Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#NZ On Screen

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

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

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

:Since EL:s aren't exactly sources, this would seem to be a case-by-case thing rather than away with them all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::That makes sense; there are generally links to the entire local reporting bei EI, for example {{diff2|1265742208|here}}. The primary issue I challenged was referring to "occupation authorities" for organisations acting within Israel, but that's just the most obvious example. FortunateSons (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::If you were concerned about readers being surprised, then descriptions can be added, e.g., "a pro-Palestinian viewpoint" or "a pro-Israeli article". Sometimes a pair of links from opposing POVs can be more informative than one that is superficially neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, that is so true. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::A wikilink to The Electronic Intifada is a good start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's a good idea for the ones that are kept in the article, linking and clearly categorising them might help adress some of the less severe cases, thanks! FortunateSons (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:I’d say if we were judging on a case by case basis, there’d have to be a very good reason to include a GUNREL source in the ELs, and the onus for gaining consensus would surely be on the editor arguing for inclusion not the editor removing it. No? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{small|coming from rsn noticeboard}} agree. generally seems unwise for most (95+%) cases to include gunrel sourcing in external links. but don’t think we need a hard rule saying no always, in case there is some weird case where we do need to link it User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I think those weird cases might exist, but I agree with you that they are likely to be <5%. Or even <1%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::No.

::But if you made the comment about "a notorious GUNREL source that is not an WP:ELOFFICIAL source for that article", I'd almost agree, except that it's kind of a pointless rule, because WP:ELBURDEN says all disputed links get removed unless and until consensus exists to include them.

::It's a bit silly of us to talk about "the onus for gaining consensus" being on one editor, since determining what the consensus is everyone's job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry I didn’t mean the onus is on the one specific editor, but that the default would be exclusion and anyone arguing for inclusion would need to seek consensus that this is exceptional. (Per WP:BURDEN etc.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::BURDEN applies to ordinary article content. WP:ELBURDEN is specific to external links, and it even stronger. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Well, we include imdb and social media (as ELOFFICIAL) all the time, all EL:s has a bit of a "caveat" sort of built into it. My "question" in a specific case would probably be if it fits per WP:ELMAYBE #4. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'm unsure whether EI generally or only situationally meet WP:ELNO Nr.2, but a "not included unless there is consensus in favour" seems to be a very reasonable postion that allows for the removal of most while preserving the few uses that add a lot of value to the reader. FortunateSons (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It looks like the discussion above was that this should be decided on a case by case basis. The link [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iqrit&diff=prev&oldid=1282738364 here] is not disputed and can be allowed on the page. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:I see that User:FortunateSons now deletes EL-link in As-Sawiya referring to this discussion. I disagree with the removal of the article [https://electronicintifada.net/content/my-first-settler-attack/5566 My First Settler Attack]. The article adds a first-hand account of a settler attack, why should wp censor this? Huldra (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::I think a somewhat reasonable argument could be made for this link at a (non-existent) article about this or such attacks, but a (as far as I can tell) non-notable person working for a minor activist organisation (indicated by the link being dead) writing about a non-notable attack in a generally unreliable source is IMO clearly undue for the town the attack occurred in, particularly considering it’s 20 years old, and such attacks are sadly pretty routine. If I missed some way in which this is of great significance, I’m happy to discuss it in detail? FortunateSons (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It is exactly because such attacks are "pretty routine" that a first-hand account is important, IMO. Huldra (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Important in what way? Not to learn about the town, right? I don’t disagree that it’s generally important, but there has to be a better article and a better source than this. And no, first-hand-accounts aren’t great from an encyclopaedic perspective in such cases, a scholarly analysis would be significantly preferable, as this is not one of the cases where a primary source is the best one FortunateSons (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Of course it is to learn about the town, more specifically how it is to live there. I get it that you don't find that important, but let us hear from what others think. Comments, please? Huldra (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

