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 RS/N
Defer to WPSPAM
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter

Forgotten Realms Wiki acceptable?

Hello! I would like to ask if the Forgotten Realms Wiki would count as an exception to the rule no. 12 of WP:ELNO of not using external links to open wikis except...

The Forgotten Realms Wiki has been alive and kicking since 2005, has 30,000+ articles, a number of active users and a steadily high acitivity, being currently rank no. 89 at Wikia with a WAM score of 97.05 (whatever that means). In my biased opinion as a contributor the average quality of article is also relatively high.

As further background why I think having that link(s) at appropriate page(s) would be good: Recently a number of Dungeons & Dragons related articles have been deleted on the grounds that their content belongs to fandom wikis rather than Wikipedia. I assume some reader come to Wikipedia with the same naive notion then me, that you can more or less find all knowledge here. For these people, being pointed to where that content is, that does not actually fit in here, would be helpful. The Forgotten Realms Wiki is by far the largest and most successful wiki dealing with D&D Canon. Thank you very much for your input! Daranios (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Daranios, this wiki probably does not have enough active users (=people who made an edit during the last 30 days) to meet the usual standard for an exception. About 60 registered editors made an edit there during the last month. We are usually looking for something more like 100 or even 150. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it should definitely be included as an external link. First of all, the guidelines listed here, are just guidelines. They are not definitive or literal rules of absolutism. They can all be discussed, debated and weighed, depending on each case. And in this case, the Fandom Wiki should be kept for several good reasons.

The guideline referred to says this:

Links normally to be avoided

12. Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.

Forgotten Realms Fandom is indeed stable. The term "substantial" can be debated. Mainly because it would be relative and depend on the subject at hand. "Forgotten Realms" as such is not the most popular or broadly known subject, its quite nerdy, and it is rather specific too. Considering that, 60 active editors would be considered quite high. For these reason guideline 12 does not disqualify this Fandom.

Apart from discussing this guideline 12, there are a bunch of good reasons to keep the Fandom Wiki. Daranios mentioned some, but maybe the most important reason is that Fandom was launched by Wikia in 2016 as specific fan-driven wikis for pop-culture. Wikia is an off-spring of Wikipedia, and as such it is fair to consider Fandom wikis as highly relevant for Wikipedias articles on pop-culture. Especially Fandom wikis which are substantial, well maintained, has a high number of visitors, are stable and actively edited. RhinoMind (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikia is not an offspring of Wikipedia, it's a separate entity. Wikia/Fandom wikis do not and should not get special consideration compared to other wikis. Additionally there is no relativity written into the guideline - a wiki on a specific "nerdy" topic is treated the same as a wiki on a more "popular" topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I see, but is the "substantial number of editors" strictly defined as "at least 100"? With all due respect for Nikkimaria and WhatamIdoing, I still am convinced that having the link at least would be useful for the readers of Wikipedia (which should be the main goal), because it is a valuable resource for people interested in the topic of "Forgotten Realms" and perfectly complementary to the topic's treatment at Wikipedia. (Forgotten Realms Wiki has the same emphasis on correct sourcing - albeit with primary sources - and covers everything that goes beyond Wikipedia's notability scope.) Or should this discussion be shifted back to the Forgotten Realms talk page to achieve an individual rather than a global decision if such a link may be benefical to have? Daranios (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Wikia is an offspring to Wikipedia. And Fandom was created with the purpose of porting pop-culture stuff there. Please read up on this. I have wiki-linked in my comment, although the Wikipedia article is rather poorly written and lacks some information, it might serve as a starting point at least. Also "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" is as relative as any guideline can get.

This issue concerns all use of Fandom wikis and I think it is relevant to find a way of how to deal with Fandom Wikis in general here on Wikipedia. If no consensus has been reached on that subject already, that is. RhinoMind (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Our way of dealing with open wikis, including Fandom wikis, is the guideline you've quoted. We don't give Wikia/Fandom wikis any special consideration in that regard. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria is correct. The point of requiring a substantial number of editors is to reduce the likelihood of the site being overrun by spammers and vandals. The same "substantial number" is required for every open wiki, regardless of subject or popularity.

