Template talk:CongLinks/Archive 1

Space in name
I want to use Congresspedia.

Its code looks like this: at SourceWatch Congresspedia: Congressional wiki And I want it to return (for example using Mel Watt): SourceWatch Congresspedia]: Congressional wiki And it should look like:
 * [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mel_Watt Mel Watt at
 * Mel Watt at SourceWatch Congresspedia: Congressional wiki

My problem is that name/PAGENAME will have a space in it, which will break the html.

Anyone have any solutions?—Markles 00:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should encourage the mass linking of sourcewatch. See also Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 19. I would like to figure out how to get rid of the leading linebreak. I don't get that. Cool Hand Luke 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Salary Info Links
I have restored the salary info link that I added previously and that Hu12 removed. The [|reason] Hu12 apparently had, is incorrect. I have absolutely know relationship with the company or website involved. I saw the information in a different (reverted) edit, and saw that the information was useful, unbiased, and relevant. I added to the template for these reasons. This link does conform to the "What to link" of Wikipedia:External_links, and as I have know relationship with this site, it isn't a conflict of interest, nor is it spam. If you disagree with this, please discuss it here before reverting this change again. kenj0418 (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the same issue with the removal of links to Legistorm.com. As I am utterly untainted by any foreknowledge of the site, or of any connection to its ownership or employment there, I will be more than happy to reinsert the information. Why on earth would anyone be removing useful information from Wikipedia? Alansohn (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an understandable suspicion for someone to have. A few months ago, someone replaced the Washington Post link with a website they apparently maintained themselves, containing eventually identical content, GovTrack.us. Legistorm doesn't look like shameless self-promotion though. Moreover, Legistorm doesn't overlap with existing links, and it seems useful. Cool Hand Luke 06:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. As with this case, The links that were removed were a result of the users and IP inserting them were associated with the organization they were linking to. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam.As in most cases, spam is defined not so much by the content of the site, as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. In addition, typical of sites that are owned by a single company, such as Storming Media LLC, illustrated a situation where someone is using Wikipedia to promote for their own interests (Adsense pub-5159231827098763). I would recoment seeking an alternative for Legistorm.com. The nature of just how widespread Storming Media's abuse is with their other domains is unknown at this point, but this could lead to future blacklisting and create problems with articles templated. Cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, the policies in WP:EL and conflicts of interest may apply to their previous edits, but not to mine (or the other people not associated with this company who have added this information). Past bad actions from someone at that company may justify an IP block from editing for them, but it doesn't justify avoiding inclusion of useful information in wikipedia.  Based on your request above, I have searched for other sources of this information, however there doesn't appear to be any others available online.  (The information in question is released by congress in printed form, and that site appears to be the only one that has transcribed this information and made it publicly available).  Every link or story I found online refering to congressional salary information that provided a link linked back to that site.  (and unless the storming media people also work at Harvard's info/law I don't think they were involved in those links to their site).  If you can find some other site that has this information, then lets discuss using that, but I wasn't able to.  Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.  This information is valuable and appopriate for wikipedia, keep it based on the informations merits. kenj0418 (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Three non-COI users support this link. There's an ANI discussion on this at WP:ANI. Cool Hand Luke 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kill with fire. Five sockpuppet accounts and an IP registered to the website have spammed this link. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See now MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Cool Hand Luke 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Better without name repetition?
I think this is a useful template, but the repetition of 's on every line seemed unnecessary and crowded, so I've tried removing it. As others may this differently, I'm posting here to open any discussion. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support - I think the repetition looked OK when it was just a few lines, but now we're up to so many that it just looks a bit stupid. Let's give this some time and see what happens.—Markles 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My gut reaction was also to oppose, but after looking at some biographies, I agree that it looks better. Cool Hand Luke 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I'd been scratching my head about the same issue, and it looks better without the duplication. Alansohn (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OpenSecrets.org
The template didn't work for Tim Roemer, so I added a working link separately in his article. I don't know if it's all retired officials, or just those before a certain date. ALSO, the other sources are wikified and this one isn't - why? Flatterworld (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strange. Opensecrets doesn't have a "career profile" on him. I imagine that happens more often with retired politicians. Not all of the links can be wikified&mdash;just the ones with actual articles about their source. Cool Hand Luke 02:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I wikified it myself.Flatterworld (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Updating template
The links being created are pointing to vote-smart (with hyphen), but that redirects to votesmart (without hyphen). Can someone please update this? I did the documentation, and thought I did the actual code, but it doesn't seem to be working properly.Flatterworld (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nover mind. ;-) Apparently there's a delay. If I go into an External links section and click preview, the new name is there. Flatterworld (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow the Money
I added a function for Follow the Money, which is a database run by the National Institute for Money in State Politics tracking campaign contributions for state-level candidates. I have been in contact with the project managers and they assure me that the URLs are stable and will remain backwards-compatible in the future. --HoboJones (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * afaik, Follow the Money only has links for one race at a time, not an overall link by person.
 * I'm a staff member at Follow the Money, I wanted to let you all know that we recently added unique candidate ID's that give a page that shows all contributions from all time to the candidate. The new structure of the url for these pages is now http://www.followthemoney.org/database/uniquecandidate.phtml?uc=#### with #### being replaced by the unique candidate id number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.127.66.100 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have updated the template. Everyone's invited to update any or all of the articles. There are lots of them. Flatterworld (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy group ratings (The Hill newspaper)
This looks like something worth adding, I think. I would assume The Hill made a good selection of groups, and we certainly don't want to add all of them individually, let alone try to keep them up-to-date. Thoughts? On this or any other 'hidden web' links? Flatterworld (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, maybe Project Vote Smart is enough. It covers all the years, so that's plus, but The Hill is all on one page even though it's just the current year. PVS example compared to The Hill example for John Boehner.

OpenCongress, WorldCat and NYT Topics
Many of the members of Congress have entries in NYT Topics and Worldcat, and all in OpenCongress, and it would make life easier if those were incorporated into the template even though WorldCat has its own template currently (we have a similar situation with CongBio and CongLinks). Here are examples for John Thune: Flatterworld (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Collected news and commentary from The New York Times
 * [//worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2006-97611 Works by or about CongLinks/Archive 1] in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
 * Profile at OpenCongress.org


 * I support, but let's wait for consensus. Ask around, please.—Markles  18:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Reading this after posting below): There wasn't a lot of interest either way, apparently. ;-) I 'rediscovered' OpenCongress recently and added it to the template, also NYT (although they only have links for some of the people). WorldCat is applicable to very few, so I'm using its existing template when needed, rather than adding it to CongLinks. Flatterworld (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

GovTrack.us
Two issues. First, in light of the hostility toward excessive links, what exactly does GovTrack.us add to our collections? Second, if we really want to use these links, we don't need to ad a separate parameter. GovTrack will accept the congressional bio id in this form: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?bioguideid= [congbio] For example, D000606 for David Davis. Incidentally, the issue at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is not resolved. Cool Hand Luke 07:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. It appears User:Markles is simply using the template to replace already-extant links. GovTrack.us is not a standard link. I think that's the purpose of the template, so it looks appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 07:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * GovTrack.us has far more information than any other individual site alone, and it is an open source project, so it seems much more preferential to link to GovTrack than the other sites that have some of the same information: The Washington Post or StateSurge. --141.155.193.146 (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC) (owner of GovTrack)

A Link to Gov Tract.us is a waste of time since it can't recall information fast enough to be helpfull. A better answer to a specific question would be to source specific information on the question for a person to look up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.68.52 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

1991
The template says not to use for candidates who haven't been in office since 1991. I was just wondering if we could elaborate on that - is that the earliest time that any of the template works, the earliest time that part of the template works, etc.? Assuming that the links don't all stop at 1991, can we specify which ones do end there? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

New Congresspedia.us tag
Hello. In 2007 a member added a section to this wiki about adding template links to support a project called Congresspedia that was a part of SourceWatch. The SourceWatch Congresspedia project is no longer alive, or at least not operating by that name. However there is a new project named Congresspedia, launched in 2011, at the domain Congresspedia.us. The new Congresspedia has no relation to the old SourceWatch version.

Is it possible to add template support for links to profiles at the (new) Congresspedia project? Profile links simply follow the format "fullname.congresspedia.us" where "fullname" would be the data supplied in the template tag.

Thebordella (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It depends - mainly, I wonder if the new Congresspedia include relevant/important information not included in the other links and presents it in a neutral (and not merely technically non-partisan) manner? Remember that the purpose of the links is to inform our readers, not to promote individual projects.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying -- I am admittedly biased because I created (the new) Congresspedia, but I do believe it does present noteworthy information in a manner that differs from the other links. The site is indeed both neutral and meant to be accessible to readers of all backgrounds. Many of the already linked sites are very comprehensive but also difficult for some people to understand and parse unless they have a strong understanding of the subject area. Congresspedia aims to present key information about members that is both non-partisan and also easily glossed, as well as more up-to-date than the static profiles on other sites which do not integrate realtime content such as members' twitter feeds. I don't mean to sound like an advertisement, Congresspedia is intended to be a useful educational resource that I hope complements those comprehensive and deep sites. Thebordella (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of data that your site provides that others don't? In the meantime, I'll round up an editor or two who uses this template and ask them for their thoughts on this addition. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, I am new to this process. Congresspedia draws from the same raw data pools as the other sites but presents the data in an interpreted way that I haven't seen elsewhere. For example, if you open the profile of any member you can see at a quick visual gloss how long the member has served and how their voting record stacks up against their own party. This type of data is presented on other sites in a more raw form, whereas Congresspedia interprets the raw data and presents accessible infographics suitable to a broad audience.


 * Likewise, Congresspedia integrates realtime data -- latest news headlines involving that Congress member, that members' latest tweets, and members' latest videos, all in an integrated broadsheet format. Of course, Congresspedia also provides out links to more detailed profiles including the members' Wikipedia page. Thebordella (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears SourceWatch and Congresspedia each provide information. The implication given above was that only the second one now exists. As an example, SourceWatch and Congresspedia entries for the same person. 75.59.206.50 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * According to SourceWatch, OpenCongress is their replacement for Congresspedia, so now there are three. OpenCongress example for same person. 99.50.184.18 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

IMDb
A well-intentioned update to the template was made for IMDb which caused all usages of this parameter to become broken links. Please revert. 75.59.206.50 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit was intentional and was made to comply with the IMDb templates (you shouldn't need to provde the "nm" prefix, only the IMDb ID). A bot has been requested to correct the links that broke. Ddnixx (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Until that bot is written, the template should be reverted. There's no reason to make our readers suffer in the meantime because of your need to make cut-and-paste errors more likely. The point can be argued either way, but intentionally breaking links doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? A bot request could take five minutes, or could be ignored. Cart, horse, proper sequence important.99.50.184.18 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Most pages actually used the template according to the update, so more links would break if I had reverted the edit. The bot has run and fixed 34 links. I do agree, however, that this should have been done earlier. –Ddnixx (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 August 2012
Parameter nyt broken. Add /index.html to the end of the generated url. Also replace top/reference with topics/reference. See Ron Wyden as example. I would cut and paste the code, but viewing source in Wikipedia doesn't allow that with an iPad. Odd. This should give you the idea, though

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/*********/index.html

184.78.81.245 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Who Runs Gov
whorunsgov.com now redirects to the main Washington Post political page, and no longer appears to exist. So I think it should be removed from this template. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see it redirecting to a new url, but the page looks the same. I do not see it redirecting to the main page. 75.59.206.50 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Added request format code. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC) This is the new format http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tammy-baldwin-d-wis/gIQAgHwPAP_topic.html Current: http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Tammy_Baldwin Please change the template so the washpo parameter is formatted like the nyt parameter output ( News and commentary at...) and only provides http://www.washingtonpost.com/ automatically. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