:User:FortunateSons: could you please stop removing EI links until this discussion have ended? (like Iqrit, Kafr Bir'im) - Huldra (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::This discussion has been stale for almost two weeks prior to your engagement with it, but sure. For the record, those are only the two original removals that started this discussion; the editor who reverted those continued editing despite being pinged here and notified of the reverts, so I’m assuming that they are either fine with this or busy. FortunateSons (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::There are not that many who "watch" this page, and no mention was made about this discussion on the relevant wikiprojects (I have added a link on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration now, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Oral histories (or equivalent) can be good ==External links==. However, I'm not sure that the small town were one happened is always the best choice. Perhaps it would fit better into an article like Israeli settler violence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I am not sure that I agree. Eg.:If I wanted information on As-Sawiya, I would want any oral history linked from that article. We could course have a link to Israeli settler violence, for a "background", but there would be no way of knowing that there were info directly about As-Sawiya, by just looking at the link to Israeli settler violence, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I think it would depend on the specifics. If it's something like "Let me tell you about my hometown. I've lived here for 50 years, and A, B, and C have happened during that time", then I'd put it at the town article. But if it's "Let me tell you about Israeli settler violence. This event happened in As-Sawiya, but there's nothing special about As-Sawiya in this respect; the same kind of settler violence happens pretty much everywhere", then I wouldn't put it in the town article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Well, I'm reminded of Tolstoy's famous words: "all happy families are similar, every unhappy family is unique". Likewise; every unhappy event (ie settler violence) is unique, IMO. Huldra (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::If this information about violence came from a reliable source, then it should be included in the article with a reference.

:::::If the info isn't from a reliable source, then putting it instead as an EL seems like it's an attempt to bypass the rules we have about sources to push a POV.

:::::And looking at the article As Sawiya a number of news articles (Maan News, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz) have been included as EL. Those almost certainly don't belong there. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I agree; Maan News, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz: they should be included in the article (if they mention As Sawiya). Huldra (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::From WP:ELMAYBE #4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

::::::You shouldn't use the ==External links== section for POV pushing, but the fact that it's not reliable is not a problem. For example, if a hobbyist puts up a personal website to show off their photos of their hometown, then that's okay to include (assuming editors form a consensus to do so, or at least that nobody objects), even though we wouldn't ordinarily consider that to be a reliable source.

::::::Looking at that article's ==External links== section, I currently see 13 links. There's Wikipedia:No firm rules, but more than half a dozen is unusual, and more than about 10 is usually too many. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::In that case, I think it's very clear that all 3 of these sources being used as external links on As Sawiya push POV:

:::::::* POICA - "Monitoring Israeli colonization activities"

:::::::* ISM - "...a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the long-entrenched and systematic oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian population"

:::::::* PalestineRemembered - "To emphasize that the CORE issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are the DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING (compulsory population transfer) of the Palestinian people"

:::::::I think that the only two things in the list which don't clearly push POV are the documents from ARIJ and the survey map from 1880. Bob drobbs (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: I believe POICA is a EU-funded NGO, while ISM is non-EU funded NGO, while PalestineRemembered is a private web-site, but with interesting and relevant pictures, Huldra (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It's okay for external links to be biased (just like it's okay for reliable sources to be WP:RSBIASED).

::::::::I wonder why the article has so little information about settler violence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Well, I have expanded that article with the Haaretz, Maan and Jerusalem Post info. And, without looking at the history, I suspect I was the one who added those WP:RS as EL. I sometimes do that, as it is soooo depressing expanding the article with the info. Same reason why I have written relatively little about the details on how the 1948-villages got "depopulated": just too depressing, Huldra (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Off-topic, but this might help you as well: I sometimes just add them to the talk page as „might be relevant“ or similar, and they occasionally get written into the article by someone else. It’s not perfect, but probably a better place than EL. FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