Daranios, "substantial number of editors" has not been strictly defined as a single number. (If it had been, I'd have just put that number in the guideline and saved you the trouble of asking.) The usual rule of thumb is that anything with more editors than Memory Alpha is okay. Sites that are a little smaller can be discussed. Sites that are significantly smaller are removed.

As for the "local consensus" idea... the fact is that the ELN regulars don't normally seek out suspected violations, just to interfere. If nobody at that article is complaining, then you're unlikely to run into problems. However, there are some editors whose favorite kind of work is "weeding link farms", and if one of them sees it, they may object. As always, whenever a link is disputed, WP:ELBURDEN applies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the enlightenment, I was wondering about the rationale behind the "significant number of editors". I would argue in this case that the 15 years of history, and the effective acitivity of the admins shown in that time, means a very small likelyhood of the site being overrun by spammers and vandals. So in conclusion I feel strongly enough to discuss that link again specifically at Forgotten Realms in spite of Nikkimaria's reservations, and already apologize for taking up some of your time at a third place. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comments: I am among the editors WhatamIdoing mentioned "ELN regulars don't normally seek out suspected violations, just to interfere." and my "work is "weeding link farms". I have been working in "External links" almost as long as I have been an editor. If links have grown excessively (my range is generally more than 4) I will look at trimming. I would not be considered a "fan" of open Wikis but certainly if the list needs trimming the relevance of importance would have to be weighed against the others in the list. I usually leave a talk page message and see if local editors will trim. If not I have been known to do so per policies and guidelines. I haven't used Wiki links as a reason that I am aware of. I have no idea the history of ELNO #12 but like with all other reasoning I don't agree that any WP:SILENCE is justification giving a blanket exception such as "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". If I ran across this during trimming I might have to consider if the site is just being advertised on Wikipedia. This might include if the editor that added the link is also an editor there. A site can have 100 editors but the particular link provided could be by the adding editor so maybe WP:OR and could be seen as a way of advancing that information on Wikipedia in an unconventional way. That is normally too deep for what I do (culling link farms) so hasn't come up, I am just giving my points of view.

I will state that I do NOT find it disrupting for an editor to continue examining things. I would have a problem with any "precedent where niche/special interest group first publishes things they want to have on Wikipedia, then citing that web source to circumvent no original research policy.". It is just as important as "to discuss that link again specifically at Forgotten Realms in spite of Nikkimaria's reservations", as that is not only how Wikipedia evolves it is also how those that perform maintenance can operate. This is what I do a lot of so if I run across an article an editor here is involved with, and there are too many "External links", we may have a discussion about trimming. If your "Wiki" is among them then just cut some of the others and I will likely leave it at that. Some may choose to dig a little deeper and it should not be considered "disruptive" as I am sure all are aware that consensus can change even on things with a long history. Otr500 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Denomination-specific link on general Bible history page

Regarding Development of the Christian biblical canon External Links section:

Is it really necessary or appropriate to include a link to one extremely small (less than 500,000 members) sect of one particular Christian denomination for its "perspective" on the article's subject? The criteria for normally permissible links reads in part "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject[...]" -- linked article is definitely not neutral or encyclopedic in nature.

External link in question: WELS Topical Q&A: Canon - 66 Books in the Bible, by Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (Confessional Lutheran perspective)

rothko (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Rothko999

External links are never necessary in any article. Is this link appropriate in this case? Probably.

What exactly in that link do you disagree with? (I'm assuming that "definitely not neutral" means that you don't agree with something in it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing, it's sorta like if a page on the US Constitution included an external link to a site detailing a fringe political party's perspective on how the Constitution was written, who wrote it, etc. Not necessary to a basic understanding of the concept. rothko (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)rothko999

rothko, can you quote for me a specific example from that page that you think is representative of a fringe position? This website belongs to a Lutheran organization, and I don't think I've ever heard someone say that the Lutherans are a fringe group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Linking to a video on how to tie a knot

There is a discussion at Talk:Surgeon's knot#You-tube videos about the appropriateness of linking in the External links section to a German language You-tube video showing how to tie a surgeon's knot. Other opinions would be welcome. - Donald Albury 18:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal religious websites and blogs for external links

I was removing: Accesstoinsight.org, suttacentral.net and palikanon.com from some Wikipedia articles where they have been spammed unncessarily. But I got reverted by Farang Rak Tham who appears to have went as far as misrepresenting one of these spam links to be scholarly.[1]

