Talk:ITIL v3

lp

Do Not Merge and Remove ITIL v3
ITIL v3 is a notworthy sturctural change to ITIL v2. However I would suggest heavy edits to the ITIL v3 page as it reads like an advertisement. Several attempts to edit the page have been made but instantly removed by the orginal author. I strongly suggest that it be put forth for speed deletion until an more agnostic definition for ITIL V3 can be established. --Tobryant (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Maintain separately?
As ITIL v3 is likely to result in significant structural changes to ITIL while re-using a significant amount of the best practice embodied in ITIL v2. However to avoid confusion and conflicting changes to the main Information Technology Infrastructure Library page it would seem sensible to maintain v3 information separately until such time as it becomes the accepted, release version of ITIL.

Mark G 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

After reading through ITIL v3 it seems valid to keep the ITIL v2 article and reference to a separate v3 article. There are quite a few differences, and v2 concepts may still be interesting for a while.

u/14 Sep 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.17.179 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that this is a valid reason for a completely separate article. As noted below this article is becoming a stub with little to recommend it from an encylopedic point of view. The main ITIL article has history, criticism, and third party sources providing context.Charles T. Betz 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So are we coming to a concensus that this article ought to be merged with the ITIL article? --Malleus Fatuarum 03:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Flybd5 17:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many who have not weighed in. But I think that this is a question where the opinions of Wikipedians who are not necessarily ITIL experts should if anything have more weight than those of us with domain experience. Charles T. Betz 13:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that; wikipedia is aimed at the general reader after all. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree that because the general user of Wikipedia may not have the full grasp of ITIL that the two should remain separate. Take for example a company who have either fully or partially implemented the v2 framework and do not wish to take on the challenge of v3. combining v2 & v3 will complicate the issue for any member new member of staff of that company wishing to understand their business.  I would be tempted to split v2 out the definition of ITIL, have a generic ITIL page with an over arching description of Service Management and then two links, one to v2 and one to v3, dropping v2 at some point in 2009 (ish).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.243.131.123 (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should have a general page discussing ITIL and it's evolution, while maintaining links to each iteration of ITIL. That would leave us with seperate pages for V2 & 3, and room for any future revisions.--Jmgendron (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As a non-ITIL person I ask - nay, plead - you to make it part of the main ITIL article, in a 'versions' or 'history' section at the END. If ITIL 3 is so massively different to ITIL 2 that it needs to have a separate article (e.g. 4 or more sides of A4 at 10pt), then the ITIL main article should explain the generalities of ITIL with 3 separate articles for ITIL 1, 2, 3 which explain the particulars and differences; the main article should state at the TOP that particulars and differences are dealt with in the dependent articles. -- Will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.170.141 (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As an ITIL person and a frequent reader I was kind've lost as to where the V3 info was, and finally found it here due to the merge heading at the top! I'd prefer it merged, but at the very least keep v3 and v2 separate from each other on the same page. That would be the most sensible solution in my opinion. Not only that it currently isn't linked and requires a search in order to find out about v3 or the main heading. Why give v3 a different article when v2 fits just fine? --Bdevine (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As a customer ("non-ITIL person"), I submit that the main ITIL page desperately needs a topic paragraph explaining to the general reader what ITIL is and that it's goal, as stated in the _V3 page, is “to promote quality computing services”. As written, the impression is that certification is the top priority, followed by lots and lots of rules, multivolume manuals, and formal structure. I haven't found where the "customer" (as, say, database co-architect) appears. The closest I've found is "users" discussed in the vocabulary of "supplicants". ("There are only two industries that refer to their customers as 'users' " -Edward Tufte). I agree that the version discussion should appear further down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.200.77.239 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. As ITIL Official Site states, "ITIL Version 2 (V2) has undergone a major refresh which is Version 3 (V3). Version 3 represents an important evolutionary step in its life". Consequently, why not merge all this stuff into one comprehensive article, though appending the different versions?. In my humble opinion as a "non-ITIL person", such a format would be more helpful.
 * Thanks, --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I !vote for keeping them separate. They v2 and v3 are different enough to warrant a different article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As an ITIL V3 person (Certified Foundation, 9/2007) I suggest a main article on ITIL as an IT Service Management (i.e., operational) process improvement model, with linked articles to V2 and V3. A separate article on V1 is pointless, as I am unaware of anyone who is seriously using at this time, since it was superceded by V2 almost 10 years ago. V2 and V3 are both in use, you can still be certified in either, so it makes sense to keep both as separate articles. Without delving into the OGC bureaucratic blather, V3 is a significant change from V2 if for no other reason it simplifies and presents a more integrated model, and introduces business value as the key foundation to this whole ITIL thing. Gdlemail (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Lots of discussion over a long period of time (see also "Merge?" discussion below). Who makes the decision? Can it be made now? DaveWFarthing (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please consider the following content for this page
Mark and other editors,