User:FortunateSons is now using this discussion as a reason for removing the EI-link, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHuldra&diff=1284810879&oldid=1284810500 saying] "I just need there not be a consensus against removal, with the burden being on those arguing for inclusion". Do I need a RfC for inclusion of link? Huldra (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I could have answered that: you don’t need an RfC, but you do need a consensus, and an RfC is one of the ways to get it. FortunateSons (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::The rule is WP:ELBURDEN. Once an ==External link== has been contested, you need positive evidence of consensus in favor of the link to restore it. Consensus in favor of inclusion means the link can be restored. Consensus against, or no consensus at all, means no link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

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

When going to XTools, as I often do, I received the following notice:

Your access to XTools has been blocked due to apparent abuse or disruptive automation. For inquiries, please contact tools.xtools@toolforge.org

I am always suspicious of unknown links and avoid clicking them, so am uncomfortable with going to the site listed above. Hushpuckena (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Hushpuckena See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#XTools_down?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Thank you sir! Hushpuckena (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm in a discussion at Talk:Ashley Rindsberg about an external link. Rindsberg writes posts for Pirate Wires (itself previously discussed here and deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=168658959 here]). At that site, [https://www.piratewires.com/author/ashley-rindsberg this page] lists 18 individual posts by Rindsberg, all of which require a subscription to read (and only 4/18 of which are archived w/o a paywall, if that matters). Specifically, the list itself does not require a subscription to access.

• Does WP:EL#EL6 apply such that we shouldn't link this index from the Wikipedia article ("[Links normall to be avoided:] Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article…")?
• If the link isn't prohibited, {{user|WhatamIdoing}} suggested follow-up questions:
• If individual articles aren't accessable w/o subscription, and the site itself isn't notable or reliable, is there value in having the external link at all?
• Does WP:ELMINOFFICIAL apply with its "one official EL allowed", and how does that then jive with the subject's official site being offline (but still linked via the Wayback Machine at Ashley Rindsberg#External links)?

I appreciate everybody's time and attention! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:External links are supposed to be helpful for a general reader. They are not intended to benefit someone providing a subscription service. I have only looked very quickly at this but unless good reasons exist that I've missed, the answer is no and I will watch the article for a while. If I miss something, please remind me with a ping from Talk:Ashley Rindsberg. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::[https://www.piratewires.com/author/ashley-rindsberg This proposed external link] is not about increasing subscription. It's a list of articles published by the subject of the biography, and therefore serves as a partial bibliography. Green Montanan (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:The index in question is not itself paywalled -- the articles it links to are. I don't think WP:EL#EL6 is a problem there. IMO it's not a heavy lift to argue that a reader interested in a writer might want a list of that person's publications, but I'd defer to editors of that talk page to determine whether it should be included. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:: If it isn't an EL6 violation, which I could originally see editors going either way on, what are your thoughts about the sub-points suggested by WhatamIdoing? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 09:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This involves Historic Site of Anti-Mongolian Struggle where I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historic_Site_of_Anti-Mongolian_Struggle&diff=1287001436&oldid=1286978516 removed] a blog post in the external link and the other [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historic_Site_of_Anti-Mongolian_Struggle&diff=1287023382&oldid=1287022857 reverted it]. After two more reversion there was a discussion in this usertalk page. The other editor claims this link is helpful to reader, and that I misunderstood WP:ELNO (which I pointed out for blogs listed as links to avoid).

[https://brunch.co.kr/@jehsk52/65 This is the link to the blog.] After contemplating about this, I still think I'm making a right call to remove this. Brunch is a blog hosting website that anyone can write on with zero editorial oversight, and I've discussed with others on WP:KO/RS that this is unreliable. The author is not an official authority or anything remotely close to it. He's a writer of tourist essays. This blog has his portfolio with his book's advertisement, so linking to this post means promoting his book. I don't see how this link can be an exception to the guideline in WP:ELNO, but it's unlikely this matter is gonna be resolved between two, so I thought it's better to come here and ask third opinions. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Emiya Mulzomdao, I'm glad you found this noticeboard. It's the right place to ask. Pinging CMD so he can join us here.