Accesstoinsight.org is not a reliable source per the admission of the website creator himself, who says that "Some biases, however, inevitably intrude, owing to the editorial choices I've made and to the summaries and short introductory essays that I've written here and there to give some context to the material being presented."[2]

Palikanon.com and Suttacentral.net are obviously unreliable sources and have been spammed. Instead of naming unreliable sources as "scholarly" one would need to read the definition of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which first requires a scholarly publication since scholarly publishers are better at fact-checking than the WP:SELFPUB websites that have admitted to having hosted errors. Per WP:EL, we can't use an unreliable source for the articles that cannot be used as sources for the texts. Neither these websites contained what would be helpful for the readers. If preserving 'translations' is the aim then nonetheless, Wikipedia is not WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

Generally a source which is not WP:RS should not be spammed across other articles. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of numbering the points you mention:

1. I did not misrepresent the sources. See point 3 below.
2. That link does not appear not be part of the original website accesstoinsight.org. Please post a correct, direct page with the content quoted. Even if that quote does originally come from accesstoinsight.org, Access to Insight is a collection of books and articles about Buddhism from different authors and publishers, which need to be considered for reliability on a case-per-case basis. Per comparison, just because a library is not in a university campus, doesn't mean the books in it aren't scholarly.
3. Palikanon.com and Suttacentral.net are obviously unreliable sources Please provide an explanation why you think that is the case. Palikanon.com, for example, hosts translations by Karl Eugen Neumann and a full version of the Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names by G P Malalasekera, both of which are examples of notable and widely recognized scholars.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I did not add the external links in question, but I am a concerned fellow editor who believes deletion of these non-commercial translations is unwarranted.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

What matters is the statement of the accesstoinsight.org's owner. He agrees that the source is faulty. How it can be deemed WP:RS, let alone scholarly? I have explained other sources BTW, I would note that you notified Buddhist noticeboard about this discussion. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the owner does not say that his website is faulty. The owner engages in a ritual expression of humility and gentle self-deprecation. The world's best scholars have done the same, since at least the time of René Descartes, who was perfectly willing to admit that he was capable of making unintentional errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with Shashank5988's characterization of these links. The translations and resources hosted by these websites are the product of leading scholars in the translation of Pali, as well as hosting publications by notable groups in terms of the history of English-language Theravada studies (Access to Insight publishes material from the archives of the Buddhist Publication Society, for instance). These aren't personal websites or blogs, but rather are non-profit groups- ATI is hosted by the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies, Sutta Central is operated by an Australian non-profit trust. Palikanon is individually operated, but publishes work from the Vipassana Research Institute and Pali Text Society. Links to these sites are common on Wikipedia because they are the largest and best organized archives of these primary source materials and translations available on the web. The statement from ATI is simply an indication of editorial self-awareness, and may refer to a decision made relatively early in the sites life to focus on carrying content related to the Sutta portion of the canon rather than Vinaya and other texts (which are hosted on Sutta Central), not to the quality of the content within individual pages, which is sourced from notable scholars and organizations. Providing links to a primary source when it is available is a good practice in external links, since it allows the reader to verify what they have read, and Sutta Central particularly has the advantage of also frequently providing the source text in the original language. I see no reason to remove these links or regard them as spam unless they can be replaced by links to comparable sources for the original text and translations of the material in question. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Spasemunki on this. These websites are suitable for external links on certain pages. These are not random people providing these translations, a lot of the names on these sites have big name Pali scholar's credited in their translations, I've seen published print works use these same translations of the primary sources. Plus, as Spasemunki stated, the websites mentioned are run by or publish work from reputable orgs, not random people. I don't think these can justifibly be called personal blogs. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

External links are external links, not sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Translations or articles from these websites may sometimes be useful in an EL section. I agree with Farang Rak Tham, the addition should be considered on a case-per-case basis. We should follow WP:EL (complex); [3] may be relevant. JimRenge (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Shashank5988, I'm going to guess here that your personal experience with scholarly publishing is minimal. Stating that all errors are mine is a commonplace courtesy in some academic fields. First you thank the people who helped you with your research, and then you remind the reader to blame you, and not them, if the reader disagrees with your article. This appears in thousands of articles in scholarly journals.