184.78.81.245 (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is possible, but I'll leave the template unanswered so someone else can take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Also see User talk:Callanecc/Archives/3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Washington Post link is broken
It looks like Washington Post has changed their website, and now the Washington Post link is broken. See the pages on Elizabeth_Warren, Dana_Rohrabacher, John_McCain. I'm going to remove it for now, until someone fixes it. Can someone who knows how fix it please ... thanks! FurrySings (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See the WhoRunsGov section above. The template WAS fixed. Each of its hundreds of uses stll have to be corrected manually, which I have been doing, and now I can't test any of them, including the three you've listed, because you've blocked everything. Please revert. I SPECIFICALLY made a request for the protected Elizabeth Warren article earlier, and it was flipped off. I don't understand why everyone's being so unhelpful while I'm spending hours trying to make these work. 184.78.81.245 (talk)
 * Hey, I'm helpful. If you need anything specific done, just ask. BTW, why not register for an account, then you can edit this page directly. FurrySings (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not encourage links that fail our rules for External link in external link templates
I removed NNDB and Find A Grave, as both have time and time and time again been declared as violating WP:EL rules... some of the others on this list also look like they fail those rules. The whims of people who create templates do not overrule longstanding consensus on policy pages. This is an encyclopedia, not a web directory, so we need a good reason to give any site an external link, let alone encourage mass adding them by including them in templates. DreamGuy (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed these parameters from Template:CongLinks/doc. GoingBatty (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There was no discussion on these removals, which violates rules. NNDB re-added because Template:NNDB is used extensively and does not violate any rules. Flatterworld (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

CQ Rollcall, CQ Congress.org, LegiStorm, National Journal Almanac
CQ is re-orging. They had Congress.org: and now they also have Rollcall.com: imo Rollcall appears worth adding, if only as a backup.
 * http://www.congress.org/bio/id/157656
 * http://www.rollcall.com/members/31499.html

I've been concerned about the trend of these websites to reduce the amount of material available or free to the general public. For example, LegiStorm is now part free, part subscription. It's still very useful at this point, but there's always the possibility the entire site might become suscription only. Hence the need for alternatives and backups.

I found the following a day or two ago. It has a lot of information, particularly on staff: This would be worth adding, imo, as it provides content I haven't found elsewhere.
 * http://www.nationaljournal.com/almanac/member/1790

Not that I particularly care if you do or not. I realize few people continue to be connected with this Project, and after this there will be one fewer. I have worked for six months to update the politician articles using this Template, as many articles were created before it was in existence or before changes were made in the sources and parameters. I was under the impression Wikipedia was a collaborative effort in which people worked together for the good of the project. Yesterday was the last straw. It's become a major attraction for the sort of little boys who enjoyed kicking over sand castles others had spent hours building. When I reached out for help from an Admin on this Project, i received little but a disdainful "Can you two work this out" as if cyberstalking and cyberbullying are useful 'training tools' or some sort of 'hazing' we're supposed to enjoy. I find that attitude insulting to adults, and so I am leaving. I see no reason why I should be the one to clean up Cresix's mess, while he wanders off to destroy who knows what else. You're welcome to all the broken links he left behind. I fixed them once. I'm not about to spend my time fixing them a second time, or a third, or a fourth, or however many times you think it will take before I've learned 'my place' at Wikipedia. You can do your own donkey work.

Bottom line: I thought the concerns about the lack of women participating were overblown. I was wrong. I have found a few helpful people here, but not on the whole. There is far too much tolerance, even encouragement, of people on ego trips who enjoy deleting hours and hours of useful work by others for no project-related reason, but just because they can. Meanwhile, people like me are treated like dirt. There is NO collegial support. We're told to wade through hundreds of pages of how to register a complaint, and if any mistake in the steps is made we're kicked in the teeth and blamed for a problem we did not create. Enough. I didn't volunteer for some Lord of the Flies experience. You want to be malicious and nasty, find some other victim. My patience is at an end. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Roll Call and National Journal added. Flatterworld (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Votesmart parameter
I received a request on my talk page to delete any votesmart parameter values that contain letters, since they no longer work. Just want to make sure the editors here don't object before I work on this. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No objection to removing dead links. Flatterworld (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * GoingBatty (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ GoingBatty (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ballotpedia link text
This template was just applied to Terry McAuliffe and Ken Cuccinelli, two candidates for Governor of Virginia. The Ballotpedia link for each appears as "Congressional profile at Ballotpedia", even though neither is or has ever run for Congress, let alone served there. Is there a way to adjust this? Rklear (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * - changed from "Congressional profile" to "Profile". GoingBatty (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I corrected those two articles to use GovLinks instead of CongLinks. CongLinks is short for Congressional links, and is for officeholders and candidates in Congress. State government people should use GovLinks. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * - changed from "Profile" to "Biography" for consistency.

political graveyard and find a grave
I'm gonna add the political graveyard and find a grave


 * Thaddeus Stevens at The Political Graveyard
 * Thaddeus Stevens at Find A Grave

Once I get around to it. Until then, here's sample code from Thaddeus Stevens, who wouldn't be usable for Conglinks, yes I know the irony.—Markles 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Findagrave ✅
 * This was removed from the template and documentation.

JmdPL (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding national-level campaign finance links
I'd like to add campaign finance data for national representatives via links to MapLight or a similar resource. I see that state-level information has been added in the past. Is there a consensus on adding a larger resource? Will Hopkins (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OpenSecrets and FEC are used for federal financials. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

FEC serrver herndon1 is down
the server is down : http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/H4SC01073

Alternative is to use : http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?H4SC01073 James Michael DuPont (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks like only filed documents. Contributions are at

http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/H4SC01073 184.78.81.245 (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ballotpedia
I've opened a discussion here about whether Ballotpedia should be included as an external link. —Designate (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * as a source of information the ballotpedia is much more up to date than wikipeida, I have been working on making sure the links work just as a source of info. We need to be pragmatic, for locate state legislators in kansas the ballotpedia is much more accurate, the wikipedia is way out of date. James Michael DuPont (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They're both out of date. Ballotpedia doesn't know there was an election in Kansas in 2012. Wikipedia updated their version of that, but not indiviual legislators such as Stephen Morris. If you limit your comparison to External links...Ballotpedia originally copied Wikipedia's. For the instances in which Ballotpedia's External links are now more current, I suggest you check the user history. btw - thanks for syncing my work at Ballotpedia with my work at Wikipedia. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When I said "here" I didn't mean here. Discuss it on the page I linked to. —Designate (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sites now paywalled
Today I ran into a paywall for National Journal. I don't know if it's solid, or one of those "10 free articles per month" types like LegiStorm and the WSJ. For now I added "(paywall)" to those. If the paywall is solid, I don't think we should display it at all, but that's just my personal view. These paywalls often change, so even it's decided to remove them from display I recommend the parameters and their values be left in each article. Flatterworld (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing National Journal from public view. Please do not delete any existing fields in politician articles. Flatterworld (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

LegiStorm
I removed LegiStorm from the template. Let's face it, this template is bloated enough that one might well throw WP:EL at it. LegiStorm does not have an article with us, nor any significant mentions in any of our articles that I can see. It's mentioned in various sources as a "Congressional watchdog", but it's hardly the only such organization on the list, and since it's behind a paywall the value of this link to the general readership is about zero, certainly in light of the plethora of other links included in the template. Which makes one wonder what Charlie Rose is doing in here. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

CongLinks is not 'Further reading'
Our friend from Chicago, Special:Contributions/71.23.178.214, has been putting CongLinks into the "Further reading" section of biographies. "External links" is similar to "Further reading" but with online sources. I argue that CongLinks can only be in the "External links" section because it links to online sources which can change over time. "Further reading" should only be specific articles and books, each of which should not change over time. "Further reading" should not include a link to a publisher's database search query. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know which "publisher link" you are referring to. As you and others here and in the RfD have stated, a search link is not allowed in External links. Therefore I moved those, as I found them, to Further reading as someone's own book could be considered to provide general background information, more extensive than what could be learned in one encyclopedia article. That is the purpose of the Further reading section. I am only deleting dead or redundant links. You are welcome to discuss such links with the others working on whichever article that is. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Further reading and External links are not what you think they are. From the current Guideline:

"Contents: An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations. Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article. The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list. This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content."
 * More information on the section can be found in the WP:FURTHER and its Talk page. These "proposed Guidelines" have long reached consensus in the basic aim, but bogged down on the exact wording to use. areas. This is the correct section for large amounts of general and background information, which may indeed be expected to vary over time, such as FEC reports and other financial records, voting records, legislation sponsored - the very information found in CongLinks, as I pointed out in the discussion section immediately above this one, which was ignored. It is also stated that Further reading and External links may be combined in one section if both are short. It is also stated they may be divided in various ways, but print vs. online is very definitely NOT a requirement. That is why CongLinks was originally placed in External links. Since this seemed to cause confusion, particularly as the Guidelines for External links have become much stricter over the years, I am now splitting them. Therefore, please revert your reverts, and let me get on with these corrections. Thank you. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you continue to put CongLinks in various "Further reading" sections, the effort will be wasted. You are already very familiar with the frustration that comes with your efforts wasted. To save yourself the frustration, please wait until more people have weighed in on this issue. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, I continue to await your answer to my earlier posting of today as well as my posting of January 31. I am not the problem here. Guidelines have not been followed. Conflicting "reasons" have been given by each of you for deleting sources. Thargor isn't even aware of what he did and didn't delete, which raises other questions. You continue to act in an extremely disruptive way, claiming non-existent "rules". You all have a lot to answer for. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you make of the text found at the top of the CongLinks page?
 * The text says CongLinks is for "external links". It does not say anything about "Further reading". Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is EXACTLY what the text says: "external links", not "External links section". The Template can be used in either FR or EL, as the Guidelines explain. Citations are also "external links" which are listed in the References section, not the External links section. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm very aware of what I removed. I'm still open to discussion about adding or subtracting more to/from this template. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not based on what you posted. And since you still don't understand what I'm referring to.... 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I repeat: I am still awaiting your responses to my posting of January 31. Or are you waiting for someone to tell you what to say? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:CongLinks&diff=prev&oldid=593322525 this comment] where you say "WP:AGF no longer applies to any of you." I generally ignore comments like that. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * i bet you do when someone points out you've been WP:GAMING. Well, I'll help you out. Here's one of your earlier comments in direct conflict to what you're posting now. Let's review just one of your arguments for deleting Template:NGOLinks - here's the link:"Finally, the point I was making about not having search results as an external link is still valid. The ELNO entry No. 9 says we should not link to 'individual website searches'. One example from today is the Tea Party Express article here which included searches of the Huffington Post website and the Washington Post website. These two searches list the HuffPo or WaPo articles which mention the Tea Party Express. Such searches change over time; they do not yield stable results. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)"Yet today you claim this:"Binksternet]] (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)|undefined" 71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My argument for deletion stands: I do not think CongLinks should have survived the deletion. However, after the deletion discussion resulted in no consensus, I have to work with the situation as it stands, which is that a collection of links includes some which are a call to a database or a search query, which can change over time. I would rather not have such links at all, but if they are to be included in Wikipedia biographies, they should not be in the "Further reading" section but in the "External links" section. I think the "Further reading" section should contain only articles and books that were written by or about the biography subject. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, I have seen absolutely no evidence that you are "working" with anyone or anything. You refuse to follow WP:FURTHER, or even discuss. Instead, you claim your personal preference trumps all the Guidelines. User:Plastikspork's determination was to limit/shorten. Instead of returning to this page and discussing each link separately, what happened? * Delete (preferred), alternative is refocus and substitute, and mark the template substitute-only if kept. Some of the links are relevant for many congresspersons and candidates, and approach WP:ELYES unless already used as a reference. Among the documented tags: WP:GAMING is wrong. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Thargor Orlando stated his complete ignorance of how templates work, thereby also demonstrating he had never read any of the previous discussions of parameters over the years on this template's Talk page.
 * Binksternet (you) said NOTHING about any requirement or necessity to discuss each parameter separately.
 * Thargor updated the documentation page (again, through ignorance), and questioned why John Boehner was not affected.
 * Binksternet (you) responded with directions on how to reload the page. Still no mention of discussing first.
 * "Someone" tells Thargor how to update the actual template, which he then does. Shortly afterwards, User:Arthur Rubin updated the documentation to match.
 * And what were those changes based on? Nothing in Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 3 EXCEPT for what Arthur Rubin stated.
 * congbio, congress: approaches "Official" and likely to have information which can and should be used
 * ballot: marginal; it is a quasi-wiki; not always relevant
 * fec: reliable, but not always relevant
 * govtrack, opencong, opensecrets, legistorm, followthemoney, ontheissues: generally reliable, usually not relevant
 * c-span, rose: Quasi-search results
 * imdb, nndb (sorry, that one's not documented), worldcat: Usually not relevant
 * bloomberg, guardian, nyt, wsj, washpro: much like a search result.
 * My second choice (after an outright delete) would be to substitute only the congbio, congress, and fec links, and then delete and repurpose the template to a substitute-only use. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I pointed out the obvious inconsistency in what Thargor had stated in the deletion discussion, and what he deleted. No response.
 * User:JesseAlanGordon is understandably upset, questioning this wholesale removal. At one point he asks, "Why would VoteSmart survive and OnTheIssues get removed?"
 * Thargor replies: "Hi, I removed most of the links. I'm actually still not comfortable with the current length, but the consensus at the discussion was to shorten, so I removed all the external links that violated our external link guideline. If there are specific ones you believe should be put back, we should absolutely talk it out. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are ones that shouldn't be, however, due to reliability and advocacy issues."
 * Now isn't that odd? Jesse stated Project Vote Smart was deleted, and Thargor says it should not be reinstated. But Thargor never removed it from the template, and Arthur Rubin never removed it from the template documentation. Even when I refer to this later, Thargor replies, "For the record, I'm very aware of what I removed." He clearly is NOT aware. Only four parameters were left, yet he doesn't have a clue which four those are - even after prompting.
 * Jesse is attempted to go through the proper channels. Step one is to discuss with the closing administrator, User:Plasticspork, on his Talk page. Plasticspork refuses to engage, but Binksternet (you) chime in, followed by User:SteveStrummer. How odd.
 * Step two is to request a review. Yet Binksternet (you) reply to Jesse, "We can have an RfC for each link, for instance an RfC on OnTheIssues and another on VoteSmart." That would be Project Vote Smart. Again. Wrong advice, wrong parameter.