:For the ==External links== section, we are not concerned about "editorial oversight" or being "unreliable". External links are not required to be reliable sources. You are correct, though, that we have a WP:NOBLOGS rule, though it is not an absolute ban, and if the content would be acceptable if it appeared on, say, a business website, then we can accept an individual blog post (NB: individual blog post, not the front page to the whole blog, and no editor knows what the blog's newest post will say tomorrow).

:We do want an {{tl|official website}} (if relevant), but usually only one, and all the others are allowed to be unofficial.

:We are not concerned about ordinary amounts of advertising (including ordinary amounts of advertising for the site's own benefit). We are only concerned about "objectionable amounts of advertising".

:This link, therefore, is not absolutely banned. But: WP:ELBURDEN is quite strict: If there are objections, the link stays out unless and until a consensus forms to include it.

:What I'd really like you to do is to think about a reader who is completely unconcerned about Wikipedia's rules and just trying to get more information about the subject of the article. What does that link offer, and is that something that a reader might be interested in? Is there another webpage that does a better job of offering that kind of information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the ping. As I have explained, the blog is not used as a source. ELNO does not need exceptions, it goes out of its way to stress its generality. As I conveyed, the link offers a concise and illustrated list of places within the site, clearly laid out alongside photos which are presumably copyrighted and thus we cannot copy onto en.wiki ("information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright"). The External links guideline notes that "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum", and as I have stated this particular blog covers a lot of different items. It would be possible to add individual links to non-brunch.co.kr sites that cover similar information, but that really goes against that minimum ideal. I've asked if there is a better link that does similarly, but Emiya Mulzomdao stated "I'm not obliged to provide anything". Emiya Mulzomdao has also stated that it "Doesn't matter what the lead [of Wikipedia:External links] says or if it [the link] helps the reader", and on both of these points they are incorrect. The purpose of the guideline is important, as is the overall purpose of helping a reader. CMD (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::That is a travelling diary written by a non-expert, not satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (people) since he doesn't show up on RS. A lot of what he's saying is reparaphrasing other guides, without sources, and it's verbose and not very helpful on getting more information. Except photos, but those aren't worth a lot without context.

