Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:05, 12 September 2011

Neutral wording etc.

I'll agree to this mediation once some issues are cleared up. First of all, the dispute is between me and Somedifferent stuff only. Several people have given their opinions on this. One of this is itsmejudith. She has been included as she was leaning towards Somedifferentstuffs standpoint. The others have not done so, he of course didn't include them.

Itsmejudith was involved in the debate and the first user to state that she wanted to take the issue to RfC. Since this is a mediation, you can list the other editors you want to be involved here. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, Added. I guess we should notify on the article as well, so I did that. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, the description is non-neutral. This has nothing to do with adding context to the article, as the included addition does not add any context whatsoever. I will need Somedifferentstuff to agree to a neutral description before this goes further. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded the description from this: "The primary issue is regarding adding context to this article" to this, "The primary issue is regarding whether or not adding the following can be considered adding context to the article". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That is neutral but incorrect. I changed it to something neutral and correct, I hope that is acceptable. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes to the mediation comittee

Although I agree to mediation (at least as the requests now stands) I think this request should be rejected. Not only is it made by an editor who by his own admission sees this as a power struggle, not a content conflict , this conflict has not gone through either a Request for Comment, or an informal mediation. Instead Somedifferentstuff went directly to a formal RfC with this dispute about a small content change. In my opinion this is a waste of time for the Mediation Committee, and can be solved on much lower levels of dispute resolution, as the case is small, simple and trivial. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Using the phrasing "simple and trivial" is inappropriate. Nevertheless, I invite the committee to look at the debate regarding this issue here. Tomorrow will mark 3 months since the issue has been unresolved. In June a request for a third opinion took place here and the issue remained unresolved. In July a user said that she wanted to take the issue to RfC. We are now in August and the issue remains unresolved. This mediation will ideally put the issue to rest. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue remains unresolved, because you have ignored the outcome of two uninvolved third opinions. As I mentioned, the next thing to do for you if you find yourself unable to accept the third opinion consensus is to take it to RfC. Instead you took it to mediation. But perhaps that is for the best, as you probably would have refused to accept the outcome of RfC and informal mediation too. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice you didn't mention that User:Itsmejudith, an experienced Wikipedian, disagreed with the requested third opinion in regards to the notability issue, as seen here. This "back and forth" that you and I are engaging in right now is one of the main reasons why this interaction needs to be mediated. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you only need to stop viewing this as a power struggle. Then this would quickly end. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You just proved my point, so moving forward, we both need to try and stay focused on the material. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Same thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your comments. First, you are all to be commended for retaining decorum and civility in all your discussions; such things are often absent. But perhaps I may suggest that a little less heat in the discussions would also be fruitful. Second, I was not aware of this thread when I reviewed the request for mediation, which I accepted, and so I could not take the above comments into account. I did, however, read the talk page discussions, and therefore knew that some parties were of the view that the position of the others was untenable or frivolous. In any event, I think that the involvement of a mediator will be useful, and I note that you guys think so too (because you agreed). I hope that you find the mediation useful, but I would encourage you to skim the Committee's Policy and Guide in order to learn how to get the most from the proceedings (if you are new to this process). If you have any questions, please contact us at User:Mediation Committee, and a mediator will respond when possible. Regards, AGK 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Athaenara not involved in this dispute

In late June 2011, one of the two users then disputing posted a request for a third opinion, which I offered on the talk page an hour or two later. My opinion (just an observation as an uninvolved editor) was:

If the debate has multiple independent reliable sources attesting to its notability, it may merit inclusion in the article citing those sources. A link to the video itself is not sufficient for that, and this applies whether or not the participants in the debate are themselves notable. – Athaenara ✉ 21:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC) (diff)

I don't know why my username was added to the "users involved in dispute" list but, please, it should be removed, because I am not. – Athaenara ✉ 10:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:OpenFuture added your name to the list which he has now removed. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Participation

I will participate in this request if it is considered necessary, but I view my part in the debate as unofficial third opinion/dispute resolution, not that I am actually party to the disagreement. Again, if I am viewed as being part of the conflict, then I will participate, but otherwise, please remove me. PrincessofLlyr 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, It's up to you, I just invited you to counteract Somedifferentstuffs biased invitation, on his suggestion. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm around a bit more now

Around a bit more and if I can do anything to help the mediation forward, pls drop a line to my talk page. My basic view is that the fact of the RSA debate should be quite uncontroversial and is worth including, but that this is not a big deal. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. We will assign a mediator imminently. Regards, AGK 18:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Beginning mediation

Welcome to the mediation for The Spirit Level.

