaker (any one?). If there are some independent, reliable sources that mention a subject as PU speaker, then we may consider to write that they speak at PU in their respective article (however one still is required to discuss it, we are not building news archives but an encyclopedia. See also, WP:NOTDIARY).

I've chosen to pick first mention from rfc, -1- that is George Gilder. The article doesn't even have a word on affiliation of "George Gilder" with PU, why it should be important for an encyclopedia then to add an irrelevant source (yes, PU) in external links section of his biography? If anyone attempts to do it, I will prefer to call it WP:REFSPAM. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Superman Animated Shorts from 1940s

Guru78x keeps replacing the already existing External YouTube Links of the Superman Animated Shorts from the 1940s with links to versions of these shorts on YouTube Channel 8thManDVD.Com. His reasoning is that the shorts on this channel are "better" quality because they are in 1080. Besides 1080 not being a guarantee of better quality, and there already being proper links, the 8thManDVD vids are in the incorrect Aspect Ratio.

These are also non-Public Domain Copywritten versions as they include the 8thManDVD logo watermarked into the video. Ironically, if these were the original links, they are the ones that should be removed/replaced.

As an example, for the 1st Cartoon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_(animated_short)

Here is the original link (incidentally, to Warner Bros. YouTube page): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjdnCC6n4xk

Here is the one from 8thManDVD, the channel Guru78x is using to replace each Superman video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UJphNPwDfk

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazlocollins (talk • contribs) 07:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that he has been doing the same for other classic cartoons, such as Betty Boop: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Guru78x&target=Guru78x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazlocollins (talk • contribs) 07:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am contributing by adding the best quality YouTube PD video links. There is no rule that says YouTube links can't have a watermark or be 16:9 etc. I am merely adding the best quality to contribute. I have only replaced/added links that are of better quality and are freely legally available on YouTube. I have done nothing wrong. Why settle for no videos or those lousy low quality ones with WB making money? Wiki is not about big corps and making $$$. The links I add are free. Guru78x (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The claim that you are simply replacing with better quality is bogus as can be seen by a simple comparison: Original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjdnCC6n4xk Yours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UJphNPwDfk

The 8thManDVDcom one is inferior due to the modification to make it fit 1080. Otherwise, quality is subjective and small in comparison to the issue of linking to copywritten material. Lazlocollins (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the quality, replacing a youtube video with basically the same youtube video is not necessary, and disruptive if repeated after being reverted and asked to stop. Question is actually whether the video belongs there in the first place, we are not writing an internet directory, we are writing an encyclopedia. We are talking about the movie, we do not need to provide a link to the actual movie (if people want to see the movie, let them go to YouTube). Moreover, the links are not accessible to some, I, for example, can't see either of them (and that is another reason why external links have to undergo scrutiny before being added - they should be accessible to most readers unless there is an exceptional need because without the external information the subject can not be understood - the criterion should not just be that it helps understanding the subject). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Private Snafu articles, I notice, are periodically plagued by that kind of commercial spam. However, I think this particular episode is over as the accounts who were pushing those videos have been blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty generally accepted that, where legally possible, an external link to a copy of the work being written about is appropriate. See WP:ELYES #2. Because these cartoons are still in copyright, it is inappropriate to link to unofficial Youtube uploads, especially watermarked. Thus the link should be to the legally distributed Warner Bros. channel. It is unfortunate that they are not globally available, but this isn't like a paywall; a video available to everyone in the United States (just to use an example) seems plenty broad to support an external link, I would say.Knight of Truth (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Internet Archive author

The template Internet Archive author generates a link to the Internet Archive for works by or about a person. The output results are a Search engine results page. When if ever should this template be used in the External Links section of an article? (The Links to be avoided list (item 9) would seem to suggest that it should not be used.)

Here are two examples of its usage:

Central Intelligence Agency
Note that this article already includes a rather lengthy Further Reading section.

