One of them set forth the lame excuse that Alexa was counting the Mein Kampf PDF as the file with the most downloads. While it gets hundreds of downloads every month, if it is the file with the most downloads that is only because it has been posted much longer than many popular podcasts.
In the end, they omitted Christogenea.org, which has been the most popular Christian Idneitty site daily for over 6 years now, and they mention little but turkeys and codgers!
They now only have the FBI as an external link, as if those fools are "objective" about CI, getting all their info from the ADL and the SPLC, and as if they know anything at all.
Here is the quote and the link:
Added Christogenea.org external link
Someone came in and reversed my adds, claiming "we have enough links"... whatever that means.
I reversed the reverse. Christogenea.org is literally the largest website on the internet concerning CI. It consistently stays in the Alexa top 10K websites. It is the go to place for research on the subject, so the link should stay. That's assuming, of course, this page is about objective information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorSwitzer (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I've raised the general issues of the links here at WP:ELN. It may well be that this link should stay and others removed. WP:EL is the relevant guideline. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Christogenea.org is not "objective information" by any stretch of the imagination. Let's at least be clear about that. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are the Alexa stats. Ranked #96,821 in the world according to the three-month Alexa traffic rankings. Most popular download, Mein Kampf. I don't think the site qualifies under WP:ELYES. I guess someone might argue that it qualifies under WP:ELMAYBE #4 "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". I wouldn't buy that because the site, apart from the "About" page, isn't "about" Christian Identity in the meta-sense. It's a site that promotes all sorts of views associated with the movement. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I just removed a couple of links which clearly conflict with WP:EL (we do not link to two different locations on one website without very good reason—find the one page which satisfies the WP:EL guideline and use that). I am having trouble seeing any merit in several of the remaining links, each of which should help the reader with more information directly relevant to the topic of the article. I suppose the FBI link is sufficiently interesting to be kept, and it is certainly on topic. A link to a forum is normally not warranted (WP:ELNO#10), and most of the other pages do not actually provide information on the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I can see the argument here. However, Christogenea serves as a source point for massive amounts of information on the subject as well as archiving the sermons of Wesley Swift and Bertrand Comparet, two of the "founders" of the modern Identity movement. If nothing else, it stands as an excellent source for those who want to learn more about what CI means. Objective? Pushing it. More useful than not? Definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorSwitzer (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The standard procedure is that if a website has a page that is helpful for an article, the external link should go directly to that page. If the website is set up in such a way that that cannot be done, the link is probably not warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
I'm copying a response from WP:ELN below Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC):
"The claim to be adding these links on the ground that we "can never have enough links" is disingenuous, as the person who said that has repeatedly removed a couple of links, as well as adding his/her own links. Not only the links added by that person, but nearly all the external links in the article are not to objective sources of information on the subject, but rather to propaganda pages for organisations advocating "Christian Identity". They have every appearance of being "links mainly intended to promote a website" (quoted from WP:ELNO), they appear to me to be sites "that [do] not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article", and they seem to contain "unverifiable research", if one is to grace such unsubstantiated opinions with the term "research". In addition, one of the links (the one to web.syr.edu) appears to be a dead link, and another (http://www.ucoy.org) links to a web site with nothing to do with the subject of the article: it looks as though the domain name has probably changed hands. As far as I can see the only link in the external links section which has any reasonable claim to comply with our external links policy is the FBI link. Certainly the links added by the person Dougweller refers to do not belong in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32 am, Yesterday (UTC+1)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AChristian_Identity