Issue to be mediated

As I understand it, the issue to be discussed here is whether, or not, to add the RSA debate about the book. You have had a third opinion about this. Apparently you differ as to whether the third opinion is valid. Have I got that right? Sunray (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We have had a third opinion by Athaenara, yes. The opinion was that it could be included if there are third-party WP:RS attesting to it's notability. No such sources has been presented. This opinion has also been repeated by Trift and PrincessofLlyr (and also an IP, 86.27.83.19). --OpenFuture (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Expectations

I'm sure you all know how mediation works. If you have any questions, please refer to the links referred to by AGK. Let me know if you have questions about process.

I'm pleased that your discussions on the talk page have been mostly civil. Talk page guidelines specify a number of good practices that are correlated to successful mediations, in my experience. In particular, I wish to draw your attention to the guideline: comment on content, not the contributor. Concision is also a virtue in these discussions. Sunray (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions

If my summary, above is accurate, I would like to know the following:

1. Has the RSA debate been referred to in any other reliable sources?
   • Probably not, but RSA is a reliable source for its own activities. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
2. How would each of you describe the main reasons for either including, or not including the RSA debate?
   • Reason to include is that it is a normal bit of detail about how the book was received. It indicates that the book was important enough, controversial enough, to be debated at the RSA. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
   • Stating that there was a debate is nothing but trivia. It adds no context or information to the article of use to anyone. It gives no real insight. The debate has not been mentioned anywhere outside of RSA, so the debate is not particularly noteworthy. I would say that my criteria for including it is if a third-party source mentions something about the debate that would somehow add something to the article. That a source quotes from the debate to highlight something about the book. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
3. How would the link to the RSA debate be used in the article if it were included?
   • I think the debate should be mentioned in the text without the YouTube and then the YouTube could be an EL, if that meets EL policy. RSA has recently produced a number of great videos uploaded to YouTube. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Once you have each commented, I will summarize the issues as I see them. Sunray (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Third opinion

The third opinion stated that we would need reliable sources to establish the notability of the debate. I'm not sure that it is enough to say that the RSA is a notable organization and they hosted the debate, therefore it is notable. WP doesn't tend to use video sources. They are not searchable and therefore hard to work with. The debate itself is somewhat inconclusive, thus I'm not sure what we would be able to say about it other than it happened (which brings us back to the notability question). If someone can point to a reason in policy to justify using the video, that would be helpful. Sunray (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think primary sources can be used to assert notability of any kind, as they will be inherently biased on such a topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that notability comes into this at all. Our notability guidelines are about whether you should have an article on a topic. We don't have to demonstrate notability of every single point in every article. What do we say about books? We say when they were published, something about the author perhaps, an indication of the content, and how they have been received. This is just one potentially informative point relating to how this book was received. The video isn't the source. RSA is the source. It obviously isn't biased on this topic or generally. I don't know what direction anyone could possibly think it would be biased towards. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Judith, would you be able to support what you are saying with reference to policy or guidelines? We won't get far if all we have to rely on are participants' opinions. There is no reason why we cannot take issue with a third opinion, but to do so, IMO, we should be able to argue from policy. Sunray (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Judith, you are right that WP:NOTABILITY only concerns articles as a whole, not everything in them. But we have now have had one official third opinion, one unofficial third opinion and one outsider agreeing that if we can show notability, then it can't be included. If you think this standpoint is false, can you explain why?