 * None of the foregoing is an argument for putting CongLinks in the "Further reading" section. It should be in the "External links" section in every case. There's a lot of reverting to do. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, it's quite rude of you to argue one point, and then blame me for not answering a different point. I think you should stick to one point at a time. Thank you. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing any policy/guideline-base arguments for including CongLinks in "Further reading" sections, nor in adding "Further reading" sections as 71.23.178.214 has been doing.
 * I'm very concerned about 71.23.178.214's spamming and battleground behavior. I'm surprised that the ip hasn't been blocked a few times by now given all the problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Spamming? Battleground behavior? Definitely present Ronz, but not by me. I am making edits based on the Guidelines. Please see WP:FURTHER, as I believe I've suggested to you previously. But thank you for reminding me that I'm very concerned that User:Arthur Rubin, an Admin, is only banned from the topic of the Tea Party Movement. Aren't you? You may want to review said what to whom in the deletion discussion for Template:NGOLinks, the first such discussion, which focused on Tea Party groups. That even attracted User:Roccodrift, sockpuppet of banned User:Belchfire. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, there's no argument put forward here to validate the presence of CongLinks in the "Further reading" section. Instead, our Chicago friend is spraying accusations every which way without addressing the point of the thread. I think it's time to close this discussion with the consensus that CongLinks, as long as it exists on Wikipedia, should appear only in the "External links" section. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I made my arguments quite clearly at 18:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC), based on the Guidelines. Your only response was I think the "Further reading" section should contain only articles and books that were written by or about the biography subject. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Your personal opinion is not the deciding factor, and certainly not a valid "consensus". See False-consensus effect. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument at 18:22, 16 February 2014, failed to show that the "Further reading" section could contain database calls, search queries and webpages showing current stats. Instead, the guideline you quoted said that "publications" could be placed in "Further reading", while "websites" are placed in "External links". A "publication" is a paper, article or book prepared by one or more authors for the public to read. It is not a database call. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You only refer to one small bit of the Guidelines I linked to. Be that as it may, here's another definition: "Definition of publication: Communication of a message, statement, or text through any means: audio, video, print, electronically as an e-book or on the web." Here's a more lengthy definition, from dictionary.com: "pub·lish [puhb-lish]

1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public. 2. to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner. 3. to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate. 4. to make publicly or generally known. 5. Law. to communicate (a defamatory statement) to some person or persons other than the person defamed." Your definition of publishing might have been true back in the Fifties, but not now. Interactive books, magazines - and even encyclopedias - are quite common on the web. It's 2014, after all. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with ; there is no possible justification for putting CongLinks in the "Further reading" section. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Violations of WP:ELNO
This template includes at least three violates of WP:ELNO: NNDB, IMDB, and NY Times Topics Index.

I looked at just one example of the template's usage at the biography of Trent Lott. Here are the ELNO-violating results I found:
 * http://www.nndb.com/people/366/000024294/ NNDB has been judged not reliable for BLPs at various WP:RSN discussions.
 * http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1711619/ IMDB has been judged not reliable for BLPs at various WP:RSN discussions.
 * http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/trent_lott/index.html This is a search query page index, not an actual article. Such searches are disallowed via WP:ELNO #9. The frosting is that Lott was "not found", though this poor result is not relevant to its violation of ELNO.

