Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Spirit Level (book)

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 [1], 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 ^{royal court} 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: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia policy:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [2] and from [3] 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)

Well said about the role of the mediator! As to your views on the debate, I agree that it would be an impossible task to try to summarize the debate. Sunray (talk) 16:38, 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 Wikipedia 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)

Thank you all for responses that present evidence supported by links or specific references to policy.

1. Judith, thank you for the links which do show the traction that the debate got. The Taxpayers' Alliance does not seem to be a reliable source, but it is reasonable to expect peer-reviewed articles will follow, which will make it easier to cover. Note that one of the problems we face is that this is a very recent event and academic debates take months.
2. As Judith's links show, the debate has become politicized, with the respective sides taking lobs at each other via websites. The RSA will avoid taking sides. The newspapers do not tend to get involved in academic squabbles. All this makes it tricky for us, as an encyclopedia. If participants haven't done so recently, please have a look at WP:NOT.
3. Somedifferentstuff, I appreciate your detailed examination of the 3O. Your specific references to WP:V and WP:N are most helpful. I think you have more than justified a referral to RSN. A quibble: Would you be willing to not link User's names? Usually links are only made once on a page and, in the case of names, only in more formal cases where evidence is being presented. I find it makes it harder to pick out who is saying what.

I would like to get consensus on the wording of an RSN referral. You might find that picky, but I have found it helpful, in mediations, to work collaboratively on a task. With respect to the RSN referral, my niggling concern is to not drag things out. If we get a thorough review by RSN, I would hope that we can then wrap up the mediation. If you all agree with this, let's work on the submission, which I will present to RSN, once we've all agreed on the wording. Sunray (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff:

1. I'm happy you agree that you can't compare debates and reviews. Please note that it was Itsmejudith who did that comparison in an effort to argue for the inclusion of the material in question. I see we then agree that this argument is invalid.

2. And no, it tells them nothing about the book. You say "featuring some of the books most outspoken critics". No, it doesn't tell them that. It just tells them there was a debate. And that it's available online. That's it. And claiming that it was some of the books most outspoken critics requires an RS. Do you have that?

3. Although WP:N is only about articles, does that mean that the four editors that have expressed the opinion that the information is not notable should be discounted? Are you claiming that in articles you are allowed to add anything that has a connection to the topic? Can I add the number of moles a Naomi Klein has on her left arm if I find a reliable source for it, in your opinion? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sunray: I'm unsure why we should refer it to RSN. We know it's a reliable source for the fact that there was an event. We also know it, as a first-party source, doesn't confer any notability. None of this under discussion, but whether the text should be included or not. If we decide to discount three editors opinion because we can't find an exact policy to support it, this still doesn't mean we should include it, and it still doesn't make this question of reliable sources.

The information still doesn't add anything to the article and is as such just trivia that tells nobody anything of value. It therefore still violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You incorrectly used WP:TRIVIA which states, "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information", and is about "lists of trivia" and "trivia sections", neither of which relate to the RSA addition. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The RSN referral was proposed by Itsmejudith as a way of clarifying the third opinion. My view is that independent analysis is usually helpful in a mediation. Since some participants are unhappy with the 3O, it may be useful to get a ruling from RSN. I did ask for reasons for the objection to the 3O and Somedifferentstuff has raised some policy-related questions. Do you have any particular objection to getting an opinion from RSN? Sunray (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, no objections. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

RSN submission

Participants in the Spirit Level mediation would like an opinion from RSN on the inclusion of a citation about a debate concerning the book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better held by the Royal Society of Arts (RSA). Participants in the mediation have been unable to agree on whether or not to include a citation about this debate. A third opinion was requested, but two of the three participants disagree with the 3O. As mediator, I consider that a ruling from RSN would be helpful in resolving the dispute. Sunray (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Preparing the submission

To post a question regarding the reliability of a source at WP:RSN, would participants please provide the following information:

1. A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60.
   Royal Society of Arts (22 Jul 2010) RSA Debates the Spirit Level.
2. A link to the source in question. http://www.thersa.org/events/video/vision-videos/rsa-debates-the-spirit-level
3. The article in which it is being used. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better
4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.

In July 2010, a debate hosted by the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), took place between Christopher Snowdon, Peter Saunders, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, and was subsequently uploaded to the internet.

5. Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.