::You usually go to something like [https://www.heritage.go.kr/heri/cul/culSelectDetail.do?VdkVgwKey=13,03960000,50&pageNo=1_1_2_0 Heritage Service] or [https://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Article/E0051473 Encyclopedia of Korean culture] if you need more official documents. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::One of the "more official" sites has 4 small photos. The other has 6 small photos. The blog post has 20 big photos. Do you think that a reader would be happier with 4 small photos than with 20 bigger photos? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It has a lot more than 4 photos. Check again. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::https://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Article/E0051473 has a section titled "관련 미디어 (4)", which has four (4) small photos. I don't see any other photos on that page. Do you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm talking about [https://www.heritage.go.kr/heri/cul/culSelectDetail.do?VdkVgwKey=13,03960000,50&pageNo=1_1_2_0 this one]. Go to the Image and Video sections. There's a button named "더보기" between those sections. This is "See more". Click on this and it loads 30 more photos or so. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Useful photos, although with less context and not a strict overlap with the other EL. Readers currently have access to both. (As an aside, I believe most of the images on the heritage page are actually not under restrictive copyright, being shared under KOGL1, so they could be directly uploaded when someone has time.) CMD (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There are captions for those photos in the text paragraph above, which are partially translated into English. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I can't find this, but that doesn't affect the utility of the other link. CMD (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Do you expect most readers to know that 더보기 means "See more"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There is an [https://english.cha.go.kr/chaen/search/selectGeneralSearchDetail.do;jsessionid=DyyfMKruA1NS4wK8Ka3U10YQ1q1FQHWzQkl31bEiL214Ulv8nvDa6FukvY6qoNC5.cha-was02_servlet_engine4?mn=EN_02_02&sCcebKdcd=13&ccebAsno=03960000&sCcebCtcd=50&pageIndex=36®ion=&canAsset=&ccebPcd1=&searchWrd=&startNum=&endNum=&stCcebAsdt=&enCcebAsdt=&canceled=&ccebKdcd=13&ccebCtcd= alternative English page] if this is what you prefer. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That's better. It's not as pretty as the blog post, but it's IMO acceptable. (We officially prefer ==External links== to be in English, when possible.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::As with the other mentioned government pages above, that is used as a source in the article. (Oddly, it doesn't caption its images, when a simple conversion to latin would at least replicate the very basic labels in the Korean page.) CMD (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not familiar with the subject, but I think I support the removal. There are already sufficient photos on the Wikipedia article. Without knowledge of Korean, the linked photo's don't give information I think is missing in the article. So because it adds little value, I think the section should be kept to a minimum. Dajasj (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Being familiar with the subject, there are many items not covered in the Wikipedia article. I encourage the use of machine translation to get an idea, it suffers a bit on names but it does okay. CMD (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well the website doesn't make it easy to machine translate it (maybe I need a browser plugin? I'll check that later), so that's not really a plus... But if I understand correctly, the text is necessary to appreciate the added value of the images? Or is the text itself the added value, and in that case, is it information we might want added to the page? Dajasj (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Might be browser dependent, my google chrome does it natively? Believe me, if there was an English language blog... Anyway, this blog is particularly well laid out going through various points of interest, linking photos to explanations and covering both the historical and recreational aspects. The other sources generally have a simple gallery or a wall of text, so this is a nice piece that properly uses the images as a way to help explain the text. I probably wouldn't add an EL just for that concept, but the specifics included are really helpful for understanding the site.{{pb}}The blog opens with a good picture of the Jangsumul spring, you can judge for yourself whether the spring looks like a footprint. The spring is covered in the article text, but that paragraph really could use a more familiar eye. (This image I think we could replace with a KOGL1 image, although it's not as good.) The picture showing the north wall and the ocean is extremely useful for understanding the geographical positioning of what was a fort built to watch the sea; the equivalent image in the article is from a day when you couldn't see the sea due to the weather, deeply unfortunate. The tea fields are not something we have a photo for, the article mentions the private land but this adds some proper context. The well is another item mentioned that we don't have an image, although possibly like the spring this one is KOGL1able. The photo towards the oreum defending forces retreated is helpful geographic context (again that whole paragraph could use more eyes) that we don't have from our images, and I haven't found a free equivalent. The wheat fields similarly to the tea show the private use of the site and how closely it runs to the wall. The general coverage of the Sambyeolcho rebellion is in line with the reliable sources, some of it slightly out of scope of this particular page, but it's correct and contextualises the directly relevant info, and there's even coverage of a small inscription at the site. The blog also mentions some critical analysis of the patriotic positioning of the site (blatantly apparent by its modern name), and I wouldn't directly source the blog and wouldn't add it as an EL just for this, but it's a nice perk given the rest.{{pb}}There is a lot of information we do want added to the page. As an example, the aforementioned better coverage of the spring and retreat, which might even be doable with the sources present. There should probably be better coverage of the patriotic meaning given to the site, and in this particular case the blog does go beyond what I've read, so presumably there's sources out there somewhere. Further to that, I have posted a substantial list of ideas, items in the sources I didn't understand, and sources I couldn't access at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#New draft for Historic Site 396 if anyone wants to take a crack. On the pictures, a couple as I mentioned can possibly be effectively replicated with KOGL1 images, but I haven't found equivalents for the rest. Presumably it would be easy for someone to take them, but there is apparently a general lack of Korea photos on Commons and this is one specific example of that. Overall, not an irreplaceable EL, and I have noted what could replace it and can imagine a situation where the article is much more developed and illustrations helpfully provide their 1000 words, but at the moment the article is not there. CMD (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That is a post from blog hosting website (Brunch Story) written by non-expert, making it likely that the text contents are something the author read off from other sources, like a lot of personal Korean blogs do. As is, the texts don't hold much credibility. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Entirely possible, which is why it was not used as a source. CMD (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Emiya Mulzomdao, the purpose of linking this page is to let readers see some photos. Do you think the photos are bad? Do you think readers should not have an opportunity to look at some pretty pictures of this place? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Apologies for the mini-bludgeon, but I feel the need to stress: pretty and informative. CMD (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think the govermental organization's websites as such the ones I mentioned do the job well already if we're talking about photos. If you want more photos, [https://www.jeju.go.kr/hangpadori/data/gallery.htm?page=1 Jeju province institution has hundreds of them]. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Why do you prefer the government websites? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Because they have more relative authorities, no copyright issues, and editorial standards? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think that an Argument from authority is weak.

