Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

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. (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-g11}}. 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 WPSPAM
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter

Input requested for an EL at paraphilia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

contested[19]

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

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

restored under conflict [22]

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

restored under conflict [24]

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

restored under conflict [25] Other linkspamming:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part two

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

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

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

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

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

OK, let's get this done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some updates:

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

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

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

Paraphilia: Alternate questionnaire

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

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

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

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

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

A quick scrolling over the questions shows...

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

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

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

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

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

Skipping over Bittergrey's continued baiting of me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated addition of UN Portal links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(editconflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LInks to gunknowledge.com

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for External Link on Wudang Chuan

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

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

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

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

Linen - commercial links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Levee

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

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

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

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

Justia

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