• Information about the debate was added to the article on 30 June, 2011 [4]
• There has been considerable discussion about adding a link to the RSA debate [5]
• A third opinion was requested and provided [6]
• The mediation began on 7 September, 2011 [7]
• The objection to the third opinion, that neither WP:Notability nor multiple sources are relevant to this addition, was summarized by one of the participants [8]
• The counter argument, that there is no reliable third party source to establish notability (WP:V#notability) is summarized by another participant [9]

When we have consensus on what we would submit to RSN, I will post it. Sunray (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say, keep it simple. The link to the source is sufficient, you don't need an academic style citation, because respondents can see from the website what the source is. You could usefully link the Royal Society for the Arts. The exact statement to be supported is as you say above. Then just link to the talk page and say that a mediation is in progress and you are mediator. That is enough for an RSN referral. Thanks very much for doing this. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added a short preamble and diffs from the talk pages, above. Do participants have any suggested changes or additions? Sunray (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the submission should include an explanation of what the RSN is supposed to clarify? Maybe it's obvious to people on RSN, but I still don't get it. Since the dispute has nothing to do with whether this is a reliable source or not, I don't see how a normal RSN ruling would help. They are just going to say "Yes it's a reliable source for that statement", which everyone already agrees on. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Would you be able to craft the wording for that and add it to the draft submission? Sunray (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not able to do that, as I still haven't got the faintest clue why we are submitting this to RSN. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added a summary of your argument, above. Are you saying that you do not think that RSN has competence to rule on this matter? Sunray (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that RSN was about reliability of sources, not notability. But if it is about notability as well, then it makes more sense. But then the submission should say so. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, we shouldn't be wasting your time. RSN will not comment on notability. A while back I said we seemed to be in disagreement about two points, 1) whether a statement about the RSA debate was well sourced, and 2) whether it was worth including in the article. It seems now that we have consensus around 1), that it is well sourced. So all mediation participants are grateful for your attention to this issue, but there is no longer any need to go to RSN. We still have to resolve 2), whether it is worth including. I and SomeDifferentStuff say yes, OpenFuture says no. There is no board that we can go to for a ruling, and this is one of the issues where policy allows us to make a judgement. 2 for and 1 against is not many people. It would be helpful to have more opinions in order to establish consensus and I would suggest a Request for Comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We have more opinions. One official 3O says no. One unofficial 3O says no, and one other uninvolved person says no, and one slightly involved IP says no. How come you just discount all opinions that disagree with you? The !vote count is not 2 for and 1 against, that's untrue. The !vote count is 2 for and 5 against! How many more opinions do we need? You can go on demanding more opinions for ever at this rate. I think an RfC is pointless unless we can get a formal and enforcable decision that the RfC outcome is final. Just getting more opinions isn't going to solve this. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Some people have passed by and given comments. They're not here in the current discussion. There was one 3O, and with respect to the person who offered it, it was based on a mistaken interpretation of policy. That happens. I don't know what the other opinions you mention are. Perhaps you would supply diffs. There is absolutely no way we can get a formal and enforceable decision about this. We have to build consensus by civil discussion, which is why we are in mediation here. Mediation is proceeding OK, because we have at least established the issues on which we agree and where we still disagree. But only three of us have signed up to mediation. Don't forget that any consensus can be overturned. With or without an RfC we could eventually reach a compromise and then six months later some new editors could come along, consider it again, and come to a different conclusion. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You just asked for an RfC, which is people passing by to give comments. Now you discount the existing opinions as "people passing by and giving comments" and say "only us three signed up to mediation" in an effort to discount all other opinions. It is clear to me that you suggested an RfC because you hoped outside opinions that would support you. Now when it turns out we already have outside opinions, and they don't support you, then suddenly outside opinions doesn't count any more. That kind of attitude shows that you are only inetrested in what can support your position, and you ignore everything else. It made me run out of good faith with you.

"Mediation is proceeding OK, because we have at least established the issues on which we agree and where we still disagree." - That was established long before mediation. This has been nothing but a pure re-hashing of the same arguments that was already done on the talk page. We haven't gotten one millimeter closer to a resolution, we are exactly where we were when we started. We are not going to reach a consensus here, it's time for either a ruling or kicking this up to the next level of dispute resolution (where no doubt the discussion will be rehashed from the start again). --OpenFuture (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As you wish. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture (Personal comment removed) stated that, "One official 3O says no. One unofficial 3O says no, and one other uninvolved person says no". When you actually look at the last three outside opinions, here and here, all of them had the false belief that notability was a requirement for this addition. So we actually don't know, since notability is no longer an issue, whether or not they would be okay with adding this material. In other words, the last three opinions don't support either side. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"False belief"? How is it a belief? How is it false? As Itsmejudith correctly points out above, "We still have to resolve 2), whether it is worth including. I and SomeDifferentStuff say yes, OpenFuture says no. There is no board that we can go to for a ruling, and this is one of the issues where policy allows us to make a judgement.".

There is no hard and strict policy for this, we just make a judgement if this is worth including or not. So the people you accuse of having "false beliefs" are in fact all of the opinion that the text could be included if we could find a reliable third-party source to show that the debate was noteworthy. This is not a "belief" and much less mistaken.