And it's obvious that the RSA as a source is "biased" on the opinion of how important it's own debates are. RSA will mention all the debates the RSA holds, regardless of their importance or general notability. That's why WP:NOTABILITY requires third-party sources. And no such exists, apparently, showing that the debate wasn't particularly noteworthy. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My argument is entirely from policy, and it is this. There is no policy or guideline that prevents, or discourages, us from including this mundane, uncontroversial, well-sourced and relevant fact. Considering WP:V, RSA is a highly reliable, independent secondary source for this article. It would be usable even were it biased, but it is not biased. Considering WP:NPOV, the fact that RSA held a debate - a debate, not a promotion, not a forum for criticism! - does not reflect either well or badly upon the book. There is no way that bias is an issue here. With due respect to the person who kindly offered a third opinion, notability is not an issue here either. We do not have to demonstrate notability of every fact within every article. I hope this is clear enough. If someone wishes to put forward a policy-based reason not to include this fact then I will consider it and reply. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are: Misplaced Pages:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA are both relevant here. It is indeed mundane, and also not notable and does not add anything to the article. It is trivia, nothing more, nothing less. Nobody has any argument for why it should be included, nobody can say why they want it included, nobody can explain how it makes the article better. I offered the compromise that we would link to the debate in the "External Links" section, but this was rejected. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that it should not be included at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You incorrectly used WP:TRIVIA, which is about "lists of trivia" and "trivia sections", neither of which relate to the RSA addition. OpenFuture needs to quote the specific sentences from the policy that support his argument if he disagrees. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely RSA is a primary source for the debate in this case, is it not? As to notability, while RSA is a notable organization, how does that make the debate notable? RSA does many things that are not notable: holds meetings, carries out administrative tasks, etc. What makes this debate notable and how can we prove it? Sunray (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A debate organised by the RSA is trivia? Wow! What would serious public discussion look like then?

Look, I'm not saying this is a major point, but it is properly sourced and relevant information. RSA is completely independent of the article topic, ergo a secondary source, not a primary source for this article. Of course the debate isn't "notable" in its own right, whoever said it was? This is exactly the kind of info that goes to make a good article about a book. X reviewed the book, Y reviewed the book and the RSA held a debate. One factual sentence about the debate being held, and link to the YouTube video in EL (I have checked the EL policy and there is no reason why not).

Anyway, we have both laid out our arguments at sufficient length and there is no point in going round in circles. Unless Sunray as our independent moderator you have any other suggestion, I think we should get more eyes on it, from WikiProject Books, WP:RSN, RfC, anywhere else where some policy-savvy people will be found. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to refer to outside advisers, such as WP:RSN. However, before we do, I would like to be clear on the following:

1. Is the video a primary or secondary source? Please refer to WP:PSTS. Secondary sources are defined as "second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event." It seems to me important to get consensus about this.
2. Some participants take issue with the third opinion. What is the disagreement with the third opinion? Would participants who disagree please be specific as to why they disagree?
3. What is the policy basis for the third opinion? Do we need clarification about the 3O?

Judith makes a good point about not rehashing old arguments (going in circles). I suggest that we avoid this by responding with specific reference to policy (i.e., quoting the actual words). If someone makes a point based on policy and it is not refuted, it should go into the category of agreed upon facts/observations. That way we can make progress. Would participants please begin by addressing the three points above? Sunray (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, "X reviewed the book" is not the kind of information that makes the article good. With reviews you include a summary of what X said in the review. Just "X reviewed the book" is a useless piece of information that does not make the article any better, exactly like "There was a debate". Or in other words: Trivia.

As to the points above: 1. It is obvious that in regards to a debate hosted by RSA, the RSA is a primary source. The RSA would be a third-party source in regards to the book. But not in regards to the debate. 2+3: I have no issue with the majority opinion that the debate needs to be notable to be mentioned in this way. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. The info is linked to the RSA site which is a primary source. Here is some material from Misplaced Pages policy:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Looking at the underlined text, the RSA addition meets this sourcing criteria. It is a "straightforward, descriptive statement" by stating that a debate took place; when the event took place; who hosted the event; and who was involved. In the next underlined sentence it states, "but any interpretation needs a secondary source". If you look at the proposed addition you can see that there is no "interpretation" of the event. It makes no claims about who won the debate, what the dynamic was between the participants, etc. So User:Itsmejudith rightly stated that the Third Opinion was incorrect. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So we seem to have two points at issue. 1) is the fact well sourced? and 2) if it is well sourced, is it worth including? If there is still doubt about 1), can I take it to RSN? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Although we were asked to not rehash old arguments this is clearly what is being done here, so here goes: Yet again, nobody claims that RSA is not a reliable source for the existence of the debate. That is is primary is not a problem in that case. RSA had the debate, this is uncontroversial. The discussion is about the debates notability. And in that case we can't use RSA, since it is a primary source, and to prove notability you need third-party sources. Hence, we can't use RSA as a source to prove notability and since the majority opinion has clearly been that we can add the material if we can prove it's notability, the the RSA source is not enough.