Mary Cruger
This article does not include a Further Reading section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFM784 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

SourceWatch

Is SourceWatch ever an appropriate WP:EL? If so, when? It's my contention that SourceWatch is rarely, if ever, an appropriate EL. This is because SourceWatch is published by the Center for Media and Democracy, a progressive advocacy group. Moreover, the bulk of articles on SourceWatch are poorly maintained (out of date, general quality issues), so I don't think they are useful resources for our readers. User:Srich32977 and I have already been discussing this issue at Talk:Independence Institute but I wanted to give more folks a chance to weigh in on this issue. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say no. It cannot be used as a source either. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've had some interest in SW, but not because I like it. Having culled it as a reference throughout the project, I do see it in the EL section over 700 times. (When I saw it used as a ref, I moved it into the EL section.) Interestingly I see it in a lot of Congresspeople articles and in articles about Indian power plants (perhaps because of coal burning). All this said, I'm in a quandary because how do we decide to keep or not keep it as am EL in any particular article? Simply because it is out-of-date? Well, how out of date? Simply because it is sponsored by a progressive group? Well, how about sites that are sponsored by other groups? Simply because it is a wiki? Well, some of their articles are edited by quite diligent editors, Rebekah Wilce being one example. I'd prefer if SourceWatch did not exist because CMD is so rampantly partisan, but I favor allowing SourceWatch in ==External links== sections because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. – S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

SourceWatch has proven to be an invaluable research tool for me, but I oppose including it in EL sections. SourceWatch contains a mix of verifiable content (which would be included in the body of a featured article, see WP:ELNO #1) and unverifiable factual content that mostly comes from the progressive blogosphere (i.e. echo chamber), see WP:ELNO #2. IMO it should be scrubbed from the >700 articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

SourceWatch has an aggressive and explicit point-of-view. Its articles about conservative groups come off as attack or hit pieces. I think it's highly unencyclopedic to include these links. If SourceWatch uses links to WP:RS that we can incorporate into WP articles, great. Here's a typical SourceWatch link [7] that User talk:Srich32977 has recently added [8]. The first sentence says: "The Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI) is right-wing pressure group." This is positively dripping with advocacy/lack of neutrality. Then the article goes on to discuss the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (other groups/networks that seem tangentially connected to the group at hand). The only unique info about the organization (Caesar Rodney Institute) are some dated financials which we could just as easily (and more accurately) pull from GuideStar or Charity Navigator. I see a lot of downsides for including SourceWatch, but I haven't heard any compelling arguments why we should include these links. They are not providing anything unique or indispensable that we can't find elsewhere in better sources. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That strikes me as a particularly non-neutral example. Some other SourceWatch pages aren't as bad, and I'm uncertain whether every externally link site must be uniformly neutral, but this example exemplifies why we shouldn't be linking to SourceWatch. It's just a collection of information gathered from other sources, with an ideological slant. Some of those sources satisfy WP:RS, some don't. But there's no informative non-advocacy that cannot be incorporated directly into our article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Since SourceWatch is not being evaluated as WP:RS (unlikely in any WP context), I'll suggest that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS should be applied. Sometimes its' POV is overwhelming, but sometimes it has noteworthy material. – S. Rich (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is part of WP:RS so it doesn't formally apply. Assuming you're talking about the more general concept that "context matters," of course it does, but I haven't yet seen a SourceWatch page that is worthy of inclusion, so until that changes I'm in favor of a categorical rule. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, can you articulate why you think SourceWatch may sometimes be an appropriate EL? What criteria are you using to evaluate it? Undoubtedly some SourceWatch articles are better than others, but can you explain what factors are swaying you to include particular SourceWatch articles as ELs? As I said above, we've articulated some serious issues with SourceWatch, but I'm not clear what you think the tradeoffs are--as in, what unique value do you thik SourceWatch is adding here that you think is worth including? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeez, I wish I could. Like you say some of their pages are better than others. How about State Policy Network? Last edited in May 2014. Has more info than our article. Heavily edited by Rebekah Wilce, who is a writer for CMD's real magazine (and a WP editor). Or how about Barack Obama? Interestingly this article is not in the EL section of Barack Obama. You see I'm playing devil's advocate in this discussion, which is a bit difficult. But I'm quite happy that Safehaven has opened this thread so that your concerns can be resolved. With more commentary perhaps my concerns will be resolved too. – S. Rich (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, as it seems no one is here is defending the use of SourceWatch as an EL. Srich, you've been adding SourceWatch as an EL, but I'm not sure why (and it sounds like you're not sure, either). I brought this issue to the noticeboard because I expressed objections to including the SourceWatch link at Talk:Independence Institute. You seemed to understand my objections, but then you re-added the link without giving a clear policy reason for doing so [9]. You have not yet articulated a reason for including SourceWatch links, but you've said several times you don't like SourceWatch and don't seem to want to include it, leaving me quite confused. It seems to me we can move forward by agreeing it's best not to include SourceWatch, but to encourage culling SourceWatch articles for reliable sources we can incorporate into Wikipedia articles. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)