And since there are no reliable third-party sources, then their opinion all is that is should *not* be included. And that means that of the opinions made on this issue five are against inclusion and two for. That's how simple it is. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a good example. You didn't fully grasp the meaning of my comment. I know that English isn't your native language but I suspect it's something else. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the tenor of this discussion. First of all I thought we had agreement that participants would confine comments to content, not the contributor, in the discussion. I emphasized the importance of this before we began the mediation and no one took issue. Up until now, for the most part, participants have been civil. However, this comment: "OpenFuture is not, nor do I know if he is capable of (I'm being serious), grasping the contextual meaning" is out of bounds and I would like to see it removed. And further, would participants please avoid imputing the motives or level of understanding of others?

I am also concerned that two participants have said that submitting an a request for opinion to RSN would be a waste of time. Let me try clarify the reasons for submitting this to WP:RSN:

1. From the RSN Project Page: "The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Identifying reliable sources. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability."
2. Two key considerations have been identified with respect to using the RSA debate video as a source: Reliability and Notability.
3. Notability is certainly a consideration of the RSN (see WP:VER#Notability).

• Why are you mentioning notability? In #2 you mention it and in #3 you bring it up again. The link you provided for #3 states, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". This doesn't even apply to the dispute. No one is questioning the notability of The Spirit Level article. So for me to move forward with RSN, you either need to show me a wikipedia policy that says notability is required to add material to an established article, and if you can't do that, then reason #2 needs to be edited and #3 removed. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

He mentions notability because four editors have voiced the opinion that the debate can be mentioned if it's notability can be shown by reliable third-party sources. This of course you know already, as it's been rehashed over and over above. If notability indeed is a concern of RSN, then taking this up there is an excellent idea. The utter lack of third-party sources should make this a trivial issue. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There are two different references to notability, because there are two different policies that refer to notability. The first mention of notability (which refers to WP:N) summarizes one of the participant's arguments. The second mention of notability (WP:V#Notability) is important IMO, because it draws the reader's attention to notability as a consideration in determining sources. Reading some of the discussion on the talk page, it seems that this may not have been clear, because the 3O referred to WP:N. You've raised the point that the notability reference deals only with articles. That, IMO, is one of the key points that RSN needs to consider. I can add that to bullet #6 if you like, so it is completely clear. Sunray (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No Sunray, what I need is for you to cite the specific section within the policy/policies that discuss the need for notability when adding material to established articles. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We are not conducting the RSN, so all we need to do, IMO, is fairly reproduce the arguments of both sides. If the submission fairly reproduces your point of view, then you should be ready for it to go ahead. OpenFuture had a concern about the way his point of view was expressed, so I added to that. My role is to fairly represent both sides. I've done my best to do that. Would you be willing to proceed on that basis? If not, would you please suggest changes or additions to the wording, so we may proceed? Sunray (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:V#Notability is about notability of whole articles, not of points made within articles. Compare any biography. "John Doe studied at the University of Ruritania"<ref>University of Ruritania website.</ref>. Where a biography subject studied is only mildly interesting, but run-of-the-mill content for a WP biography. The only source is connected with the point made, but it still should be reliable because the university is independent of the article subject and it has no reason to lie. We don't have to establish notability for every point made, nor do we need more than one source. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm clear that this is your point of view. I'm also clear that OpenFuture sees it differently. Mediation does not involve making a ruling on the points in dispute. The mediation process is to facilitate discussion and assist participants to find areas of agreement. Sunray (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:N is indeed about articles. That doesn't prevent anyone from having the opinion that the material should be added only if it has reliable third-party sources to attest it's notability. As Itsmejudith pointed out, we have to execute judgement here, it seems there is no policy to cover this. Requiring third-party sources hence is a perfectly valid standpoint. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, you are not mediating this properly by sitting on the fence. In response to Itsmejudith you wrote, "I'm clear that this is your point of view". This is not her point of view. This is what the policy states ("...should not have an article on it"). Then you go on to say that, "OpenFuture sees it differently". You're just adding to the confusion here by not insisting that Wikipedia policy be adhered to. Above I clearly stated what I needed to move forward. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is your point of view that this policy is relevant. It is mine (and Itsmejudiths?) that is is not relevant. You are asking for a policy on something that there is no policy on, and refusing to go forward with mediation unless you get this unreasonable request fulfilled. Are you saying that you no longer agree to the mediation you started and aren't cooperating with it anymore? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sunray is the one saying that notability is an issue by including it in 2 of the 3 reasons why we should go to RSN. I don't think it's an issue nor does Itsmejudith. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That is also not true. Sunray does not say that notability is an issue, he says that it may be an issue. However, I, Athaenara, Trift, PrincessofLlyr and 86.27.83.19 does say notability is an issue. RSN may help to settle the dispute. You are now blocking the attempts of resolving the dispute. Would you care to explain why? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to summarize the argument from both sides. I added the second notability reference because that seems to be where the statement "reliable third-party sources" apparently comes from, which is the wording of the 3O. Is there some wording we need to change? If you would like to propose a change, please specify exactly what wording you would like to see. Bear in mind, though, that both sides of the argument need to be presented fairly. Sunray (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, I think you can just submit it as proposed. As I said, it won't do any harm. People there will either advise themselves, or refer us to other help. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have said that I think an opinion from RSN would be useful. However, I want to make sure that each of you agrees with submitting it and will take a considered opinion from RSN seriously. Otherwise we will be wasting their time and ours. Would participants please sign their agreement below? 16:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping the discussion on topic and for the reminder that it is not helpful to make comments about other editors. I hope I have stuck to that. It may be helpful for you to know that I am a regular commentator on RSN. Of course in this case I would have a different hat on. I wouldn't be taking part as a commentator but as a participant in a content dispute. I really don't mind at all if you want to post to RSN. I'm mainly concerned that you don't waste your own time. If you remember, it was me who first suggested going there. That was when one of us seemed to be saying that the sourcing was an issue, that RSA was a primary source. Now that argument appears to have been withdrawn, we seem to have consensus between the three of us that RSA is a good enough source for the idea that the debate took place. I think there could still be some confusion about notability. Good secondary sources is certainly a major consideration in establishing whether a topic is notable enough for its own article. But that's not quite what we're talking about here. Nevertheless, as I said, please do go ahead and post if you want to. It certainly won't do any harm. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and yes of course I will take opinions at RSN seriously. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised at the change in your approach. Thank you for clarifying that. However, the issue, as I see it, in determining whether to use this source, hinges not only on its reliability, but also its notability. That surely is the domain of RSN. I've pruned the request slightly and consider it ready to submit. Would all participants please signify their agreement below?