::::::::::We have no reason to believe there are any copyright issues at https://brunch.co.kr/@jehsk52/65, so that is irrelevant.

::::::::::AFAICT the editorial standard applied to this one page is sufficient. It is obvious that someone took some time and effort with the page. (Of course, if someone saw a significant error, then would be undesirable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Authority is a word mentioned verbatim in WP:NOBLOGS as a reminder.

:::::::::::How do you know the editorial standard is sufficient? This is a single-author blog. No other editor went over it. You'll have to back up on why this is "obvious".

:::::::::::This blog claims there's an academic hypothesis that the site is possibly named after "Fang Baatar". As far as I know, either this is something the author made up, or this claim is such an obscure internet hearsay that I can't find anywhere else except his blog. I don't think the author did much research for his writing, and claims like this don't belong to Wikipedia. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The "authority" in NOBLOGS refers to WP:SPS rules, "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications".

::::::::::::We joke about this being the Einstein rule: If Albert Einstein had a blog about physics, then it would be a Wikipedia:Reliable sources, even though it's self-published.

::::::::::::This rule is not relevant for a collection of photos. It also isn't really relevant for a government website, and it is impossible to evaluate for a webpage with no listed author. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::If it were to be treated as a contextless collection of photos, there're less reasons to keep it. Wikipedia is not a repository. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::AFAIK we don't have an option for "a contextless collection of photos". We have the option you prefer, which is photos in the context of a government publication, and we have the option that other editors prefer, which is photos in the context of a travel blog post. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The travel blog post may as well be a collection of photos without texts since we've gone to the direction that Korean texts are not helpful to English Wikipedia. Machine translation doesn't work well on informal blogs, either. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Yes, all of the links suggested are primarily useful as collections of photos because all of them are pages written in Korean. Switching https://www.jeju.go.kr/hangpadori/data/gallery.htm?page=1 takes me to a different website for automatic translation, which doesn't work well. Half the photos are labeled "The Hangmon..." or "The Hangmon rema..." None of them showed a complete or useful caption. I had better luck using machine translation myself.

::::::::::::::::Using machine translation myself worked equally well (or "equally badly", if you prefer) on both the government website and on https://brunch.co.kr/@jehsk52/65 WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Do you prefer [https://english.cha.go.kr/chaen/search/selectGeneralSearchDetail.do;jsessionid=DyyfMKruA1NS4wK8Ka3U10YQ1q1FQHWzQkl31bEiL214Ulv8nvDa6FukvY6qoNC5.cha-was02_servlet_engine4?mn=EN_02_02&sCcebKdcd=13&ccebAsno=03960000&sCcebCtcd=50&pageIndex=36®ion=&canAsset=&ccebPcd1=&searchWrd=&startNum=&endNum=&stCcebAsdt=&enCcebAsdt=&canceled=&ccebKdcd=13&ccebCtcd= this one], then? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I prefer the English-language government web page over the Korean-language government web page.