I suggest removing these three parameters from the template. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Not reliable" is relevant only for refs, not EL, as has been established many times in many discussions. Otherwise, we couldn't even provide the official link for some Wikipedia articles. We have used Template: IMDb and Template:NNDB for years, and they are in many articles. EL is similar to Further reading, but using online sources. Relevance is the major qualification. The NYT is not a violation, as it is not a search result. If it was, a "not found" condition would not be possible. I posted the full explanation at your deletion request for the NGOLinks template. i will update the Trent Lott article, as it's clear the NYT has removed that value since it was added to his Wikipedia article years ago when he was still in Congress. Flatterworld (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, nndb and imdb can have appropriate external links. However, there is no reason to "bundle" these link templates, and it is still likely that some articles should have more than one link to the same site.  The likely result of the template is the addition of links which would not be appropriate as external links, and would not even be thought of as appropriate, except for this template.
 * I might consider this consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines if it were substitute-only, and that substitution was done correctly to avoid any indication of empty subtemplates. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * NNDB seems like a violation of parameter #1, since it just has a short biography personal connections, which should already be in a good Wikipedia article. I realize we've used it as an external link for a long time, but I don't think it really adds any value. -LtNOWIS (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that things like the NYT link isn't relevant because those are links that should be used inline if and when appropriate. Is the problem the entire template? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem is the entire template. Unlikely the recently deleted template NGOlinks, I would argue that some of the links here should be of interest, and contain information that should be in the article, for any Congressional candidate.  That doesn't mean the template should be used except as a substitute-only template, because the links should be removed from the "External links" section when used in the article as references.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting this template should also be deleted? I would agree, and the NGOlinks case is a strong precedent. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the template should be deleted, but the unwinding may take some time, as some of the links should be presumed relevant, and should be in the External Links section, unless used as a reference. The number of transclusions has been over 1000.  I'm not willing to submit the TfD at the moment, because I don't have a detailed unwinding proposal, but I'll make further comments if someone else makes a deletion nomination.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've opted to nominate it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward
Well, I was hoping we could be rid of it, but alas. If we start removing bad links from the template, will it break the usage it currently has? I.E., if I remove the Politifact line, will 3000 articles have "politifact=foo" in the text randomly or something? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you remove it from here then it is cleanly removed from every article. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case if John Boehner is any indication. I just reverted myself so I don't cause any problems, but removing the bad links does not appear to impact the articles this is in at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is a matter of fully reloading the page in your browser. For PC Firefox users, you hit Control-Shift-R to dump the previous version and load the page anew. Binksternet (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I gave you a week, and neither of you (Thargor Orlando and Binksternet), nor Arthur Rubin, even bothered to actually look at any of the links. All of you claimed this attempted deletion was mostly about "Do not add external links which are search aggregates. All external links should be unchanging pages about the topic, not pages with shifting content depending on what is found." Well, obviously not. 1. The FEC link is clearly a query. It says so itself if you scroll down to the bottom of any result: "TRY A: NEW QUERY" In case you didn't know, a query is a search. 2. The Library of Congress link is also clearly a query. Look at the lefthand panel: all about narrowing and widening the query (search) parameters. That's how it works. 3. '''You left three (3) separate links to Project Vote Smart: Biography, Voting record, and Interest group ratings. NONE of those are listable, according to your own claims. The site itself is not official. Biography is simply what the candidate sends PVS or is posted on his/her official website(s), and no checking is done by PVS. Since the official websites are already listed, that makes it one of your hated "duplicates." Voting record isn't a complete voting record, but only includes what PVS considers "key votes." That's advocacy, so not listable. Interest group ratings are clearly advocacy as well, so not listable. If these links were included in conjunction with additional web sources, they might have been acceptable.''' 4. Congbio is borderline, as it's official and not the result of a sophistical query system, but a simple query with one key field. Of course, it doesn't exist for state legislators. Congratulations on your own goal. Maybe you can clean up this debacle over the weekend. WP:AGF no longer applies to any of you. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion of CongLinks in January concluded "do not delete it and only shorten out the useless ones," but then OnTheIssues and several others got removed this weekend. That was really inappropriate -- whoever did it removed hundreds of horus of useful work by dozens of hard-working Wikipedians, including myself. To be unambiguous, this sure looks like the work of someone interested in protecting incumbent members of congress, or someone who is partial to the links which survived. Why would VoteSmart survive and OnTheIssues get removed? They do the same thing, in different ways; often one is first or the other is first. If a CongLink is to be appropriately removed, it should have an individual discussion on each CongLink. I am not technically savvy enough to know how to undo this mess -- but I will learn it, because this is just so wrong! Could someone who is more technically savvy than me show me how to change a template? And how to figure out who is responsible for this travesty? And how to report that person for grossly inappropriate editing? And how to undo his irresponsible handiwork? JesseAlanGordon (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I removed most of the links. I'm actually still not comfortable with the current length, but the consensus at the discussion was to shorten, so I removed all the external links that violated our external link guideline.  If there are specific ones you believe should be put back, we should absolutely talk it out.  VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are ones that shouldn't be, however, due to reliability and advocacy issues. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We can have an RfC for each link, for instance an RfC on OnTheIssues and another on VoteSmart. Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss each link separately. I will start this discussion by counting up voted for and against each category. My intent is to demonstrate that the deletions which were done did NOT follow the discussion. My goal is to follow the results of that discussion, for both CongLinks and then GovLinks. I concur with Plastikspork's Jan. 24 conclusion that "The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, but there appears to be consensus to limit/shorten the number of links." So the question becomes, "Which links should be deleted, and which should not?" Here is a summary or each link as discussed in the originating discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_3#Template:CongLinks : (Yes = keep it; Lean-Yes = reservations but keep it; Maybe = either way; Lean-No = reservations but delete it; No = delete it) I would describe that as a consensus to remove Bloomberg, C-Span, Guardian, IMDB, NNDB, Rose, Worldcat, and WSJ. That is certainly in line with the idea of shortening the list, and removing irrelevant links. I am hereby starting a discussion to more formally gather a consensus, or at least a majority opinion. I intend to undo the deletion of CongLink templates for any which do NOT have consensus to remove. The overall conclusion of the previous discussion was "shorten but do not delete", which to me implies "discuss which to remove but unless there is near-consensus to remove, then keep the link." I made the list above by interpreting people's comments. Let's be more explicit this time. I suggest that participants write up a list like mine below, and I'll tally it up after a week or two like I did above. I want to do the same for GovLinks but the page is removed, so how can we discuss that too? I suggest applying the results from here to GovLinks -- but please comment on that too! My votes, and a model for how I'd like others to offer their opinions (I added "Unknown" to the choices above, for ones on which you are unfamiliar): I will spread this post around on other appropriate locations (its home is Template_talk:CongLinks, and I will post the results there in a week. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ballotpedia: Lean-Yes 1, Maybe 1, No 1
 * bloomberg: Lean-No 1, No 1
 * congbio: Yes 2
 * c-span: Lean-No 1, No 1
 * fec: Lean-Yes 1
 * findagrave: Mixed-No 1
 * followthemoney: Mixed-No 1
 * govtrack: Mixed-No 1
 * guardian: Lean-No 1, No 1
 * imdb: No 3
 * legistorm: Lean-Yes 1
 * nndb: No 3
 * nyt: Yes 1, Lean-No 1, No 1
 * opencong: Mixed-No 1
 * opensecrets: Mixed-No 1
 * ontheissues: Yes 1, Mixed-No 1
 * rose: Lean-No 1, No 1
 * votesmart: Yes 1, Mixed-No 1
 * worldcat: No 2
 * wsj: Lean-No 1, No 1
 * washpo: Yes 1, Lean-No 1, No 1
 * ballotpedia: Lean-Yes: I'd rather see this listed as a "sister organization" but otherwise keep it.
 * bloomberg: No
 * congbio: Yes
 * c-span: No
 * fec: Yes
 * findagrave: No
 * followthemoney: Yes
 * govtrack: Lean-Yes (it's only for current incumbents, so only of limited value for political researchers like me)
 * guardian: No
 * imdb: No
 * legistorm: Unknown
 * nndb: No
 * nyt: Lean-Yes, because its archives are very thorough. But the links often go dead.
 * opencong: Unknown
 * opensecrets: Unknown
 * ontheissues: Yes
 * rose: No
 * votesmart: Yes
 * worldcat: No
 * wsj: No
 * washpo: Yes, because its links included not only articles but also voting information.
 * The question is simple: which links meet the standard in our external links guideline. Most of the ones listed do not, thus their removal.  As it stands, I don't even love having Project VoteSmart in the list and would not complain if we chose to remove that as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , you obviously cannot count. I indicated disapproval for most of those, including some for which you wrote "Yes", on the CfD page.  To begin with, those which are quasi-search results, should be "No", even if the results were often relevant.  It's possible that more of the links were trimmed than I would consider necessary to remove.  Please disclaim your partial count, as it clearly does not include all of my recommendatations.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , indeed counting was challenging, and I'm sorry that it appeared I did not count your comments -- I discounted general comments and only counted those which mentioned one or the other specific links. My purpose was not to come up with an overall tally, but instead to differentiate which links should be removed -- which means only the net effect from differences matters to the total. I figured that Thargor, for example, would just vote "No" on everything, and therefore the net effect was zero on determining which links to remove. As I discuss above, even Thargor acknowledged that the preliminary discussion indicated that CongLinks should not be deleted -- we have "moved forward" after making that decision -- the next decision is WHICH of the CongLinks should be deleted. That was the purpose of my tally -- and hence only the net tally matters. I will, however, make an overall tally, as promised, for whoever does differentiate. You say above that "more of the links were trimmed than you consider necessary" -- I'm asking you to elaborate on WHICH links were necessary and which were not. I see by looking at the original discussion that you did that -- I counted your main detailed bullet points. In fact, reading your list was why I invented "Lean-Yes" and "Lean-No": your "generally reliable, usually not relevant" counted as "Lean-Yes", and "usually not relevant" alone counted as "Lean-No". JesseAlanGordon (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am going to address Thargor's statement: "If there are specific ones you believe should be put back, we should absolutely talk it out. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are ones that shouldn't be, however, due to reliability and advocacy issues" Yes, there are specific ones I believe should be put back. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are first in the list. WashPo and ballotpedia are second. Currently fec and congbio have survived, but I would support them if, in this volatile environment, they get removed too. All of those links meet the external link guidelines -- they have reliable content and contribute to the reader's understanding. I will more fully discuss the WP:EL guidelines on Thargor's talk page since it is a very lengthy discussion] I personally use all of those links regularly -- the reason I am participating in this discussion is because every day, in doing my political research, I am slowed down now by the absence of those links.

Let me address the "reliability and advocacy issues" for VoteSmart and OnTheIssues directly. On reliability: OnTheIssues has been around since 1999, and VoteSmart even longer than that. Both of those websites are often the only source of issue-based information about non-incumbent challengers -- because the mainstream media focus on reporting like, "Oh, a challenger; let's see how poor his or her chances are." For the incumbents, their interest is in hiding their issue stances from the public -- because every issue stance they publicize means someone will get angered at them. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are dedicated to publicizing issue stances. Wikipedia does a little of that -- many challenger pages cite the challenger's most important issue stances -- but to many readers, the most important reason to vote is not because of what the challenger thinks is most important, but because of what the voter thinks is most important. The amount of issues-based material on the Wikipedia pages is appropriate -- and it is also appropriate (according to the external link guidelines) to link to more details. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues provide that. Here's an example of their high level of reliability: In mid-2008, when Sarah Palin was selected as the Vice Presidential nominee, every news media reports on how little they knew about her -- but VoteSmart and OnTheIssues had materials about her -- and for several days, they were accordingly the "Google favorite" link for searching "Sarah Palin," until CNN and NYT and WSJ caught up. The Alaska government website crashed under the burden; VoteSmart and OnTheIssues did not; they provided much-needed information about the issue stances of the new candidate, where no other media did.

On "advocacy" issues: All political media sources are accused of bias. In fact, all political media sources are staffed by people who do have political opinions -- the relevant aspect is what the results are, not what is going on inside the editor's minds. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues do not take one side or the other on political issues -- they present Democrats and Republicans equally, alongside Greens and Libertarians. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues do not advocate for any particular political beliefs -- as your comment insinuates -- they advocate for voters KNOWING the political beliefs of incumbents and challengers. If you believe VoteSmart and OnTheIssues advocate for one side or the other, could you elaborate which it is? That is a core aspect of democracy, and a core tenet of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source of information, as stated in Identifying reliable sources, that Wikipedia should cover "all majority and significant minority views." You are advocating giving readers LESS information -- that is in opposition to all Wiki guidelines and in opposition to your own statement. You are making Wikipedia LESS reliable -- CongLinks and GovLinks are the primary means by which I use Wikipedia for political research! JesseAlanGordon (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My first suggestion is that you, as someone who is professionally and publicly involved with OnTheIssues according to your userpage, should stop advocating for it per your conflict of interest. Furthermore, your claim of "all political media sources are accused of bias" says nothing about advocacy or what they actually are.  Project VoteSmart, while a great resource for me as a private citizen, is not something I would consider good for an encyclopedia based on advocacy concerns I have with their work and what they do.  Your stated point of view regarding advocacy and, to quote you, combating "incumbency protection" all have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, which is what this project is about.  If you have good reasons to include those sites you're not involved with that are based in policy and guideline, I assure you we're all willing to listen and discuss. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My involvement with OnTheIssues is a convergence of interest with Wikipedia, not a conflict. But I will advocate solely for the other links, to continue to demonstrate that Thargor is not playing by the rules. Thargor's deletion actions explicitly violate several Wikipedia principles, and it is time to put a stop to this. The issue at hand is not me -- it is Thargor's actions in inappropriately deleting CongLinks and GovLinks. Thargor, you need to address THOSE issues -- you have avoided it -- it is time to defend yourself against unambiguous violations of the principles elaborated upon below, and then reverse your actions. What Thargor did is wrong, and contrary to the rules and principles of Wikipedia -- everything after that is just diverting attention from those facts. I'm going to start a new section for a real discussion -- Thargor has declined to response on his talk page, after I followed the rules by asking the deleting editor to comment. In summary, the problems I cite are:


 * Thargor proposed deleting CongLinks and GovLinks and sought input for a brief period; I contributed along with others.
 * Thargor deleted GovLinks prematurely, without considering that the opposing comments on CongLinks applied to GovLinks also.
 * Thargor removed almost all links from CongLinks after the consensus was to delete only some of the links (I counted consensus on 6 out of 21; Thargor deleted 17 out of 21)
 * Thargor's justification is based on one interpretation of the External Link guidelines. My interpretation is substantially different, as detailed below. Thargor has never explained any interpretation, except to say that we should read the rules. I did so; my interpretation is below.
 * When editors disagree on interpretation, the Wikipedia guidelines say to discuss the differences and come to consensus. There was no attempt at consensus, and in fact Thargor enforced only Thargor's interpretation, in contradiction to consensus.
 * The proper action now would be to restore GovLinks and CongLinks and build a consensus decision. I proposed that on THargor's talk page and here, but Thargor is working to avoid discussion. I propose we have3 the discussion regardless of Thargor's involvement, and then reverse the deletions. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In regard the count, I think anything with "usually not relevant" should be at most "Lean-no" for inclusion in this template, and anything with "unreliable" should be "no".  Please adjust your counts of my comments accordingly.
 * In regard JAG's last comment, the answer is no. The proper thing to do would be to discuss any restoration.  Your interpretation of the "external links" guidelines is clearly wrong, and I see prior consensus that it is wrong.
 * Let me clarify my position further. If the template is not to be substitute-only, only those sites which are usually not misleading, relevant, and unique (that is, a site will only have one relevant link) should be included in the template.  If it is substitute-only, only those sites which are usually not misleading, and often relevant and unique should be included.  Including any more sites in a bulk template such as this one is clearly in violation of the guideline limiting links to those likely to be appropriate.  08:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and, IMO, the only effect "advocacy" problems would have would be as to whether the pages are misleading. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:JesseAlanGordon, you understand that I have no powers to delete anything, right? That all I can do is propose it?  Make an argument as to how the links you want to add back in meet our guidelines and we can get somewhere.  My actions appear to have support in terms of trimming this specific template down. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm asking for a discussion on the merits of each link. Then to remove the ones which, after discussion, delete the ones for which there is a consensus to delete. That is what I assumed the original discussion was -- but when GovLinks was entirely deleted and CongLinks mostly deleted, I feel that consensus was misinterpreted -- there was consensus to SHORTEN CongLinks and there were 6 links that seemed to have consensus to be cut -- I concur with that consensus, and concurred that it applied to Govlinks too. But what happened was well beyond that consensus, and all that's happening now is an over-detailed discussion of who did what and who can't do what. Look, gang, I feel like I am getting a bureaucratic runaround here. If the answer is "you lose, buddy, because a group has decided against you and the other editors and no matter what you say nothing will change," then just say that and I'll go away. If, on the other hand, there is actually going to be a discussion on the merits of each links, then let's have one. I cannot possibly understand Thargor's statement: "Make an argument as to how the links you want to add back in meet our guidelines and we can get somewhere" -- when I spent a dozen paragraphs doing exactly that -- see "Restoring CongLinks" below -- Thargor, I posted that on your talk page and you asked me to post it here, so I did! If you all mean to have a discussion, then respond to my points, so other editors can chime in. To User:Arthur Rubin, my head is spinning reading your post -- I'm not experienced in that terminology, so could you elaborate on what to do? You want me to go back and edit my counts? Based on my better understanding of what you meant? I'm unclear why that would serve any purpose since what I'm asking for is a new set of clear definitions from you -- but I changed the "Lean-Yes" to "Mixed-No" to try to satisfy you (although I'm also unclear why you couldn't just change the counts yourself -- is there some sort of protocol breach on that? I just don't get it!) I do not know what "substitute-only" means or the other terms -- they need explanation if that is to be our focus, or at least links so I can read about what they mean.