Re: "Sunray, you are not mediating this properly by sitting on the fence." It is not the role of the mediator to make a ruling. My job is to facilitate discussion. I had thought we were reaching a consensus to go for an opinion at RSN. Somedifferentstuff, would you be willing to let that proceed now? Sunray (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to make a ruling and I'm not willing to move forward unless this important issue is addressed. To mediate effectively you have to be willing to go deep into the issue. The issue now is this: Does OpenFuture think notability is an issue? Neither myself nor Itsmejudith do. If OpenFuture thinks it's an issue, then he needs to directly cite policy supporting that. If he does not, then it's up to you to rewrite the reasons for taking this to RSN. Please allow OpenFuture to respond. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please cease trying to tell me how to mediate, Somedifferentstuff? You made the point that "notability" as it is used in WP:N and WP:V refers to articles. Thus there is some question as to whether it can apply to individual sources. That is a reasonable question for RSN, IMO. They may need to clarify the policies. I am not willing to read more argument on this topic here. Would you please indicate whether you agree with the RSN submission or not? Sunray (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, it would be helpful if you would agree and let Sunray post. It's just one idea about helping to resolve this. Of course I think that my own interpretation of policy is correct, moreover I think it will be upheld, but it won't hurt if we hear from some others. There may always be a different take on things. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff: Why don't you quote the policy that says that notability is *not* an issue in this case? I can't find any policy that does, and Itsmejudith agrees, I quote: "This is one of the issues where policy allows us to make a judgement." Of the seven people making such a judgement five has been against and two for. You claim the five against are wrong. Reasonably you must them be able to quote policy on the issue. So it is up to you to quote policy, not me. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already posted it but here it is again. Quote: "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". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That policy does explicitly not cover this issue. As you quote: "They do not directly limit the content of an article or list". That policy hence do not apply. You were asked for what policy that states anything regarding this issue. I don't think there is one. Itsmejudith don't think there is one. You can't find one. Why do you insist there is one? --OpenFuture (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No matter how I explain it............... Also, see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_limit_content_within_an_article. - Somedifferentstuff (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The quoted section does not support your standpoint, it just says that it does not cover content policies, only article creation. As this is a dispute about content, not a dispute about whether an article should exist or not, WP:N does not apply. I have explained this to you over and over and over. What is it you find unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No matter how I explain it............. - Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that this is a article creation dispute? Yes/No? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Affirming agreement with RSN submission

I agree with submitting the above request to RSN and will take a considered opinion from RSN seriously

• Agree Itsmejudith (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Agree OpenFuture (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Agree (I'll agree but it is conditional. One of the conditions is that if anyone mentions notability being an issue, they need to directly cite policy supporting their view. And I'm not talking about saying "this policy" or "that policy", but directly citing the text from within the policy. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So in effect, you agree with the submission, but tell us you will ignore their answer. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not a problem. Consistent with "take a considered opinion seriously". And good respondents to the boards are always willing to refer to policy. Of course anyone at all can respond on the boards, including IPs and vandals. But there are always policy-aware people around too. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. He says he will ignore any opinion that doesn't agree with him, unless they point to a policy. He however does not require that people supporting him quotes a policy. That is of course in itself not serious, and in addition he knows there probably is no policy that either supports or rejects his position, he is in practice saying "I'll ignore everyone who does not agree with me".