Is there anything unclear in this? I can try to clarify if this is confusing anyone. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand the WP:Notability policy. It states, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list". Also, see the section (here). Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand Misplaced Pages policies perfectly. Three different third opinion, one official, has said that we can add the material if the notability of the debate is proven by third-party sources. RSA is not a third-party source. What in this is unclear? I can not help clarify this for you unless you explain what you find confusing. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• I just showed that you're wrong, as was the one official third opinion, by showing you what the policy actually says. So unless you can show material from the policy itself, that supports your argument, there is nothing left to say here. This is your chance to use information taken directly from the policy itself, to back up your argument. Let's see what you got. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Need for a sound basis for differing with the 3O

We seem to have agreement that the link to the RSA debate would be a primary source (hooray!). However, I do not yet see any evidence that the third opinion was incorrect. Immediately following the text quoted, above, in the policy, are three sentences beginning with the words "Do not." The second of these states: "Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources." Is that not the main point of the third opinion? Once again, what is the reason, in policy, for taking issue with the third opinion? Sunray (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not understanding the context. It states, "Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources." The word "entirely" denotes "all". To clarify, it is stating that "articles and the material within them should not be solely based on primary sources", which is not an issue here as The Spirit Level article has plenty of secondary sources. Do you follow? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this not constitute material? Since we are not talking about the article as a whole, just remove the words "articles and." It then reads: "Do not base... material entirely on primary sources." Sunray (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not grasping the context. "Articles and material" are plural. If what you say is accurate, why didn't they just state, "Do not add material to an article if it only has a primary source"? Instead they wrote, "Do not base"... Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You've got a point. The wording of the policy allows for your interpretation. What does that mean, then "articles and material"? Sunray (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't accept that this is primary. I think the argument is very tenuous and don't want to see a poor precedent established here. I would like to see this discussed properly on RSN. Moreover, I agree with Somedifferentstuff that were there consensus that it is primary, that doesn't make it a poor source.

I hope we aren't going to attribute too much weight to the 3O. It's one uninvolved opinion, which is good to have, but it would be better still to have a range of uninvolved opinions. We are into a further stage of dispute resolution now. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Judith, would you be able to clarify why you think the RSA video is a secondary source?

With respect to RSN: I don't have a problem with a referral to RSN, but I would like to know whether a ruling there will be definitive. At some point this dispute has to be settled. Would you be able to give me your views on this? What happens if RSN doesn't support your point of view? Would all three participants be able to comment on this, please? Sunray (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement "do not base articles entirely on primary sources" is completely irrelevant here. But yet again, with regards to notability, RSA talking about itself is obviously and self-evidently a primary source. Any claims to anything else is patently absurd, and this has already been covered above. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, a ruling at RSN won't be definitive but with luck it will give us a number of views from well informed and uninvolved people. It would probably be best if you post. I would say "Is this source (RSA website) and/or this source (link to video) reliable to support the idea that RSA held a debate about the book The Spirit Level?". I would also say that a mediation is in progress and of course provide a link to this article. But you may wish to vary the wording of the question. Personally I will accept a consensus view of RSN on reliability. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Still irrelevant. Nobody claims RSA is not a reliable source. It is a complete red herring. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

OK we seem to agree that the statement (that RSA hosted a debate) is reliably sourced. If so, then we need to move on to discuss whether such a statement is worth including in the article. I say definitely yes. The article goes into detail about how the book was received, and that is appropriate, because readers need to know that it has generated a lot of public debate. I don't see that it is possible to make an accurate and dispassionate account of the way the book has been received without mentioning that there was an RSA debate. At least. Of course it would be even better to go say something about who argued what in the RSA debate. As soon as this mediation is out of the way we should discuss how to do that. Sunray made the point that a video source doesn't allow for searching, which is true, but it is also the case with paper-only sources, and not really a significant factor in WP:IRS. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And I, and three others on the talk including one official third opinion, says definitely no. You have been asked above to explain why you disagree. That you disagree we already know, that's why we are having this mediation. ;-)