 * Citing external link guidelines in general is not a meaningful discussion. What I did above, in my way-too-long post, is point out the particular guideline and how it applied to particular items in CongLinks and GovLinks. If you were to do the same, that would be a meaningful discussion -- we are so far from that, that my only suggestion now is to start over with a new discussion in a week. I think the method for doing that is to start a Deletion review but I don't know how that would apply to the partial deletion of CongLinks. Thargor, you bet, I thought you could delete and un-delete -- if you can't, who can?


 * I am sincere in saying that I will abandon Wikipedia if this can't get resolved -- CongLinks and GovLinks are what I use Wikipedia for daily -- with those gone I will find another source. Every day, doing political research, I would go to a new candidate's page -- and the existence of a Wikipedia page for a candidate was one of my criteria for a candidate's significance -- and follow the links to research the candidate. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to delete those -- they were incredibly useful and informative. I have no love for IMDB and NNDB, and I concurred with the consensus to remove those links and a few others. To be clear, I agree with this statement: "My actions appear to have support in terms of trimming this specific template down." I never disagreed with that -- it is the NUMBER of trimmed removals that I disagree with. There was no consensus to remove any but 6 links, on both CongLinks and GovLinks.


 * But look, gang, I feel ganged-up on. I am a sincere Wikipedia editor and I feel that a bad action needs to be corrected. If there is something else going on here, some political agenda or some behind-the-scenes meaning, just say so, and I'll leave -- in the political world I have seen so many parties like this where outsiders are just not invited -- that is what this feels like. I thought Wikipedia was different than those inner-party games -- isn't it? If so, let's have a discussion on the merits, because my head is spinning so much now that I just don't want to participate in this discussion anymore. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to feel ganged up on, but the point we're trying to make is that the idea behind external links is not because of their supposed usefulness as a directory, but in order to present a reasonable number of links that add some value beyond what can already be in the article. That you used the information in those templates is great and all, but that doesn't mean we need to use them here.  That's why we're asking you to frame the discussion around the external links guideline that has been in place for a long time and supersedes any discussion here.  If you think OnTheIssues (which you have a conflict of interest in including) meets that guideline, explain why.  Same with anything else. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thargor Orlando states: "I don't want you to feel ganged up on:" Feeling "ganged up on" is because this entire discussion avoids the real issue: which links should go and which should stay; and that that list was determined by consensus previously, but that consensus was ignored and a much longer list deleted. Feeling "ganged up on" means we could go round and round forever about the process -- but I would prefer to move forward instead. Moving forward means establishing a new process that corrects the mistake that was previously made. The mistake that was previously made was that GovLinks was removed when there was an ongoing discussion via CongLinks, and that CongLinks was stripped of too many items. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thargor Orlando states: "the idea behind external links is...to present a reasonable number of links that add some value beyond what can already be in the article". At the risk of repeating myself for the 4th or 5th time, I entirely concur, and I have never not concurred. There is no choice but to interpret which links comprise "a reasonable number" and I have done so, and I am asking you to do so. You chose to delete 17 out of 21, in other words, you considered "reasonable" to mean "4". I think that is unreasonably restricted, and I believe you breached consensus in being that restrictive. I voted to delete this list of 8 out of 21, keeping 13 out of 21, which I believe fully meets your criteria above:
 * Bloomberg, c-span, guardian, imdb, nndb, rose, worldcat, wsj JesseAlanGordon (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thargor Orlando repeats himself by stating again: "we're asking you to frame the discussion around the external links guideline" -- I did that already. That you are pretending that I did not is the reason I feel "ganged up on." The sleazy politician's trick is to pretend their opponent has not offered a solution, and then to throw up their hands and say, "Well, we tried to discuss it!" If you plan to play that sleazy game, just say so, and I will exit the conversation because it is not actually a conversation. I have no idea if you are a sleazy politician or not -- assuming you are not, how about actually addressing my repeated response to your repeated request, rather than pretending I did not respond long ago? Here is my framing of the discussion around the external links guideline: (copy-and-paste from previous discussion):

Yes, there are specific ones I believe should be put back. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are first in the list. WashPo and ballotpedia are second. Currently fec and congbio have survived, but I would support them if, in this volatile environment, they get removed too. All of those links meet the external link guidelines -- they have reliable content and contribute to the reader's understanding. I will more fully discuss the WP:EL guidelines on Thargor's talk page since it is a very lengthy discussion -- copy-and-pasted below since Thargor refused to respond on his talk page -- I personally use all of those links regularly -- the reason I am participating in this discussion is because every day, in doing my political research, I am slowed down now by the absence of those links.

Let me address the "reliability and advocacy issues" for VoteSmart and OnTheIssues directly. On reliability: OnTheIssues has been around since 1999, and VoteSmart even longer than that. Both of those websites are often the only source of issue-based information about non-incumbent challengers -- because the mainstream media focus on reporting like, "Oh, a challenger; let's see how poor his or her chances are." For the incumbents, their interest is in hiding their issue stances from the public -- because every issue stance they publicize means someone will get angered at them. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are dedicated to publicizing issue stances. Wikipedia does a little of that -- many challenger pages cite the challenger's most important issue stances -- but to many readers, the most important reason to vote is not because of what the challenger thinks is most important, but because of what the voter thinks is most important. The amount of issues-based material on the Wikipedia pages is appropriate -- and it is also appropriate (according to the external link guidelines) to link to more details. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues provide that. Here's an example of their high level of reliability: In mid-2008, when Sarah Palin was selected as the Vice Presidential nominee, every news media reports on how little they knew about her -- but VoteSmart and OnTheIssues had materials about her -- and for several days, they were accordingly the "Google favorite" link for searching "Sarah Palin," until CNN and NYT and WSJ caught up. The Alaska government website crashed under the burden; VoteSmart and OnTheIssues did not; they provided much-needed information about the issue stances of the new candidate, where no other media did.

On "advocacy" issues: All political media sources are accused of bias. In fact, all political media sources are staffed by people who do have political opinions -- the relevant aspect is what the results are, not what is going on inside the editor's minds. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues do not take one side or the other on political issues -- they present Democrats and Republicans equally, alongside Greens and Libertarians. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues do not advocate for any particular political beliefs -- as your comment insinuates -- they advocate for voters KNOWING the political beliefs of incumbents and challengers. If you believe VoteSmart and OnTheIssues advocate for one side or the other, could you elaborate which it is? That is a core aspect of democracy, and a core tenet of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source of information, as stated in Identifying reliable sources, that Wikipedia should cover "all majority and significant minority views." You are advocating giving readers LESS information -- that is in opposition to all Wiki guidelines and in opposition to your own statement. You are making Wikipedia LESS reliable -- CongLinks and GovLinks are the primary means by which I use Wikipedia for political research!