More relevantly, the author does not admit to errors. The author admits to being slightly biased, (i.e., human). Thinking that Paper #1 is more important and worth linking that Paper #2, or emphasizing the third point in Paper #3 rather than others is what makes biases intrude. You do not need "errors" to have "biases". If you won a Nobel prize for work in your specific sub-field, and you post a list of articles that you think do a particularly good job of explaining something in the terms of your specialty, then you are "biased" (against all the other sub-fields) but you are not wrong, and there need be no errors involved.

A source can be biased and still 100% reliable (see the WP:BIASED section of WP:RS). Which would be very interesting, of course, if ==External links== needed to be reliable sources, except that they don't. It doesn't actually matter whether those websites are reliable, so long as they're external links and not Wikipedia:General references that are supposed to be supporting article content. Your belief that "Per WP:EL, we can't use an unreliable source for the articles that cannot be used as sources for the texts" is entirely mistaken. See, in particular, WP:ELMAYBE #4, which explicitly accepts "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

These are not scholarly sites. They are personal blogs and admit they are not accurate. Above suggestions came after a notification was dropped on Buddhist noticeboard[4] with mainly those editors telling things who have never edited this page before. This definition would allow the inclusion of just every single website in external links section. Non-profit organizations with no scholarly fact-checking are indeed unreliable sources and thus not qualified enough for WP:EL. I am sure there are tons of Buddhist organizations and their websites but do you really think that we need to include links of each of them on Wikipedia? Shashank5988 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You've simply repeated what you said before without addressing any of the points raised by other editors. This and your remark regarding sites that 'admit they are not accurate' suggests WP:NOTGETTINGIT. There is no problem with removing marginally related or commercial links to Buddhist organizations (as I did here earlier today), but WP:ELYES #2 specifically states that an article on a text ought to link to a free, legally distributed copy of the work in question. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If #2 is your only point, then only 2/3 sites may happen to pass the guideline, but not suttacentral since it is being used for information. Shashank5988 (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Suttacentral hosts translations and material in the original language. I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make. --Spasemunki (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Shashank5988, your insistence that "some biases" means "not accurate" makes me doubt everything you say. But if, when you say that the website "is being used for information" you mean "it is placed at the end of a sentence between ref tags, in an effort to prove that the sentence is verifiable", then please take your complaint to the proper noticeboard. One thing that has indubitably been spammed, by me, is notices all over Wikipedia:External links to tell people that it does not apply to any website that is used to support article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of Suttacentral and its translations. These are proper translations by a learned scholar, even if they are not published in a scholarly journal. In support of this, I submit that one of the publications of Sujato (and his colleague Brahmali) has been published by the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies. Sujato's work is also cited by other scholars in the field and they engage with his work seriously. For example, Eviatar Shulman in his "Rethinking the Buddha: Early Buddhist Philosophy as Meditative Perception" (2014, Cambridge University Press) discusses Sujato's work in page 133-34. So, I think that suttacentral and Bhikkhu Sujato's work is scholarly. I think these two examples, and the quality of his work, are enough to prove this. The fact that something is not published in an academic source is not enough to prove something is not a scholarly work. One must look at further context. Javierfv1212 14:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that pretty much all of suttacentral's translations credit a notable scholar in translating the text and many of the translations can be found in scholarly journals. I agree that marginally relavent sites should be removed, but the three sites in question are relavent to some articles on a case by case basis, including the example ShaShank cited at the beginning of the thread. I don't see a justification for a blanket ban on using these three sites on any pages as External links. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Links to in-copyright books hosted on archive.org

Please see Talk:Internet Archive#Links to in-copyright books hosted on archive.org for details. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the link. Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Percy Grainger

I left comments at Talk:Percy Grainger#External links (a featured article) concerning a review because eight "External links" could be considered link farming. Local consensus is that not only was eight acceptable but one was missed so added making nine. If some would be so kind as to take a look at this from a more broad Wikipedia perspective and policy, especially since it is a featured article that could end up demoted on a review, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Otr500: Linkfarming is not a specific number, and a local consensus would not necessarily trump the local policies and guidelines about what is acceptable. Some articles are not linkfarming with 25 links, others are linkfarming with 3.