Please consider the following content/messages for inclusion on this page:-

From my "ITIL V3 Perspectives" Slide Deck:-

~ Slide 3: Summary of who Sharon Taylor is; more information on her background/credentials; this should be interesting to ITIL practitioners

~ Slide 6: More information on how the focus of V3 is on demonstrating the ROI of ITIL

~ Slide 7/8: Specifics on the lifecycle approach that is a feature of V3, particularly with the forthcoming news texts; Design > Introduction > Operations > Improvement; "hub and spoke" analogy is also important

~ Slide 9/13: Comments on how ITIL V3 will be including, in some way, references to the linkages to other methodologies such as Six Sigma / holistic process landscape for V3. Obviously the OGC has released a paper on ITIL and CoBIT integration already - but this is also needed for other methodologies now. This will help to ensure that practicing organisations leverage their investments wisely. Possible external link to the CoBIT / ITIL integration paper?

~ Slide 11: Q&A Segment: ITIL version 3 will address the structure for dealing with outsourcers and other third parties. This is driven by many organisations seeking ISO20000

~ Slide 13: Q&A Segment: Regular updates expected to complement core ITIL V3 information; Looking at establishing a group to manage templates; white papers in this area

~ Slide 14: Q&A Segment: Comment on how complementary ITIL V3 guidance will be available to help different sized (smaller) organisations implement ITIL (you mention Markets/Industries rather than size).

~ Slide 15: Q&A Segment: ITIL is not being sold and will remain with the OGC.

In addition to the inclusion of the above text - there is also information available on the IT Service Blog covering profiles of each of the Authors. I believe a short profile of each of the forthcoming authors would also be of benefit. This helps to re-enforce the credibility of the forthcoming texts and also provides a valuable insight into what we can expect from the new texts - particularly the Strategies. Michael Nieves and Najid Iqbal have illuminating backgrounds with their research work in IT Service Management. Whilst I wish to avoid speculation - I understand that many of the concepts that they have researched accademically and put into practice will be included in the forthcoming texts.

Please can I have your views on the above?

Mark, I respect the fact that this page is pretty much your 'baby' so far - so I am happy for you to take the lead - based on your comments.

Regards, Robin.

User:IT Service Guy 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. So now the policy becomes one of inter-twinning the subject with your own Made for Adsense site? To be honest it's so transparent it's boring.

If you have anything of value to add, just produce the unique text/content and propose it, without the unnecessary cross references with your own money generator. You know, just like everyone else does? It's that simple. But yet again, that isn't what you want is it?

Everything you say on ITIL does not have to revolved around your continued attempts to get credibility and income for your site. The wiki entry is about the topic and nothing else. Please stick to it.

Mr 80.43

Please tell me something Mr. 80.43,

Do you have anything interesting to write about ITIL?

Can we see some of your work perhaps?

Thanks, Robin.

The issue here is your link spamming of the wiki. For your information though, I have written plenty for Wikipedia, anonymously, because I do not need credit for it, nor do I need a link to a commercial site in return for it. I just do it.

Don't worry though Robin, I know why you are angry. You are angry because I sussed you out. I can spot a spam link, and a Made for Adsense site, a mile off, and have seen all the grubby little tricks before. Yes, it is depressing.

Forget your site. If you genuinely want to contribute, do it fairly and squarely and just add content, and nothing else. The sad thing is that you don't want to. All you want is to promote your site by whatever means you can. It comes through every single time you respond.

Mr 80.43

Thoughts on reccomendations for inclusion.
Robin, thanks for your thoughts. With regard to including a description of Sharon, I have included a reference in the project section that describes her role, I have Wikified this link so that if you think that the wikipedia needs a full description you can create a full page on Sharon at your leisure. I think it is more in keeping with an encyclopedia that these kinds of items are cross references rather than included in the ITIL v3 item, but of course and happy to be overruled by the majority if people think it should live here.

On the same lines, I am hoping that the page will evolve with elements of the project process cleanly arranged so that they can be severed and jetissoned onto a separate archive page for the refresh project when the project is complete leaving us with a new, well thought out summary of ITIL v3 ready for Wikipedia users to refer to. From this perspective, again I am not sure that profiles of the core works authors are appropriate at the current time, but perhaps the best way to include them would be to create 'placeholder' links for the new books in reference format and Wikify the author names if you want to add profiles to wikipedia.

I am very keen to learn more on how ITILv3 will be focussing on ROI, do you have any more information at the current time?