 * Thargor Orlando states: "If you think OnTheIssues (which you have a conflict of interest in including) meets that guideline, explain why." I explained why they meet the guideline above. Please address my response, rather than restating that I did not respond. I see that you enjoy repeating the phrase "you have a conflict of interest". I have never hidden my affiliations. I would like to cite another section of the CongLinks discussion, where the person who created Congresspedia.us argued for its inclusion on CongLinks -- they then discussed the link on the merits. I did not create the OnTheIssues link in CongLinks -- I am happy that it is present, but I have argued equally vehemently to preserve the VoteSmart link. To be clear, VoteSmart is OnTheIssues' primary competitor -- but I have never done anything but defend their inclusion here. I am playing by the rules of Wikipedia and doing the right thing -- making the case for-or-against on the merits -- you should too. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoring CongLinks
As stated earlier in this discussion, I have read WP:EL; since somehow you believe I have not, I will cite the rules explicitly below as to how my chosen links DO meet those rules, while your actions do not. However, the more relevant rules are not external link rules, but the rules for deletion. You did not follow those rules -- you allowed a discussion, but you ignored the results of the discussion, and deleted all those links -- MY links -- dozens of hours of MY work -- and hundreds of hours of the work of other dedicated and sincere Wikipedians -- without any regard for what the other Wiki editors said, and in fact in DISregard for what they said. Here are the deletion rules and how you violated them: My intent is to restore your deletions after a proper discussion, if you won't do it yourself. There was already a consensus before the fact of your deletion that you should not delete CongLinks and GovLinks. Now there is a growing consensus among other editors responding to my posts elsewhere, after the fact of your deletion, that you did not follow the rules. In order to further facilitate that discussion, I will respond directly to your insinuation that I have not read WP:EL by citing how VoteSmart and OnTheIssues DO follow the WP:EL rules, one by one, addressed to other Wikipedia editors to assist in overturning Thargor's deletions: That sums up what I have to say -- sorry to be so long about this. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably you believed that deletion rule #10 applied to CongLinks. That rule states "Redundant or otherwise useless templates" -- but the deletion discussion demonstrated that CongLinks was far from useless, since many Wiki editors defended it. Same for GovLinks, tied to CongLinks, but you deleted GovLinks even though many editors defended that implicitly via the CongLinks discussion.
 * The basic rule for deletion is "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases" -- as stated under Alternatives to deletion. There is most certainly a dispute over CongLinks and GovLi nks -- but you deleted GovLinks anyway, and you deleted most of CongLinks anyway. You justified that by claiming that you had provided two weeks -- the rules do not place time limits, but instead focus on whether there was a dispute. There was a dispute, and hence you should not have deleted until the dispute was resolved.
 * The most applicable rule is "Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it", also under [Wikipedia:Deletion#Editing_and_discussion|Alternatives to deletion]]. Your core claim is that GovLinks and CongLinks had too many links -- but "too many" is a judgment call, and your judgment differed from mine. My judgment, however, had the backing of the majority of other Wiki editors, while yours did not. We disagreed over interpretation of the policy of how many was too many -- yet you dealt with this disagreement by deleting the page, in direct contradiction to the rule.
 * The rule to restore a page states: "Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored", per the proposed deletion rules. I asked. You are still declining. The proper response is to restore the page and re-open the discussion.
 * You might state that the above rules don't apply to templates like GovLinks and CongLinks -- I would say they do, but in case you believe they don't, then certainly the general deletion_discussion rules do apply. You did not apply those rules.
 * The deletion discussion rules explicitly state, "Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion". Indeed, a rough consensus was reached: SOME of the CongLinks and GovLinks should be removed, but not all of them. You deleted all of GovLinks and most of CongLinks; that was not the consensus by any stretch of the definition of the term "consensus".
 * My initial tally indicates where any actual consensus was: You might have deleted Bloomberg, C-Span, Guardian, IMDB, NNDB, Rose, Worldcat, and WSJ, but not the rest of the CongLinks nor GovLinks -- and then I would not be complaining. My final tally next week will more accurately reflect consensus opinion and which links have consensus for deletion -- but I expect you to follow that new consensus, including the restoration of GovLinks.
 * Thargor cites WP:EL as the rationale for deletion of VoteSmart and OnTheIssues, so let's look at what should be linked, according to the guidelines called What to link. The first bullet contends, "Is the site content accessible to the reader?" VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are clearly accessible (as are the New York Times and Washington Post); they all have search engines built-in and clearly spend a lot of effort organizing their very large content.
 * The 2nd bullet asks, "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" All four of the CongLinks I list above, by their nature, have more factual information than is possible on a Wikipedia page, which is appropriately intended as a summary.
 * The 3rd bullet asks, "Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?" The NYT links are questionable on this criterion, as I noted in my comments above. But the others -- WashPo, VoteSmart and OnTheIssues -- maintain their links indefinitely, for exactly the purpose of remaining functional for the purpose of being linked to. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are intended as archives; while WashPo does include news content, the voting records which I cite as my rationale to keep the WashPo links are also archives.
 * The general criteria for WP:EL are: "Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors." This is where Thargor most failed the guidelines -- Thargor did not consider each link on its merits. I concur that removing SOME links is appropriate; Thargor removed ALL of GovLinks and most of CongLinks.
 * The specific criteria for what can normally be linked state: "Sites that contain 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 (such as…interview transcripts)." Again, that is the primary purpose of VoteSmart and OnTheIssues -- they are encyclopedic -- for example, OnTheIssues.org has 75,000 pages -- both sites include interview transcripts and speech transcripts, as well as campaign website excerpts which often disappear after the campaign ends. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are intended as neutral and accurate -- they present excerpts and summaries of issue stances, not political opinion -- and they present materials for candidates from all parties, including minor parties.
 * The primary basis for Thargor's removal seems to be the guideline that "Long lists of links are not acceptable", from Links to be considered. I concur; long lists of links are not acceptable; if I were to unilaterally act without consensus, I would certainly remove IMDB and NNDB. But I would not act without consensus -- as Thargor did! -- and the only ones that should have been removed by consensus were Bloomberg, C-Span, Guardian, IMDB, NNDB, Rose, Worldcat, and WSJ. That would reduce the list substantially, fulfilling this guideline. Deleting GovLinks does not fulfill this guideline.
 * Some editors seek deletion based on reliability -- but the guidelines further state, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." WashPo, NYT, VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are certainly "knowledgeable sources" that "contain information about the subject of the article" when linked from, say, Rep. Barney Frank's page or Gov. Deval Patrick's page . Yet Barney Frank and Deval Patrick no longer have CongLinks and GovLinks because of Thargor's actions.
 * Thus far, my arguments have all been defenses against Thargor's deletions. I would like to close with affirmative assertions on why many of the deleted links should be restored.
 * Thargor cites elsewhere in this discussion that I should not be concerned with "incumbency protection," by which I meant that Thargor's chosen deletions favor the established incumbent over challengers, especially lesser-known challengers. We as Wikipedians, in fact, SHOULD be concerned with incumbency protection, and SHOULD favor the lesser-known challengers, as clearly defined in the guidelines for Identifying reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should… mak[e] sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." The nature of political races is that the incumbents have an easy time having their views heard, while the challengers, especially third-party and lesser-known challengers, do not. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues give equal space to "significant minority views"; even WSJ, NYT and WashPo often do not do that. That is the basis of my contention that VoteSmart and OnTheIssues fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.
 * Thargor's greatest violation of Wikipedia policy, in my view, is that the deletions violate the Neutral point of view guidelines, which state that "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia… This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." Thargor's deletions were NOT neutral -- they favored incumbents and hurt challengers. Thargor's deletions of GovLinks removed hundreds of links to gubernatorial challenger's external information, on VoteSmart, OnTheIssues, and elsewhere. Incumbents don't have that problem -- they have their official state websites. The nature of incumbency means that challengers must struggle to get their point of view across -- and Wikipedia helps with that struggle -- until Thargor's deletions whacked every challenger's links off the lists. The same applies to CongLinks, of course.
 * Another Wikipedia pillar that Thargor broke is consensus, which states that "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia…. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity… Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns." Thargor did not make "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". Thargor, in fact, ignored my legitimate concerns, and the concerns of other editors who expressed concerns, about which links should be deleted.


 * You are wrong about one thing: PlasticSpork deleted GovLinks, not Thargor. See Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_4. The consensus was for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My contention on GovLinks is that the deletion was premature because the discussion was still ongoing; there was no consensus to delete GovLinks because that consensus would have been drawn from the discussion at CongLinks. I made comments in the CongLinks discussion that applied to GovLinks too, as I assume others who commented on CongLinks intended. So I think the reasonable conclusion is that re-opening the deletion discussion on GovLinks would be appropriate, with a new understanding that editors must post the same comments twice, once for CongLinks and once for GovLinks. I will do that after a week of discussion on it here. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, these templates discourage considering "each link ... on its merits", but encourage listing links to sites listed in the template if they can be located. 's argument at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_4 argues against even a shortened list here, but, restricted the list to sites which are usually appropriate (links contain relevant material, do not contain misleading material or seriouslly irrelevant material) and unique (rarely is it the case that more than one link to the site is appropriate) could be justified, with difficulty. Also remember WP:BURDEN; in this case, it would mean there would need to be a definite consensus in favor of including a site, rather than a lack of consensus against including a site.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Arthur Rubin's comment: "encourage listing links to sites listed in the template if they can be located" as long as the sites are usually appropriate, relevant, do not contain misleading or seriously irrelevant material. I would like to have a discussion on which links we consider "usually appropriate, relevant, do not contain misleading or seriously irrelevant material." At the risk of repeating myself, I've asked for this same thing for a long time now; I suggest that the next step is picking links.
 * My interpretation of which ones meet those criteria, as repeated several times above, are as follows:
 * Ballotpedia, congbio, fec, followthemoney, govtrack, nyt, ontheissues, votesmart, washpo
 * My interpretation of which ones fail to meet those criteria are as follows:
 * Bloomberg, c-span, guardian, imdb, nndb, rose, worldcat, wsj
 * To make the list complete, I have no opinion on these:
 * Legistorm, opencong, opensecrets
 * (I had to compile a list of old links from my own records, since the current list is deleted; please add any I missed), I would like to point out, again at the risk of repeating myself for the nth time, that we cannot determine consensus without people stating their interpretation. I did compile a consensus list previously, but Arthur Rubin criticized me for misinterpreting his interpretations. My previous list also defaulted to "Yes" when Arthur Rubin suggests above to default to "No".
 * My default-to-yes list of interpreted consensus on deletion would mean deleting these:
 * Bloomberg, C-Span, Guardian, IMDB, NNDB, Rose, Worldcat, and WSJ
 * My default-to-no list of interpreted consensus would add these to the deletion list:
 * Ballotpedia, nyt, washpo
 * Those are my interpretations of consensus, because we have not been explicit. I suggest being explicit, since my interpretation is just one person's interpretation, as Arthur Rubin has unambiguously pointed out. I would prefer not to interpret but without unambiguous yes/no lists, interpretation is necessary. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Arthur Rubin states: "rarely is it the case that more than one link to the site is appropriate" -- I concur that the multi-links feel… weird. I notice them most on VoteSmart. But I am going to recuse myself from bad-mouthing them because VoteSmart is the primary competitor for OnTheIssues. I would have no objection to removing all multi-links, because they do seem repetitive, but I am not advocating for doing so. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoring GovLinks
I am posting here to formally notify that I will be requesting a restoration of GovLinks for a proper discussion. There was an ongoing discussion on this page about CongLinks, which I commented on, assuming that the discussion applied to GovLinks as well. But then GovLinks got deleted. Here is the discussion with the deleting editor; please comment:

Thargor Orlando stated: "the key guideline you need to look at is WP:EL." My response: As stated earlier in this discussion, I have read WP:EL; since somehow you believe I have not, I will cite the rules explicitly below as to how my chosen links DO meet those rules, while your actions do not. However, the more relevant rules are not external link rules, but the rules for deletion. You did not follow those rules -- you allowed a discussion, but you ignored the results of the discussion, and deleted all those links -- MY links -- dozens of hours of MY work -- and hundreds of hours of the work of other dedicated and sincere Wikipedians -- without any regard for what the other Wiki editors said, and in fact in DISregard for what they said. Here are the deletion rules and how you violated them: My intent is to restore your deletions after a proper discussion, if you won't do it yourself. There was already a consensus before the fact of your deletion that you should not delete CongLinks and GovLinks. Now there is a growing consensus among other editors responding to my posts elsewhere, after the fact of your deletion, that you did not follow the rules. In order to further facilitate that discussion, I will respond directly to your insinuation that I have not read WP:EL by citing how VoteSmart and OnTheIssues DO follow the WP:EL rules, one by one, addressed to other Wikipedia editors to assist in overturning Thargor's deletions: That sums up what I have to say -- sorry to be so long about this. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably you believed that deletion rule #10 applied to CongLinks. That rule states "Redundant or otherwise useless templates" -- but the deletion discussion demonstrated that CongLinks was far from useless, since many Wiki editors defended it. Same for GovLinks, tied to CongLinks, but you deleted GovLinks even though many editors defended that implicitly via the CongLinks discussion.
 * The basic rule for deletion is "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases" -- as stated under Alternatives to deletion. There is most certainly a dispute over CongLinks and GovLi nks -- but you deleted GovLinks anyway, and you deleted most of CongLinks anyway. You justified that by claiming that you had provided two weeks -- the rules do not place time limits, but instead focus on whether there was a dispute. There was a dispute, and hence you should not have deleted until the dispute was resolved.
 * The most applicable rule is "Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it", also under [Wikipedia:Deletion#Editing_and_discussion|Alternatives to deletion]]. Your core claim is that GovLinks and CongLinks had too many links -- but "too many" is a judgment call, and your judgment differed from mine. My judgment, however, had the backing of the majority of other Wiki editors, while yours did not. We disagreed over interpretation of the policy of how many was too many -- yet you dealt with this disagreement by deleting the page, in direct contradiction to the rule.
 * The rule to restore a page states: "Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored", per the proposed deletion rules. I asked. You are still declining. The proper response is to restore the page and re-open the discussion.
 * You might state that the above rules don't apply to templates like GovLinks and CongLinks -- I would say they do, but in case you believe they don't, then certainly the general deletion_discussion rules do apply. You did not apply those rules.
 * The deletion discussion rules explicitly state, "Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion". Indeed, a rough consensus was reached: SOME of the CongLinks and GovLinks should be removed, but not all of them. You deleted all of GovLinks and most of CongLinks; that was not the consensus by any stretch of the definition of the term "consensus".
 * My initial tally indicates where any actual consensus was: You might have deleted Bloomberg, C-Span, Guardian, IMDB, NNDB, Rose, Worldcat, and WSJ, but not the rest of the CongLinks nor GovLinks -- and then I would not be complaining. My final tally next week will more accurately reflect consensus opinion and which links have consensus for deletion -- but I expect you to follow that new consensus, including the restoration of GovLinks.
 * Thargor cites WP:EL as the rationale for deletion of VoteSmart and OnTheIssues, so let's look at what should be linked, according to the guidelines called What to link. The first bullet contends, "Is the site content accessible to the reader?" VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are clearly accessible (as are the New York Times and Washington Post); they all have search engines built-in and clearly spend a lot of effort organizing their very large content.
 * The 2nd bullet asks, "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" All four of the CongLinks I list above, by their nature, have more factual information than is possible on a Wikipedia page, which is appropriately intended as a summary.
 * The 3rd bullet asks, "Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?" The NYT links are questionable on this criterion, as I noted in my comments above. But the others -- WashPo, VoteSmart and OnTheIssues -- maintain their links indefinitely, for exactly the purpose of remaining functional for the purpose of being linked to. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are intended as archives; while WashPo does include news content, the voting records which I cite as my rationale to keep the WashPo links are also archives.
 * The general criteria for WP:EL are: "Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors." This is where Thargor most failed the guidelines -- Thargor did not consider each link on its merits. I concur that removing SOME links is appropriate; Thargor removed ALL of GovLinks and most of CongLinks.
 * The specific criteria for what can normally be linked state: "Sites that contain 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 (such as…interview transcripts)." Again, that is the primary purpose of VoteSmart and OnTheIssues -- they are encyclopedic -- for example, OnTheIssues.org has 75,000 pages -- both sites include interview transcripts and speech transcripts, as well as campaign website excerpts which often disappear after the campaign ends. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are intended as neutral and accurate -- they present excerpts and summaries of issue stances, not political opinion -- and they present materials for candidates from all parties, including minor parties.
 * The primary basis for Thargor's removal seems to be the guideline that "Long lists of links are not acceptable", from Links to be considered. I concur; long lists of links are not acceptable; if I were to unilaterally act without consensus, I would certainly remove IMDB and NNDB. But I would not act without consensus -- as Thargor did! -- and the only ones that should have been removed by consensus were Bloomberg, C-Span, Guardian, IMDB, NNDB, Rose, Worldcat, and WSJ. That would reduce the list substantially, fulfilling this guideline. Deleting GovLinks does not fulfill this guideline.
 * Some editors seek deletion based on reliability -- but the guidelines further state, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." WashPo, NYT, VoteSmart and OnTheIssues are certainly "knowledgeable sources" that "contain information about the subject of the article" when linked from, say, Rep. Barney Frank's page or Gov. Deval Patrick's page . Yet Barney Frank and Deval Patrick no longer have CongLinks and GovLinks because of Thargor's actions.
 * Thus far, my arguments have all been defenses against Thargor's deletions. I would like to close with affirmative assertions on why many of the deleted links should be restored.
 * Thargor cites elsewhere in this discussion that I should not be concerned with "incumbency protection," by which I meant that Thargor's chosen deletions favor the established incumbent over challengers, especially lesser-known challengers. We as Wikipedians, in fact, SHOULD be concerned with incumbency protection, and SHOULD favor the lesser-known challengers, as clearly defined in the guidelines for Identifying reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should… mak[e] sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." The nature of political races is that the incumbents have an easy time having their views heard, while the challengers, especially third-party and lesser-known challengers, do not. VoteSmart and OnTheIssues give equal space to "significant minority views"; even WSJ, NYT and WashPo often do not do that. That is the basis of my contention that VoteSmart and OnTheIssues fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.
 * Thargor's greatest violation of Wikipedia policy, in my view, is that the deletions violate the Neutral point of view guidelines, which state that "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia… This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." Thargor's deletions were NOT neutral -- they favored incumbents and hurt challengers. Thargor's deletions of GovLinks removed hundreds of links to gubernatorial challenger's external information, on VoteSmart, OnTheIssues, and elsewhere. Incumbents don't have that problem -- they have their official state websites. The nature of incumbency means that challengers must struggle to get their point of view across -- and Wikipedia helps with that struggle -- until Thargor's deletions whacked every challenger's links off the lists. The same applies to CongLinks, of course.
 * Another Wikipedia pillar that Thargor broke is consensus, which states that "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia…. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity… Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns." Thargor did not make "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". Thargor, in fact, ignored my legitimate concerns, and the concerns of other editors who expressed concerns, about which links should be deleted.
 * On Govlinks, the proper place for that discussion at this point is deletion review. While a lot of the arguments are the same for both places, it was deleted after a publicized discussion, so there's not much anyone can do here, especially since none of us are involved administrators.
 * Coming back to CongLinks, I understand your argument. I disagree that I did not act via the consensus of the discussion, which talked about shortening in the context of the guidelines.  I assure you that I, as well as others, have read your argument against the removal.  I will speak only for myself and say that I do not find the argument convincing from a policy or guideline standpoint, and continue to believe I acted appropriately in removing the majority of links on the template, and I still believe VoteSmart should go as well.  Your argument about incumbency, challengers, etc, in particular is irrelevant to this project regardless of what anyone's standpoint is on American electoral politics, and will not ever factor into any decision being made on these, I can assure you.  Finally, again, your continued advocacy for OnTheIssues, a website you disclose as a significant project you're involved with on your webpage, is likely to be discounted given that conflict of interest.  Please be aware of this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thargor Orlando stated, "I will speak only for myself and say that I do not find the argument convincing from a policy or guideline standpoint" -- yes, that is the problem -- you spoke only for yourself, and you acted to harm all of us. Your willy-nilly action -- a few clicks on your keyboard -- wiped out dozens of hours of my work, and hundreds of hours of other editors' work. You don't even acknowledge that anywhere -- do you even realize how much useful information you destroyed? Your opinion that you acted via consensus is demonstrably wrong -- but I will demonstrate that to others, not you. Anyone reading this thread can see that you did wrong -- because what you SHOULD have done is to query other editors, on a per-link basis, then decide what to shorten based on that consensus list. What you actually did was get a consensus to shorten, and then use your own personal opinion to decide which links to remove. That was wrong. I use the word "wrong" in the political sense, the moral sense, and the against-Wikipedia-guidelines sense. It is demonstrably wrong on all three counts. Wikipedia rules require that I discuss this with you first -- so I have done so -- let us conclude by agreeing that you intend to do nothing to reverse yourself, is that right? So I can move on to whatever comes next. I cannot figure out what comes next -- I am asking other for guidance here -- this is for CongLinks partial deletion, which is difficult to categorize as to where a restoration discussion should occur. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On GovLinks, the rules on deletion are clearer. I am required to go to the deletionist first. You declined to discuss it on your talk page; suggesting that I raise the issue here. Now you are declining to discuss it here -- is there any other place you suggest? To be clear on my complaint: you were premature in deleting GovLinks because you ignored the relevant ongoing discussion on CongLinks. I do not know the details of the restoration process -- I will figure that out! -- but obviously it would be better if you concurred that the discussion should be re-opened. Are you concurring or not? I need a yes or a no -- not yet another "this should be discussed elsewhere." If you want to discuss it elsewhere, then provide a link -- not just more runaround! JesseAlanGordon (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not delete GovLinks. User:PlastikSpork did, and it was based off of a publicized discussion.  S/He already told you to go to deletion review about it.  As for CongLinks, the consensus was to shorten this template in line with the guideline on external links.  I have done so, and discussion continues as to whether to shorten it further, re-add some old links, or leave it be.  We understand your point of view on it.  I have no intention of reversing myself, no, because I personally believe I didn't go far enough.  If you can convince other people I'm wrong, I won't stand in the way of restoration, but you have a bit of a hill to climb on that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the problem -- the hill should not be mine to climb; but instead should be yours. The original discussion only reached consensus on deleting 7 or 8 links. You deleted 17. I should not have to re-convince others, because they already stated their points of view -- which I summarized as those 7 or 8 links being deleted -- and you ignored their points of view. Now you're suggesting that I need to convince them to restate their support? I disagree with you on this statement: "the consensus was to shorten this template in line with the guideline on external links" -- no, that was NOT the consensus -- the consensus in fact was "to shorten this template in line with editors' choices of which links to remove." You disagreed with the other editors choices, so you decided to override them unilaterally. Simply asserting that there was consensus to use the external link guidelines does not make your claim true -- yet that is your entire defense. The external link guidelines are interpreted by us editors -- and SHOULD be interpreted by consensus -- not unilaterally by you. You still have yet to cite your specifics on which links breach which external link guidelines -- I did that specifically above, and you have consistently declined to do so. WHAT guideline do you apply? for WHICH links? All of the editors who participated in the original discussions stated their rationales, whether with or without reference to guidelines, as they saw fit, you saw fit to claim that I did not read the guidelines -- I repeat: I have! My evidence is by explicitly citing which guidelines I apply to which links above. So: Have you read the guidelines? If so, please demonstrate having done so by being equally explicit. You are cheating all of the editors who worked hard -- and for YEARS -- on those links, by simply asserting that "oh, those guidelines, it's beyond my control!" No, it's not -- Wikipedia is PEOPLE -- people who INTERPRET guidelines -- not guidelines that are hard facts that a machine can apply. I have made my argument -- you made me waste my whole weekend doing this! -- so now I am demanding that you make yours. Stop hiding behind vague assertions of "those guidelines" and tell the rest of us editors what you mean, specifically. What guideline is, in your interpretation, sufficient to warrant removal of hundreds of useful links? Links that the rest of us use every day, and spent the last several years generating? Go make your argument -- with specific citations -- and I will reply specifically. Then other editors can chime in -- and I will undo your mistake based on that proper consensus. [User:JesseAlanGordon|JesseAlanGordon]] (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The burden is on people who want to include information. Do that, and you'll be all set.  A wholesale reversion, however, is unlikely to stand. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WP:EL is clear that each additional link should be subject to greater scrutiny. Every desired link will have to be argued on its own benefits and in the context of the undesirability of adding more links. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Binksternet stated: "each additional link should be subject to greater scrutiny" I acknowledge you've stated that earlier in this discussion and that it's reasonable. At issue is identifying the baseline. I would say that the proper baseline was the 21 links in CongLinks prior to this deletion. Certainly new links should be heavily scrutinized -- that's really what your guideline is about -- but the 21 links that pre-existed this discussion already passed muster once. However, I think it is reasonable to seek a zero-based accounting, and I have posted my opinion above. I ask that others do the same, for each of the 21 links. If I end up doing a deletion reversal, which seems likely at this point, I will reverse only to the 14 links that passed scrutiny in the original discussion (i.e. allowing the 7 or 8 to die, which had consensus in the original discussion, and which, I note based on my original "vote", were more than I personally would have deleted). JesseAlanGordon (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The baseline is one official link. Every link after that is subject to ever-increasing scrutiny. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Binksternet states, "The baseline is one official link" but that just begs the question, "How often?" An annual review? Monthly? Right before critical elections to damage the challengers? Every time some deletionists feel like disrupting things? I'm not going to argue this point; I will yield and make the baseline "one official link", but my question above is actually seeking an answer from you. I put in a lot of work on CongLinks and GovLinks -- and when this mess is over and done with, I want to know that my work won't be thrown away again. A biennial review might be reasonable -- not anytime near an election -- but if I'm going to have to go through this process before every election, I for one will no longer be contributing to CongLinks and GovLinks -- I'll just type in external links directly, to avoid the over-ease with which my hard work, and the hard work of others, is so cavalierly removed. Mazy I assume that if I frame the argument from a baseline of "one official link" that you will participate in a discussion on the merits? And can we come to a reasonable timeframe to post on the after-discussion CongLinks and GovLinks page that they are subject to review, say, on a quadrennial or biennial basis? (i.s., Jan 2014 for this horror, then Jan 2016 next time). Deal? JesseAlanGordon (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hold a longer view such that the number of links in CongLinks should stay stable until there is a question of adding a worthy new candidate, or a question of removing an existing link because the publisher is no longer delivering the expected quality. I definitely do not favor changing the number of links based on anything related to the election cycle.Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Binksternet's statement, "the number of links in CongLinks should stay stable until there is a question...of removing an existing link because the publisher is no longer delivering the expected quality". But I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the zero-baseline theory above. I would certainly concur that links should be deleted when the destination website "is no longer delivering". But that implies a process that begins with the pre-existing list and removes those which are no longer delivering -- while above you advocate for starting at one (the official links) and having to justify each candidate during this review. I thought previously you were saying above that we should treat every link beyond "official" links as under requirement now to discussion of "adding a worthy new candidate" -- but now you seem to be saying instead that the status quo should hold until something requires changing it. The core difference seems the same as our earlier discussion on "default no" (unless justified, remove a link) vs. "default yes" (unless a reason to remove, keep each link). Prior to this last comment, I thought you were "default no"; but your last comment sounds like "default yes", so now I'm confused. Really, all the clarification needed is wording for what we place on the CongLinks and GovLinks page, afer the dust settles, about what the consensus is for future editing. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Confusion is apparent here, yes. I think the baseline for CongLinks is to have one link. Just. One. Link.
 * After that, we can have two links, after the second one is debated here, if consensus is for it.
 * And so on, with the links stacking up one by one only after we have found consensus for the previous ones. Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thargor Orlando stated, "discussion continues as to whether to shorten it further". No! There is no discussion on whether to shorten it further -- there are only 3 links left last time I looked! Discussion to shorten it further would only mean deleting CongLinks entirely. There was consensus about that, which you concurred with an "alas." So stop pretending that you have any authorization, or even any discussion, on "shortening further". I have to undo the GovLinks deletion to get us to this point in the GovLinks discussion -- but there was never a consensus to delete that either, so please do not try to pretend that we should re-open that discussion by considering deletion or extreme short-listing to be an option. I will do the work necessary to initiate a "deletion review" -- I think it is incumbent on you to not seek another outright deletion of GovLinks, and not to try to shorten it below a list of links arrived at by consensus. That is the proper action which I assert here are the requirements of Wikipedia -- and I further assert that you breached those guidelines as well as the pillars of Wikipedia -- and I back my assertions with the specific references above, so people can agree or disagree. Will you be as specific as me? Or just go on asserting that you have the right to "own" the CongLinks and GovLinks templates without giving other editors a say?
 * I would prefer not to do a whole-sale reversion -- but your intransigence makes that the only choice! I have already made my case several times now -- with far too much for people to read -- on why I think some links should be included. It would be respectful of you to acknowledge that I have done my duty, rather than continuing to cite that I have a further burden to make my case. If you would like to discuss civilly which links to remove, I would gladly participate in that discussion, as I participated in the first discussion. It would also be respectful if you acknowledged that I concur with CongLinks being shortened - -I have repeated that several times and you continue to portray me as wanting ALL links back. While I would never delete other people's work like you did, I certainly understand your argument in favor of removing IMDB and NNDB and a couple others from CongLinks and GovLinks. They have been annoying links for a long time -- and getting rid of them would indeed improve Wikpedia. Making some other links single links instead of multi-links would also improve CongLinks. If we can come to some agreement like that, or even a set of guidelines as to a process for deciding on an agreement, that would be a positive outcome. I would then do the partial reversal -- I'm committing to spending another weekend learning the technical tasks to do so, and I am asking you to NOT undo my reversals once I do them! I am not asking for you to agree to reverse your own deletion -- I am asking you to agree on a process for defining what will be done. I would like to do the same for GovLinks, and present that for "deletion review." JesseAlanGordon (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I acknowledged that you made an argument already. It is not convincing to me.  It may be convincing to others, but they're not speaking up in favor.  I maintain that a) you still want too many links back and b) the template is still too long in its current form.  I'll give you a hand here: start an individual discussion on each link you'd like to include at the bottom of this page and why, and if we can come to a consensus for their inclusion, they'll be added back in.  It has little to do with what I want outside of my having an opinion like everyone else. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thargor Orlando states that my argument "is not convincing to me". That is utterly irrelevant. What YOU want and what I personally want should not be the deciding criteria -- it should be a consensus of other editors. That is what I have been arguing for all along -- that you breached consensus by applying YOUR personal criteria, to the exclusion of the judgment of most of the other contributing participants. I have jumped through several of your hoops already -- I think you have probably gotten the idea by now that I will NOT be steamrolled! -- so I will jump through this one also. When I do so -- since it will be substantial work to do that setup -- do we have an agreement that you will (1) abide by the consensus results this time, on each specific link; and that (2) you will not do a deletionism run again for a while? (I suggest biennial or quadrennial above). On your phrase "they'll be added back in" -- I think you should recuse yourself from being the final arbiter. You already took that role once, and did NOT follow any reasonable definition of consensus. If you were to admit that you made a mistake last month, I would say "go ahead and be the final arbiter again", but I don't think you will admit that! We should agree in advance that "Consensus" does not mean "unanimity" according to Wiki guidelines, nor does it mean "majority vote" -- but it most certainly does not mean "one deletionist gets to delete almost everything because there was consensus to delete some things." That's what you did -- and I think you have an obligation to undo that error in applying Wiki guidelines, or at least agree to a process to undo it.
 * Thargor Orlando states "they're not speaking up in favor": Let's be honest here: No same person would participate in a discussion of this length. If I saw this sort of discussion, I would walk away -- or more likely run away. It requires an hour-long commitment just to get up to speed. I applaud Binksternet for chiming in, but we're going to have to clean this all up if we expect normal editors to participate. I certainly classify myself as "insanely involved" too -- because this is what I DO on Wikipedia -- CongLinks and GovLinks are by far my largest contribution. I keep a file of Wiki updates to be done, and I research links regularly -- that's why I am willing to put in the hours necessary to fight your misapplication of the rules. But I would not expect any sane person to participate until the smoke clears. My proposal above to jump through your multi-category hoop will clear the smoke -- but I would like to clear this page before we do that. I see that previous discussions get "encapsulated" somehow -- for example this link that I have kept on my Favorites list since your deletion craze began -- do you know how that is done? Point me to the right place, someone, and I'll do it this weekend while setting up a dozen discussion categories. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You have certainly misunderstood my intentions as well as my statements, but I look forward to seeing this out so everyone can move on. Thargor Orlando (talk)