Looking at the article:

• I believe that the two societies are both not directly linked to the subject of the article: they are the websites of the societies not of the subject. Moreover, only one has a fleeting mention in the article itself. If those societies are of importance, then they should at least have a significant mention in the article itself.
• Then there is "Country Gardens": Performance by Grainger on pianola, 1919 which is completely cherry-picked, why this one work.
• The museum is indirect as well, that is covered by Grainger Museum.

This is plain old linkfarming. I suggest to re-start the discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Eight is more than average, but not necessarily unreasonable. I notice that the last one is a link to search results, which is not generally considered an appropriate type of link (as documented at WP:ELNO#EL9) ...except that we do want to link to lists of works by an author, which I suppose could sometimes be done via a search tool. If the results are useful/usable, I'd probably keep it; if it's hit-or-miss, I'd kill it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinions linking Europeana and en:Wikipedia

please comment see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Editor_consensus_regarding_Europeana_and_Wikidata_Property_7704 - Salgo60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Fraternity website; Fraternity FB; Fraternity Instagram

For a Greek Letter Organization (social/professional/honorary), I often see National Website, National Facebook page and National Instagram as the External Links:

1. ) Should the FB and Instagram links be there?
2. ) What other EL are reasonable? the only ones that jumps to mind is a location for an archive of the fraternity magazine/journal and if the alumni have a separate nationwide website.Naraht (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This sounds related to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL in which generally only one "official link" is given for an organization, particularly if links to an organization's other "official websites" can be easily found on its primary website. There may be exceptions to this, but generally one is considered to be sufficient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Naraht: I would drastically clear those out. There should, indeed per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, be only one official website with very very few exceptions. That should then probably be their main outlet, which could be their facebook or twitter (but not both, and certainly not all of them). Some do have an official website themselves ('<subject>.com', as practically every reasonable organisation has). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

open.spotify.com

There are about 260 articles with links to open.spotify.com, possibly maybe inspired by MUSICSTREAM. The issue popped up in a teahouse question recently, and I tested the concept today as planned three weeks ago. All power to the artist (as her fan), but I dislike DRM.^[5] At least I want the issue noted in the EL/N archives, one 2018 discussion did not directly address WP:MUSICSTREAM + Spotify. –84.46.53.84 (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of DRM, it seems that any content on open.spotify.com can only be listened to by Spotify account holders, which means that these links violate WP:ELREG and do not have a place in the External links section. (They might sometimes be appropriate in citations though.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

My teahouse intuition was sound, if there is no template such as {{openhub}} it cannot be okay. –84.46.53.84 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I would indeed say that these links have no place in external links sections (but I think that a link to an official video on YouTube is already borderline). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The MUSICSTREAM info was updated by Koavf. If Villains had an "official YT playlist" I'd use it in a reference, EL2REF is one of my standard edit summaries. –84.46.53.165 (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

United Nations Meeting

As a meeting of one of the senior international parliamentary bodies, the relevance of this Security Council meeting to the article on the Douma chemical attack is self-evident. It is thus far the only Security Council meeting from the UN with specific bearing on the subject, rather than the more general subject of Syrian government chemical disarmament. Furthermore, the meeting is mentioned in the article itself.

The meeting includes representations made from multiple member states, including all permanent members of the Security Council (despite there being no obligation on member states to attend), and is the only meeting with specific reference to the subject thus far available. In my view it passes WP:ELYES to "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" but that cannot be integrated due to the amount of detail and format of the content.

The suggestion has been made, per WP:ELNO, that a link to the United Nations' own video record of this meeting "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material" and that it "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain" if it were featured.

The relevance of these guideline points is tenuous at best. On the second point, the meeting extends over three hours, and includes representations by all permanent members of the security council. The notion that the content of those representations could or should be included in the text of the article, and therefore the video should not be, does not seem sensible. On the first point, the inclusion of the video is as a record of the views of member states, and the idea that it does not accurately portray those views is far-fetched to say the least, and is suggestive of a rather crass attempt at censorship. Views please. Cambial Yellowing❧ 12:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat is imperialist propaganda. More seriously, if a source is covered in references don't put it in an EL. –84.46.52.25 (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's centralize the question of whether a video of a UN meeting about this event should be linked in the article at Talk:Douma chemical attack#External Links - page blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)