So, maybe I'll add a condition too, then: If anyone mentions notability not being an issue, they need to directly cite policy supporting their view. How's that? Does it feel useful to refer to RSN now, when we know that it won't make a difference since somebody will ignore whatever RSN says? We both agree that there is no policy on this topic, so now, whatever the RSN says, it will be ignored. Good? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time for this kind of stuff. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Me neither, which is why it irks me when you say it's not a problem. It is. Somedifferentstuff is saying that he is OK with going to RSN, provided he is free to ignore it if they don't agree with him. He initiated this mediation, but has now realized it's not going like he expected it to. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture, a key aspect of the policy on civility is: "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." In a dispute, it is helpful to keep this in mind so as not to stir the flames of the fire. Would you be able to keep your comments in line with these bounds? Sunray (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one ignoring positions and conclusions of others. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess you mean that you are not the only one. I know, but I was speaking to you just then. Would you be willing consider what I'm saying to you and make necessary adjustments? Sunray (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the positions and conclusions of anyone else in this discussion. Hence, no adjustments in that regard is necessary from my side. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for affirming your agreement. Regarding Somedifferentstuff's condition: Is there wording in the draft submission, above, that you do not agree with? Sunray (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've submitted the request to RSN. [10] I've added the request that any reference to "notability" be supported by citing the actual wording of policy. Sunray (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My view on the RSN submission

To summarise so that it is clear. I suggested we go to RSN. At that time we seemed to disagree whether the fact of the RSA debate could be sourced to RSA, or whether it was a primary source etc. Now we are apparently agreed on that, there is less point in going to RSN. On the other hand it will not do any harm and might get some other policy-informed people to comment on the dispute. I think Sunray should just ask the question because it is only a question after all. I predict that the answer will be "this is reliably sourced but we can't comment on whether or not it is notable enough to include". But I may be wrong. There may be another angle that we haven't thought of. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the statement "this is reliably sourced." The policy to determine reliable sources is WP:V, which tells us, under the heading "What counts as a reliable source": "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources," and under "Notability": "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Thus, to my mind there is a legitimate policy question about whether RSA is a reliable source. Since you and OpenFuture both agree with the submission to RSN, I will proceed. I will wait one more day to see if Somedifferentstuff wishes to join in or not. Sunray (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To my reading it's quite clear that RSA is a reliable third-party published source for this article. But since you are unsure then that is a good reason for getting opinions at RSN. I hope that Somedifferentstuff will join in. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We seem to differ on the meaning of "third party source." My take on that is that a source cannot be a "third party" for itself or an event it stages. What is your view on that? Sunray (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article on RSA it is almost exclusively sourced to RSA itself. But that isn't ideal, and RSA is a primary source for its own article. It's in principle a secondary source for the article on this book because it has no connection with the authors, publishers, or critics. These situations occur all the time. If a film wins an Oscar then the Academy is a good source for that. A university is a reliable source for someone being awarded a degree. In some sense these are primary sources, but this is the situation that is explicitly allowed for in WP:PST. From that policy:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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.

My reading of this is that it is perfectly permissible to use RSA for the simple fact that a debate occurred. It would be completely inadmissible to say anything like "The book was so heavily criticised that the RSA organised a debate so it could be pulled apart" or "The book was so well accepted that the RSA organised a debate so its views could be endorsed". Those would be completely unwarranted interpretations (and in fact both are false). I also think that statements made in the debate are well sourced and can potentially be used in the article. They are of the nature of op-ed, as indeed are the reviews, and should be attributed. I saw that the RSA has a blog on which there was commentary about the debate. I think, but am not 100% sure, that this too would be RS for the article, since it is a signed starting point for debate, covered under WP:NEWSBLOG. Hope this helps. I'll be really relieved when we move on! Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me we are in danger of going over ground we have already covered. We are all reading the same policies. The problem is with interpretation of policy and, possibly, the wording of some aspects of policy. All of which continues to add up to the need for an opinion, IMO. Sunray (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, further opinions always a good thing. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

RSN opinion

We have a response at RSN [11]. Do any of you have clarifying questions you would like to ask? Sunray (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a really helpful response, as you said.

Would User:A Quest For Knowledge or another contributor like to comment further on whether the source is primary or secondary a) in general for this article, b) for the proposed sentence?

Can they say any more about the implication of WP:WEIGHT? My interpretation is that since WP:WEIGHT is a section in WP:NPOV, and since its purpose is to ensure that small-minority views aren't unduly represented in articles, and since it is certain that RSA doesn't represent a small-minority view, then we do not have to worry about violating WP:WEIGHT. Do they agree with that? (If they don't have any more to add, and if we don't have consensus in this mediation, we might take that to the NPOV noticeboard.)