 * As far as misunderstanding your statements, I suggest we work together on coming up with a mutually-acceptable process for other editors to participate in this discussion, where you represent the pro-deletion side and I represent the pro-link side. Then I'll figure out how to encapsulate this way-too-long discussion and frame a new one, with a dozen or so categories as you suggest, introduced that jointly-acceptable process. Ok? As far as misunderstanding your intentions, I don't think I've said anything about your intentions other than to assume good faith per Wikipedia's fundamental principle. I do find it hard to imagine why anyone would, in good faith, massively delete other people's hard work, but I would certainly be interested in hearing your answer. I'm sure you misunderstand my intentions too -- although I think I have been entirely transparent -- my intentions in this context are to make Wikipedia a useful source for political information, giving challengers a more equal footing with incumbents (that, of course, is also the purpose of On The Issues, which is why I claim a convergence of interests). My intentions in the bigger context are to make Wikipedia useful to the world as a source of democratization of information. I'm a scientist in my day job so I consider it my duty, and everyone's, to contribute their bit to the corpus of knowledge - -and Wikipedia is the best place in the world right now to do that. I cannot imagine anyone interested in science -- as I see from your background you are -- "contributing" by destroying knowledge; and I cannot imagine anyone involved in Wikipedia --as I see from your history you are -- against democratization of information. But somehow I suppose you can justify that, so do tell. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Project Vote Smart
This website may be changing soon, according to: http://missoulian.com/news/local/project-vote-smart-lays-off-considers-closing/article_0ec6e3b0-b169-11e3-95b7-001a4b If it does. I'll try to remember to update this template. as it appears all the other US Government Wikipedians have also retired. I came back to update the old FEC link, and to remove the multiple links for PVS which I previously added when their tabbing didn't work. Shame no one thought to invite me to the deletion discussion, as I have been the major Wikipedian responsible for this template. You really should read the Guidelines on who to invite to these discussions. You're supposed to check the History and Talk History pages of the template and template doc. Any Admin should know that. Well, Twilight of the Gods and all that. All grist for the mill. Flatterworld (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:GovLinks
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:GovLinks. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have requested a "deletion review" of GovLinks to occur simultaneously with this ongoing discussion of CongLinks. Unless I hear otherwise in the next few days, I will restore the lost content of CongLinks so that editors can see the content under discussion. I don't think there can be a reasonable discussion of what should be kept and what should be deleted, without being able to see the actual template (and their sample links) in context. I will seek to do the same for GovLinks but that must be done via administrators since the page was deleted. To be unambiguous and fair, I will un-delete on CongLinks even those links which DID have consensus for deletion -- so that we can have a full discussion and a proper selection of which links to trim. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would recommend against readding a bunch of information removed via consensus. If there are individual links you want to see restored, I'll again recommend you discuss them here first. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Thargor Orlando's statements are disingenuous. We HAVE been discussing the GovLinks here; I am proposing to discuss them further once GovLinks is un-deleted. The GovLinks items are the same items as on CongLinks -- there are no difference in the arguments for GovLinks and those for CongLinks -- that is why the discussion is here. Thargor is also making a false claim that there was "consensus" for deleting Govlinks -- that was never the case. I participated in the discussion of CongLinks; and I saw the discussion for GovLinks, and I reasonably assumed my comments on CongLinks would be applied to GovLinks simultaneously. Thargor decided to NOT apply any comments from CongLinks to GovLinks -- that was inappropriate and the GovLinks deletion was hence premature. I am asking now for restoration of GovLinks so that a proper discussion can occur -- with people aware, this time, that Thargor will delete GovLinks if identical comments are not posted for both GovLinks and CongLinks. This repeated comment by Thargor is disingenuous: "If there are individual links you want to see restored" -- I HAVE discussed them individually! Right here on this page! And in dozens of paragraphs here and elsewhere! To be repetitively clear: I want the links restored for Ballotpedia; FEC; VoteSmart; OnTheIssues; NYTimes; WashPost; and a handful more that I discuss, in detail and at length. Thargor even AGREED in one post that I have made the argument, writing "I assure you that I, as well as others, have read your argument against the removal." -- I have spent dozens of hours doing exactly what Thargor is now requesting again, on each individual link, and I have referenced all of those matters from the GovLinks deletion review request.JesseAlanGordon (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC) (edited) JesseAlanGordon (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am also concerned that GovLinks was deleted and that this template was cut back so drastically upon a probable misreading of EL advice. Can anyone point me to where VoteSmart was determined to be the best and only uninvolved nonprofit that should appear? I would appreciate it. The longer version of CongLinks appears in history but for GovLinks I had to request the code be restored to my talk, so here it is. Please ping me if a discussion reopens. Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think VoteSmart should go, too, to be honest, but I left it as it seemed like a good nonprofit group to use. I've since come to a different conclusion, but this hasn't been on my radar. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You put your finger on the point in the wrong direction. I was shocked when I discovered the reason that Wikipedia links to nonprofit coverage of US representatives was so shoddy was these deletion discussions, and I still don't see why this should continue. (Thanks for collapsing; my cleanup may appear to have moved your comment.) Frieda Beamy (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully someday the government will provide that sort of accounting in an easy-to-link place, and then we can use that. As it stands, I'm not sure increasing the amount of external links on political pages has a ton of support. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)