Talk:Intelligence Squared

Untitled

This page really needs work, can you guys put a tag on it? It doesn't list episodes, and it looks like some of the text has been copied/pasted since the citations arent hyperlinked--108.1.200.173 (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded on the format of the debates to give more detail and I've created a complete list of Intelligence Squared US Debates at List of Intelligence Squared US DebatesTheCrimsonLegacy (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Fry-Hitchens-IQ2-Catholic.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Fry-Hitchens-IQ2-Catholic.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

this image was taken at a IQ2 event, but you can't really tell by the image. --IIVeaa (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issue

The primary source for this article is copyrighted Copyright © 2015 · All Rights Reserved · Intelligence Squared. Flat Out (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Noteworthy debates

Noteworthy debates should be sourced by independent reliable sources describing these events from an uninvolved perspective, not by indiscriminate primary link spam violating WP:EL. I have cleaned up most of it, although the article obviously needs more work adding 3rd-party information from reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll note that the links I put in via the external media template do not violate WP:EL. There has been an exception there forever about the external media template in footnote 2

"Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{external media}}, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia."

One of the 2 links used in the template was referenced from an independent source specifically about that debate. The importance of having those links in the text is that you can see what the debate format is and how it works in practice. The audience voting might be something that most readers haven't seen before. "A video is worth 10,000 words." IMHO we don't have enough video in our articles - this is the 21st century. There was a suggestion that I might be pushing my private interests by including these 2 videos. They are fair debates so I don't see how these push any particular interest. I did come to this article after viewing the bitcoin debate (or 90% of it) and I was surprised by how well it worked. The net neutrality video I selected after I came here - it just seems like something a lot of Wikipedians and our readers might be interested in. I'll put them back in tomorrow unless I hear otherwise here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The Oxford debate format is explained in 2 simple sentences in the article, and even I understood it ;). The format is neither uncommon nor very complicated. Also, to illustrate the format 1 video would be sufficient. As a suggestion for a compromise: please use 1 older video with a less actual topic, if you believe that the debate format absolutely needs a visual illustration. An older topic will serve this purpose just as well, without discussing ongoing actual matters. Wikipedia is no political forum nor should it be used to further actual external political debates. PS. I have also improved the theme overview in the meantime, so interested readers will have an easier time finding videos in their area of interest, without focussing on a particular debate. GermanJoe (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)