Is this summary by the RSA reliable as a summary of how the book was received?

Much broader, and they may not have much to say without more detail, are they able to comment on whether, in principle, statements made by participants in the debate are reliable sources for the views of the book's authors or critics? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've copied your question to RSN. Sunray (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

From the answer given it is at least clear that it is a common and accepted view to require secondary sources, as Athaenara, Trift, PrincessofLlyr and 86.27.83.19 did. This validates their standpoint, and settles that dispute. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we are not going to get more from the RSN. I'm not surprised at that, since they are not here to resolve the dispute. Perhaps we should move the response and your questions here and go through it. Would you all be willing to do that? Sunray (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you ask A Quest For Knowledge to comment back. I looked at his talk page and didn't see anything. He may not be watching the RSN page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now done that. Sunray (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. When we have allowed him time to comment further or not as he sees fit, then yes of course we can go through the response and see what it implies for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge has now commented further. So now, if you would like, we may resume discussion here. Would you be willing to do that in a respectful way? It is time for a decision now, folks. Sunray (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That was extremely helpful. Every one was right all along. :-) Itsmejudith was right, it is basically a judgement call. The third opinions were also right in asking for third-party sources. Somedifferentstuff was right in that WP:NOTABILITY isn't relevant, however WP:WEIGHT is, and it also supports the requirement of third-party sources. As such it is clear that all the external opinions have a good point in requiring third-party sources, and as there are none, the debate should not be mentioned. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We're pretty much back to square one in terms of this dispute being unsettled. A Quest for Knowledge did state that notability isn't an issue which confirmed what I said earlier. He also stated, "There isn't necessarily a right answer or a wrong answer, but simply a disagreement of opinion. At one point, WP:NPOV said that WP:WEIGHT applied not just to points of view, but to other content as well. But I can't seem to find this part in WP:NPOV. I'm not sure if this change was intentional or not." So there is no policy that says it can't go into the article. He also stated that, "Although it might be an accurate summary, no, it's not a reliable source for how the book was received", which is irrelevant because he was referring to the link Itsmejudith posted here, not to the material that we are disputing. I disagree with only having the debate in the external links section and I don't know what the next step should be. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been on square one all the time. This has just confirmed what the majority standpoint has said all the time: This text needs third-party sources to show that the debate is significant enough to be mentioned. The only remaining question is if you are now prepared to accept consensus on this issue. From your comment above, it's clear that you are not willing to accept consensus. As such you then need to take this to another higher step in dispute resolution.

"I disagree with only having the debate in the external links section " - Oh no. That was an attempt to compromise from my side which you rejected. This dispute is not about having it in the text, or in external links. This is about having in the article or not at all.

Thanks for the mediation Sunray. It has been enlightening. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We said we would stand by an opinion from RSN and I will do just that. According to the opinion we can go either way. Although I would prefer to see the debate mentioned in the text, I suggest we now go with the compromise of having it as an EL and draw a line under this. It is not important enough to pursue through further dispute resolution, at least I am not going to participate in any further dispute resolution on it. I continue to watch the article and hope to be able to suggest further improvements. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No. According to the opinion for RSN, requiring third-party sources are common and has (or at least had) support in WP:WEIGHT. That means that Somedifferentstuffs claim that the requirements of third-party sources are invalid is false. They are therefore valid, and should be taken into consideration. That is not "either way" by any possible interpretation. But thanks for standing by your pledge to accept the RSN. That is very decent of you. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No wikipedia policy has been presented stating that a third-party source is required for this addition. We should now move on from that argument. Sunray, what do you suggest the next step should be. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to OpenFuture's last comment, which he has now reverted. Nevertheless. Regarding RSN, I think the editor there presented some valuable clarification for this dispute. He stated that notability wasn't an issue, which finally ended the argument about that topic. This is also important because it nullifies the third opinion in regards to notability, as well as the other outside opinions' views on notability. He also stated that, "I think that the current article works both with and without this content", which lets us know that adding the material doesn't violate any wikipedia policy. This is hugely important. He concluded by stating that he thought the debate should be mentioned as an external link, not as a matter of policy, but as a matter of compromise. I disagree with this. Completely removing the material from within the article and placing a link near the bottom in the external link section is not a fair compromise. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The response by A Quest For Knowledge was helpful, IMO. One of the main sticking points in the mediation was disagreement with the Third Opinion's reference to notability (because the policy only referred to articles). AQFK's response directed us to WP:WEIGHT as the determining policy. Essentially, that policy also tells us to use reliable sources to determine weight. AQFK's reference "not just to points of view, but other content as well" seems to be covered in the following statement from WP:WEIGHT:

Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements...

