Steve Bennett wrote:
Consistent rules should be laid out in the Manual of Style. Unfortunately, frequently the MoS gives up and says "you can do it this way or this way, there's no consensus".
That's fine. No consensus needs to be taken at face value. Over an extended period of time one style may come to dominate, but there should be no rush to impose one way or the other. Consistency is a secondary feature.
Fwiw, I think "sources" and "further reading" are better terms. Most of our references *are* external links - we just want to distinguish between those sites that contributed to the information in the article, and those which go beyond it.
If the principal editor of an article sees it differently it's not worth arguing with him about it.
Ec