With regard to mappings with other frameworks, methodologies and processes I think that this is vague at the moment but have added a link to the existing CoBIT mapping to the ITILv2 page; of course as ITILv3 is published it is likely that the coverage will change and that probably ITIL will cover more CoBIT objectives, I wouldn't want any CoBIT users to be put off v3 because they looked at the v2 mapping.

I've cross referenced the implementation in smaller units text and hope that helps clarify the support for scalability (up and down) planned in v3 complimentary work.

If you think i've missed anything specific I'd love to see some draft paragraphs or edits here if you don't want to dive straight into the main page and then we can discuss and work on them. I believe that the ITILv3 team is using similar technology to facilitate their collaboration around the texts!.

Mark G 21:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

v1, v2, v3 edits
I've been adding, modifying and editing information to this article as I become aware of it. I am a v2 Service Manager, also v2 Practitioner certified in Release and Control and completing Support and Restore this week. I am a very active ITIL trainer and consultant, delivering courses worldwide on a weekly basis for a major US training organization. I am currently preparing to upgrade to the ITIL Diploma as well as deliver v3 training. As I get more information on certifications and training I'll post it here. Flybd5 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't. This is an encyclopedia, not a sales brochure. --Malleus Fatuarum 05:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm becoming concerned about this article
I'm becoming concerned that this article is starting to look like an advertising vehicle for ITIL v3, instead of information about ITIL v3. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I hardly see any evidence of such. Everything I am posting is information about V3 and its controlling authorities. Flybd5 01:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Malleus, you need to leave your personal opinions about what ITIL says out of the article. ITIL is a framework of best practices. It is recognized worldwide as the de facto standard for Service Management. V3 has redefined the information that ITIL sets forth as best practices. Whether you disagree with the statements made in V3 or not is a personal matter. For example, implementations of ITIL put into place methodologies in organizations. The Framework is the foundation for the methodology that implements ITIL, not "a foundation". In an article about ITIL, ITIL is the foundation, not a foundation, because in the context of ITIL there is no other foundation other than the framework. If you are trained in ITIL and bring a professional opinion into the mix, great, but if you are not, leave your opinions out of it and stick to proofreading and editing for grammar, etc. Flybd5 01:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all information is encyclopedic: you need to remember that you're contributing to an encyclopedia, not an ITIL sales brochure. As for my opinion, it is "professional" as you choose to put it, and very likely at least as "professional" as your own is. So can we please confine ourselves to the facts being discussed instead of drifting off into ad hominem arguments?

XP is a "framework of best practices", RUP is a "framework of best practices" ... whether "in the context of ITIL there is no other foundation other than the framework" has the ring of a religious mania, not an encyclopedia article. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, your opinion of the validity of the statements made in the ITIL framework has no place in an encyclopedic article that talks about the issues behind the design of ITIL. It is also not the place for you to opine on whether or not the statements made in the v3 material itself is "marketing fluff." If you knew what XP and RUP were about you would know that you're comparing apples and oranges -- neither XP nor RUP is a framework of best practices for service management. To contend that ITIL is wrong in claiming it is a framework of best practices because there are other best practices in other areas of industry is an absurd argument, at the very least. I will ask you again to stop making changes to this article on the basis of your uninformed opinion of ITIL. Wikipedia is not about opinions.