But in the end, it is a judgement call. No one is going to arbitrate the matter, not the RSN, not me. It is always nice to close a mediation as successful, with an agreement between parties. That may not be in the cards for this mediation. Further comments before we close? Sunray (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting, and problematic, that you want to close the mediation even though we've only gotten one outside opinion since the mediation began. We won't reach a consensus with only one outside opinion. Not helpful. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a strange statement as we clearly have WP:Consensus. You alone don't accept that consensus, but that's not because of any fault of the mediation. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you always speak when not spoken to? Your interference is inappropriate. What I need to settle this dispute is a consensus of outside opinions since this mediation began (2 outta 3). That would be a fair consensus and I would commit to that. I've invested some time in this dispute and see no reason to rush the end. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You have no right to tell me when to speak and not to speak. That comment is rude and offensive. Your requirement that outside opinions only are valid since the arbitration started is of course completely unfounded, but it is good that you have at least stated a way for you to accept consensus. That is a huge step forward. That means we only need to get one more outside opinion and you'll have your two opinions. Can I suggest we ask for either another 3O to settle it? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment rather than 3O IMHO. Don't close the mediation, ask Sunray to facilitate the RfC for maximum response. Concentrate on content and ignore editor behaviour. If you can't ignore editor behaviour, take out a Wikiquette alert, or ask Sunray to advise on how to communicate better. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, this was addressed to all concerned, not just to one person. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The mediation can continue as long as participants agree and are making some progress. It is the latter factor (making progress) that I have some concerns about. Thus far, the discussion, while mostly civil, has consisted of participants stating and re-stating their positions in novel ways. Successful mediations tend to see a shift at some point: a move from positions to interests. Once participants begin to consider their own and other participant's interests, common interests can be identified. That often leads to a resolution.

I note the mention of an RfC. While this could be useful, in my experience, doing it right involves a fair amount of effort and it may not put us any further ahead. In any case it may be worthwhile to take a look at interests first. That could be a faster way to resolution. Would you be willing to do a brief interests clarification exercise? It would involve me asking each of you a series of questions for starters. Sunray (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am happy to carry on or to bow out now, depending on what you think Sunray. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely overkill to make an RfC just to settle Somedifferentstuffs mind on the issue. But since we have gotten a declaration that it would help I think it could work. But the same would be true for a 3O, and I don't understand Itsmejudiths objecion to that. I don't object to interest clarification, but I also don't see how it will settle the issue for Somedifferentstuff. I already declared my interest in this, and he declared his a long time ago. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Reminder about civility

When we began this mediation, I spoke about the importance of dealing with content, not the contributor. A couple of times since then, I've reminded participants about various behavioral policies. I want to add something now, before we continue further: It is unhelpful to make judgmental comments about other participants. I would class the following statements in that category:

• "Do you always speak when not spoken to? Your interference is inappropriate..."
• "You have no right to tell me when to speak and not to speak. That comment is rude and offensive..."
• "It's definitely overkill to make an RfC just to settle Somedifferentstuffs mind on the issue...

Comments that have "you" or "your" in them or ones that express a judgement about another participant really hinder a resolution in a mediation. Usually I just say "stick to content." Sometimes, if a participant believes it necessary to talk about another participant, it is acceptable to do so as an observation ("participant A said..."; "participant B did..."). Another way is to use I-messages, but that requires more skill. It would be nice if the two of you would just clear out all those judgmental statements in this section. I will leave that up to you. However, if we are to continue, I need your cooperation on this matter, because I believe it is essential to getting a positive outcome in this mediation. Would you each please indicate you willingness to cease making judgmental statements about other participants? Sunray (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have made any judgemental statement. Perhaps I should have ignored Somedifferentstuffs incivility, but it is ongoing and persistent, and even I can get annoyed with it sometimes.

The second statement is a statement of fact, not judgmental in any way. The only remaining issue in this mediation is that Somedifferentstuff doesn't accept the consensus. He has suggested that if he can get more opinions that also mostly supports consensus then he will accept it. I fail to see how pointing this out once again is judgmental in any way, I'm merely repeating what he himself has said about the situation.