Why would it be impossible to make an accurate and dispassionate account of the reception without mentioning the debate? Nobody else mentions the debate. There is no reliable third-party sources about the debate at all. It has been completely ignored by all media. Why should it be mentioned here? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There has been one official third opinion who didn't understand policy, as I demonstrated above. Next we need to determine if a primary source can be used to include this information. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You say that you demonstrated that the third opinion didn't understand policy. I'm not sure what you are referring to. Please show me where you have done that? Sunray (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to include the debate in order to cover the reception properly? Because we should mention all the serious reviews and commentaries that we know of. Reviews, e.g. in the Wall Street Journal are already there. There could be some reviews too minor to mention, e.g. Journal of Cycling Studies if such existed, and those could be left out. RSA is one of the UK's more important institutions in social policy research, therefore it actually going to the trouble of organising a public debate is a significant development in the reception of this book. Also, the video is a particularly useful EL; anyone interested in this book will learn something by watching it. I assume that we now have consensus that the source is reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that without a third party statement about the debate, no significant conclusion can be drawn. Simply saying: "The RSA held a debate," tells the reader nothing. Sunray (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I think Josef K had it easy.

@ItsmeJudith: I repeat: We do not mention serious reviews or commentaries. Nobody ever mentions reviews or commentaries. We summarize them. We would not include a text going "Mr Foo Bar reviewed the book, you can read his review online", which is what you are suggesting we do with the debate. And a debate is neither a review or a commentary, in any case.

@Somedifferentstuff: Yes, there was one official third opinion, and two other uninvolved people has repeated that position, one explicitly calling it an unofficial third opinion. That leaves a total of three outside opinions agreeing. And I didn't even count the IP-address. These are the facts, don't try to hide them or distort them. And don't throw stones in glass houses. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite happy if you prefer to summarise the debate rather than just mentioning it. Slightly different from a review, because with a review we really need to know if the reviewer was positive, negative or neutral. In this case we know that arguments for and against were put, with sufficient time for each. This from the RSA is RS in its own right for how the book was received and why it was thought useful to hold a debate. It is still clearly relevant and sourced information, a) that the debate occurred and b) what transpired. I see from and from that it was immediately following the debate that the authors issued their written responses to critics. Sunray, you appear to be arguing along with one of the parties to this mediation, which I'm not sure is really part of the mediator's role. Can you suggest a compromise that might break the deadlock? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really find anything in the debate worth summarizing, it didn't add anything new, and it would be very hard to verify the summary as NPOV, since it's a video. If the authors written response comes as a result of the debate, you need a source to say that, or it's WP:OR.

It is the job of the mediator to get parties to argue for their standpoint. It is also the job of the mediator to show when one of the parties have misunderstood something. A mediator needs to be neutral and objective, he does not need to necessarily take a stand that is exactly center the two parties, because it may in fact be so that one of the parties are incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

First, a debate and a book review are two different things, so comparing them, as OpenFuture did, is pointless. A book review is one person reviewing a book; a debate is multiple people debating something.

Above, Sunray wrote, "The problem, as I see it, is that without a third party statement about the debate, no significant conclusion can be drawn. Simply saying: "The RSA held a debate," tells the reader nothing." The last part of this doesn't make sense. Telling a reader about the debate gives them information. It tells them that a debate, featuring one of the books most outspoken critics, took place and was recorded. It is also the only debate of its kind that was held regarding this book (that I'm aware of). It is relevant and should be included in this article. Sunray, I need to ask you, how do you define the word "nothing"? I assume you view this information as "nothing" because it is not a form of analysis, but where do you get the idea that it should be excluded from the article because of that?

Sunray asked: "You say that you demonstrated that the third opinion didn't understand policy. I'm not sure what you are referring to. Please show me where you have done that?" -- If you look above, you'll see where I proved both OpenFuture and the offical Third Opinion wrong. I'll post some of it here and add to it. First, the official Third Opinion stated this:

"If the debate has multiple independent reliable sources attesting to its notability, it may merit inclusion in the article citing those sources. A link to the video itself is not sufficient for that, and this applies whether or not the participants in the debate are themselves notable."

The first mistake was when she said that multiple sources were needed to include this information. When you look at the WP:Verifiability policy, it states that only one source is needed, not multiple sources, by using the word source in the singular. This is also made clear by the fact that lots of information in articles on Misplaced Pages only have one source attributed to them. The second mistake she made was regarding notability. When you actually look at the WP:Notability policy, it states, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list". In other words, notability is only required for the creation of the article itself, not for everything contained in the article. Also, see the section (here). ONWARD!!! Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)