Talk:American Freedom Agenda

Dead links

Allmost all links are dead to the AFA... I am removing the links. Lord Metroid 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks

I'd prefer to discuss indivdual wikilinks rather than Bultens method of simply reverting everything. Links to common terms that are understood by most readers are not desireable. As stated in the wp:MOS, specifically wp:overlink: plain English words; terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers;items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions and common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided) are things that should NOT be wikilinked.

1) US-American: I find it difficult to believe that many English speakers that can read the article aren't familiar with what the US is. Sending a reader to a generic article about the US doesn't really enhance the inderstanding of this article at all.

2) Torture is a common word understood by most readers. This is not a dictionary.

3) Coercion is a common word understood by most readers. Further, the article is about the general topic of coercion, not necessarily how it applies to this article.

4) Seperating "unlawful combatant" and "enemy combatant" as links, while shwoing them in text as one phrase is deceptive. Further, the article on unlawful combatants is the more informative of the two, covering much of the same ground that the "enemy combatant" article does, but the UC one is more applicable to the topic of THIS article.

5) The edit about the NSA simply shortened the amount of blue, while leaving the link intact. It is NOT desireable to have the majority of a sentence be a WL. As stated in wp:overlink, excessive blue links can cause some users problems. Bottom line, the link stayed intact, the only thing that changed was the length of the link.

6) See above about the extraordinary rendition link. Same link, just less blue. And we can leave the "by the US" part off, since we are talking about an AMERICAN legal issue, not some UN Resolution.

7) Re terrorist organizations link, see above. Same link, just less blue.

In other words, 3 links were removed because they go to common terms, 3 were left intact, just the amount of blue was reduced and 1 was pared from 2 links to articles that have some redundancy to the one that was more informative. This should not be a problem and I would appreciate it if you'd be courteous enough to actually discuss it before just clicking undo again. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I reject the practice of "simply reverting everything", as you can tell by my not reverting your date changes. If an "undo all" is appropriate on my reviewing each change in detail (or an "undo all" plus one or two twiddles), that's what I do, as here. While I disagree with most of the logic above, and I affirm the logic of the person who undid your immediately previous edits to another article (blue and alleged overlinking are not the issue here), it's hardly worth arguing about until we decide to go to GA status. JJB 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't even know which previous edits of another article you are talking about, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have anything to do with this article. I'm sorry you don't agree with the wp:mos, but it is considered the consensus view. Overlinking to me is something that needs to be constantly watched because it gets out of hand slowly. One link at a time and next thing you know, you have a sea of blue going to words that people know. Just because someone wrote an article on "nose", "wife" or "dogs" doesn't mean we need to WL to it. People understand those words without having to go read an article about them. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the correction by John Darrow. JJB 19:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• And I disagree. It borders on the ridiculous to link the word internet on an article found in an encyclopedia that exists solely on the internet and not in a hard copy version. His defense is weak too. Texas and physician shouldn't be WL'd, since the article about Texas (or physicians), do not help anyone understand Rep. Paul. That is simply using WP as a dictionary. Let me ask you a direct question: Out of a million English speakers that might read this article, how many of them do you suppose do NOT know what the United States is without having that link available? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Freedom Agenda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070611182154/http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org:80/ to http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)