Talk:Rome General Peace Accords

c-r.org link

As in the article Abuja Accord (Liberia), I feel that a link to the text of the agreement is entirely appropriate in this article. It is true that the fact that the user adding the link works directly with c-r.org makes their additions in bad taste. Reading WP:SPAM does not imply that they should be deleted. However, based on #3 of Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, it is right to ask that these links be discussed on the talk pages.

c-r.org is not the only site which has the text (see [1]), and it may be more appropriate to link to a Mozambique government site or possibly a UN site for a text like this. However, I prefer having some link to the text in this article (and others) than having none, even if the user adding the link is associated with c-r.org. I'll concede that we may ask the user adding the links to mention on each of the article's talk page something like a disclosure: that they are adding the links as associates of the site, and that if anyone feels that a different source would be better, those interested could discuss it. But, until another source is brought forth, however, I don't like the removal of the link. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put a sort of sample disclaimer at Talk:Nkomati Accord, which Hjalmarsson could use if others think it looks good. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not dispute Smmurphy's positive opinion of the link. However I disagree on one minor point: who should be adding it to the article. From the WP:EL guideline, "links to normally avoid":

| A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.

As such, editors from c-r.org need to use the talk pages and not add the links to the article themselves. While in some cases the link might be useful, especially in articles barren of any other sources, I have been chasing down these c-r links and many of them are bare links to the main page of the site, providing nothing more relevent than indicating that the site is involved in the subject matter discussed in the article. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Smmurphy, This is all very Kafka-esque to me :) and a certain eye-opener in regards to people's virtual interactions, has it really come to this (see above) when the only point really is whether people would benefit from reading the primary texts and agreements? The main accusation that this is blatant self-promotion I concede may have some value in addition that my actions on wikipedia probably suffer from the same Kafka-esque inability to know what form to get stamped where by whom and how! The point though being is not to sell anyone anything (Viagra, stock or penis enhancements etc)but rather provide a gateway where people can see how actors in conflict managed to tweak out their disagreements and hopefully draw some parallel lessons from other peace processes. CR is a trusted and unbiased not-for-profit source that gives those who are interested access to primary documents as well as analysis on the peace processes in question, a rather benign mission in my opinion and again nobody is making monetary profits at any point (the peace business is regrettably less profitable than the war business). In the final analysis though, I give up, apparently I am a spammer and really an unfortunate 'victim' of overzealous guardians who while doing a good job of sifting out weed also in my opinion manage to slaughter some pretty flowers, but hey hope someone else gets what information CR is providing and makes the links where appropriate. All my best, good luck and adios, --Hjalmarsson

This is a classic example of the reasoning behind the WP:EL guideline that indicates one shouldn't add links to their own sites. Articles are not being deleted here, content (or even a proper citation) is not being removed. External links are. And yet, the editor who has inserted the links waxes eloquent about being "victimized", as if we've committed some sort of crime aganist humanity.

It is also ironic that he talks about conflict management and working out disagreement, and yet when the accepted compromise of using the talk pages for mentioning the link is pointed out, he decides to "take his ball and go home". Wikipedia may be quirky, but the procedure of not adding links to your own site and the "loophole" of being able to use the talk pages for mentioning them is more than fair. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

AbsolutDan, your absolute faith in the rules is at best admirable. Cheerio.