::::::::::::::::::Why do you want a government web page? Are there no trustworthy historical societies, travel clubs, or non-government groups in Korea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Korea Heritage Service is a major participant in the country's excavation projects that frequently invites area experts, which makes their contents trustworthy. I also don't think the site of anti-Mongolian struggle is controversial enough a topic to exclude the government-related sources. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::I don't oppose a government web page. I want to know whether any non-government web page is acceptable to you. Do you believe that it must be a government web page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::I think the government page is more desirable in this case unless you have some other non-government web page in mind that has as credibility as this. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::{{reply to|WhatamIdoing}} May I take down the link for the moment and wrap this up, since this fizzled out without consensus. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::Do you think that removing a link that provides photos of the site would genuinely improve the article?

::::::::::::::::::::::If so, you are allowed to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm raising this as I've had concerns about this for a while. There are a lot of pages on the project that link out to the open wiki Wookiepedia. It's a huge Wiki on anything Star Wars, and while we know we can't use it as a source it frequently appears as an external link. The problem is, it's a complete rats nest of copyright violations with no indications it has received permission from all the copyright holders. Mostly in the image area, it copies from movies, TV shows, comics, roleplaying books, video games etc. etc. As per WP:COPYLINK (which is policy, not guideline) we shouldn't be linking to a site like this, yet for some reason Wookiepedia seems to have gotten a pass. They state they believe it's all fair use, but it's his res images and at many times lifted text which doesn't meet our fair use guidelines. I propose we remove the links to Wookiepedia due to these clear copyright violations, unless it can be shown that permission is given. We remove other links for this reason, there's no reason that just because it's big we shouldn't do so for this one. Canterbury Tail talk 21:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've always understood WP:COPYLINK to be about linking to sites that are deliberately circumventing copyright law (hosting pirated articles, books, movies, etc). Dubious fair use rationales for images isn't the same thing. Furthermore, Wookieepedia is prominent. Multiple actors in Star Wars films have discussed reading it for research purposes. Disney is vigilant about copyright matters and if it had a problem with Wookieepedia it would say so. This would almost be a case of being more Catholic than the Pope. Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:The English Wikipedia's fair-use rules are significantly and intentionally more restrictive than copyright law requires. There are times when higher-resolution images fall under fair use.[https://nysba.org/copyright-considerations-as-art-galleries-and-museums-move-online-in-the-wake-of-covid-19/#_ednref2] For example, looking at the first article linked on their Main Page (a movie), the first image is a copy of a movie poster. The uploaded size is bigger than the English Wikipedia permits, but it also happens to be the minimum size necessary for me to (barely) read the words at the bottom of the poster. That's probably justifiable under fair use rules even if it's banned under our house rules. So I would suggest that this isn't a case of "clear copyright violations". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to request community input regarding the inclusion of an external link to [https://www.avglobaloverseas.com/mbbs-at-batumi-shota-rustaveli-state-university/ AV Global Overseas] on the article Shota Rustaveli State University. The link points to a page with information for Indian students about Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University. I understand Wikipedia’s guidelines on external links, but I believe this resource provides unique and accurate information not available on official university sites. I would appreciate feedback on whether an exception could be made in this case. Thank you. MBBSResearcher (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:'Top Study Abroad Consultants'? Looks like a spam link to me. Leave it out. MrOllie (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for the feedback. I understand the concern. The AV Global Overseas page is not intended as a promotional source but rather offers highly specific admission guidance for Indian students applying to Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University—information not readily available on the official university site, especially due to language limitations and lack of regional context. The page does not sell or advertise any services. I’m open to making adjustments if needed. — MBBSResearcher MBBSResearcher (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It absolutely is an advertisement for the consulting services. We don't link to advertisements on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for the clarification. I understand the current version appears promotional. I will revise the AV Global Overseas page to ensure full compliance with Wikipedia's external link and content guidelines—removing any promotional phrasing and ensuring all information is neutral, verifiable, and non-commercial. Once the update is made, I will resubmit the link for reconsideration. Appreciate your input.

::::::— User:MBBSResearcher — Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If this is your page, you shouldn't be trying to add links to it in the first place. Don't 'resubmit the link for reconsideration', kindly just stop trying to get us to link to your site - we're not going to. MrOllie (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Patricia Highsmith#Link farm, where I've invoked WP:ELBURDEN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)