For me, this mediation is done. I'm only still here because I worry that if Somedifferentstuff doesn't agree with consensus he will start an arbitration process or some other process which is a further drain on time and resources of people involved. Therefore I think it is better if we can convince him to accept consensus now, that will be quicker. I do not feel like I should have to take more personal attacks from him to reach that goal. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone else's incivility does not give you licence to be uncivil. I define this statement as judgmental: "That comment is rude and offensive." It doesn't matter whether the statement may be regarded as fact by others. It is out of bounds. Almost no comments about another user's behaviour are acceptable unless they are in the format I gave above (He said/did X). The other statements I referred to above were also aimed at the contributor, not content. I am telling you that such statements do not help. Please signify that you understand this and will act accordingly. Sunray (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I am not aware of any consensus about this matter. consensus refers to agreement by editors of an article. Sunray (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about the second statement and about consensus. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Sunray (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your request but will need to ask for your assistance if it comes up again. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuing mediation

Once the two participants referred to in the previous section have responded to my question, it would be great to return to the mediation. Somedifferentstuff, what did you think of exploring interests? Sunray (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this material, I would like to see it in the article itself. Right now the compromise is to completely remove it from the article and only have some info as an external link. I don't view this as a fair compromise. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about compromise and it wasn't me who suggested that the statement should be an external link. I am talking about reaching an agreement--the advent of collaborative editing. That sort of thing. The question to you was are you willing to look at interests? Sunray (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of will to continue this mediation. Unless I hear good argument to the contrary, I will wrap this up. Sunray (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about when you say "interests". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Sunray it could be good to spell out what you mean. If I'm asked I will say that I want an NPOV article, but then I think we all will. Would be really nice to have an explanation of how "interests" can work in mediation. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Fogel is an advocate of interest-based negotiation or mediation. Here's how he describes it:

"Getting a negotiated agreement that works for all of the parties is the objective of interest-based negotiation/problem-solving. In order to meet this objective, the parties are encouraged to pursue a process of mutual disclosure of information focusing on the interests and criteria upon which their original positions (assessed value) were based.

Positions are defined as the self-oriented (often self-serving) solutions the parties want to see implemented. Interests and criteria are the factors upon which the positions are based." —Fogel (2004) "Interest-Based Conflict Resolution."

Here's an example to illustrate: Two people are quarreling about whether a window should be open or not. One wants it open, the other wants it closed (their positions). They argue back and forth about how much to leave it open: a crack, halfway, three quarters of the way. No solution works for them both. When asked why it must be open or closed. One says: “I want it open to get some fresh air”; the other says "I want it closed to avoid the draft” (their interests). Potential solution: open a window in the next room, bringing in fresh air without a draft. Looking at interests allowed a solution to emerge. Sunray (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing mediation

There has been no discussion here for over a week now. I propose to close the mediation as unsuccessful. Any questions or comments? Sunray (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it normally so that mediation requires unanimity to be regarded as successful? I haven't done any mediation before... :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, normally I make that call, but if all three participants agreed that it was successful, I would definitely record it that way. Sunray (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You did your best, Sunray. Thank you very much. A compromise was suggested, and I would be happy with it. The other two participants appear to be holding out for their solutions, so I suppose nothing more can be done. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess that with only three participants it's hard to call it successful without unanimity, since one person is 33% :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did not accept the feedback I was offering you, so you were not in consensus with anyone. That seems to me part of the reason why this mediation has been unsuccessful. Sunray (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong about that, as well. What can I say, sorry. We have a consensus, but Somedifferentstuff doesn't agree with it, and also do not seem to be interested in going forward. I have to admit that with only three involved that means the mediation wasn't successful, but your attempts to blame that on me are completely unfounded. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, everyone else is wrong but not you. I got that. I don't blame you. You are only a part of the dynamic. The dynamic is: "I'm right and the other guy is wrong" (i.e. taking a position and refusing to budge). That almost always dooms a mediation to failure. Sunray (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong again. You took two things I said as examples of judgmental comments. I admitted that one was that, but the other one was just pointing out a completely non-judgmental fact that Somedifferentstuff himself had said earlier. That one was not judgmental at all in any way. You were wrong. Now you accuse me of not listening to critique because YOU were wrong!? I admitted I was wrong when I was (the first comment). Maybe you could do the same? You did a good job on this mediation, the only thing you did wrong is that you claimed that second comment was judgmental. And now you take this single mistake from you, and try to inflate it so to make it sound like it's my fault that we doesn't have unanimity. That's patently absurd, and the reason it failed, as you well know, is that the initiator, Somedifferentstuff, doesn't want to continue. You have to ask HIM why, but don't blame it on me.

I expect an apology for your attacks on me. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As mediator, one of my roles is to tell participants when I think that their behaviour is not in keeping with policies and agreements. That is what I have done in this case. You don't accept what I said, but that does not make my statement an attack. I am not willing to continue this discussion any longer and will close the mediation. Sunray (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You were incorrect in one instance, and you refuse to accept that, and instead resort to personal attacks. That is not the behavior I expect from a mediator. I regret that you are unable to show the behavior you demand of others, such as removing the personal attacks, admitting you were wrong or apologizing.

But thanks for the job you did anyway, the mediation was as successful as could be expected. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Final comment by mediator

The mediation is now closed as unsuccessful. The reason for closing is the lack of progress in discussion of the two outside opinions received. Thank you for your cooperation. Sunray (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)