Also, when I said "professional" I also meant in the context of ITIL. I thought that was obvious. I have 32 years experience in IT, have completed ITIL master and practitioner training and certifications, have an active consulting practice in the field and have taught the material worldwide to hundreds of students. If you had any training in ITIL you would have said so, and it is clear from your postings that you do not. Yet another reason why should leave the article alone except for general proofreading and grammar. That anyone can modify an article in Wikipedia hardly means anyone should do so. Flybd5 13:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I too am certified in ITIL, as well as holding a Masters' in software engineering and the title of chief architect for IT service management for a U.S. Fortune 50 org. I think my credentials are therefore sufficient. I tend to side with Malleus in this debate. Statements like "in the context of ITIL there is no other foundation other than the framework" are indeed dubious and perhaps indicative of a bit too much personal investment in what is one of many IT frameworks (others being COBIT, VAL-IT, ASL, BISL, MOF, and many more, not to mention development frameworks such as RUP etc.). ITIL had its own precursors and history, as is well documented in the v2 version. Charles T. Betz 00:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Charles, ITIL's precursor was GITIM, and the only thing it shares in common with ITIL is the focus on service delivery and service support. COBIT is not a service management framework, and its focus is on auditing of IT operations. VAL-IT is a subset of COBIT that focuses on IT investments, not on service management. ASL covers application management, not service management. BISL is closely related to ASL and again focuses on application management, not service management. MOF is not a framework, it is a methodology based on ITIL, in the same category as HP's and IBM's. The sentence I wrote says that in the ITIL context, there is no other foundation other than the framework. Which IT framework do you know of that is specifically related to IT service management and ITIL, and you believe should supersede the framework as published by OGC? Flybd5 21:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to think that there is some well established distinction between service management and application management. There isn't. As the ITIL v2 volume states, "Although the IT industry has traditionally made a distinction between Application Development (creating a service) and Service Management (delivering the service), that has not always worked well." The "S" in both ASL and BISL stands for "Services" - Application Services Library, Business Information Services Library. ITSM as a concept is a very poorly scoped, all-encompassing re-branding of most things IT. Jan van Bon is emphatic that ITSM does not reduce down to ITIL. See http://www.amazon.co.uk/Van-Bon-Guide-Service-Vol/dp/0201737922/ref=sr_1_15/026-9546700-8483610?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187646093&sr=8-15 for a massive, non-ITIL-specific compendium of ITSM writings, including coverage of most of the frameworks/methods I cite. Who's to say they aren't ITSM, if they appeared in that volume? I don't really think that the tone of your responses to Malleus is constructive. Charles T. Betz 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Charles, there most certainly is a distinction between managing the services that IT provides, versus managing the lifecycle of applications which, when released, become part of the components of the infrastructure that make the services possible. Of course ITSM does not reduce down to ITIL -- that much is obvious from the most casual inspection of the structure of the framework. I'm curious, why are you quoting ITIL v2 guidance in a discussion about ITIL v3? Have you examined the coverage of Application Management in the v3 documentation? As to Jan Van Bon's book, I read it over two years ago, very good read. As to the tone, Malleus' tone drives the responses he gets. When he accuses people of posting advertising, marketing fluff and religious mania, he should have expected there would be consequences. I see this all the time on Wikipedia, people throwing stones and then complaining it hurts when the stone bounces right back. Flybd5 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you must possess the rather too common ability to see what does not exist. I have made no complaint about your tone. I have simply pointed out that your recurring tendency towards ad hominem argument is at the very least unhelpful. My concerns remain with the tone and content of this article. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence of your words and tone are right here for everyone to see. Questioning your qualifications to argue the merits of ITIL V3 is not an "ad hominem" argument. You like to use those two words so much, at least be so kind as to study their meaning? Flybd5 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's quite true, as is your own continuing tone and demeanour. I am fully aware of what "ad hominem" means, but apparently you are not. --Malleus Fatuarum 11:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If service management is distinct from application management, and application management is not ITSM, then why does ITIL cover application management? Are you of the view that ITSM was only the Red and Blue books of v2, and the other ITIL volumes were "not ITSM"? How do we improve services if the operational ITSM guidance is not fed back into portfolio management in order to inform the next cycle of service investments? And why would we not consider this entire feedback loop to be ITSM in the large? And if we do, have we not essentially described a scope covering all of enterprise IT? You can carve out project, program, and software engineering concerns, but beyond that, it's all of an integrated piece, throughout the service lifecycle.


 * That AM is presented as part of the framework that includes Service Management does not support any argument that they are one and the same. That is ITIL Foundations 101. Flybd5 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What is your definition of Service Management then? Just the Red and Blue books of V2? That definition is fading into the mists of time. Charles T. Betz 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fading into the mists of time? I know such is not the case. Do you think organizations will drop V2 like a hot potato just because the V3 knowledge is available now? I know for a fact that few organizations are planning to veer away from V2 just because V3 is out, because I talk to the people who work in those organizations on a daily basis. No one is going to throw out investments in V2 implementations just because someone tells them V3 is better. Won't happen, particularly when you consider than for all intents and purposes V2 is a subset of V3. As to your question, Application Management produces components of the infrastructure which are accepted into and managed by Service Management. AM is not SM, it is only a fraction of it. I know people in the software side of the house complain when they hear this, but having come from that world, I know the blinders are not easily removed. Flybd5 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We seem to agree that AM is a subset (a fraction of) SM. If that is the case, then I assume you also agree that ASL can be construed as another instance of an ITSM framework, without displacing ITIL as the "de facto" standard. We probably disagree on the specifics of AM responsibilities; in the large organizations I come from (combined total US $3 billion IT spend), "application managers" ARE service managers in the strictest ITIL sense of the word. They are not mere software jockeys; they are the face of IT to the business and live and die by their SLAs. Maybe this is specific to the US Upper Midwest; I don't know. I am not sure this debate has much point as I have backed you on the "de facto" question, which leaves room for other ITSM frameworks and guidance, my primary concern on entering this debate.


 * No, we do not really agree on that. I said AM is a fraction of SM, not a subset of it. AM manages the lifecycle of one component of the infractructure. By your logic, Systems Management is part of Service Management, and I don't agree with that either. I believe OGC is correct in keeping AM as part of ITIL, not part of the Service Management component. An application is not a service, it is only one component of a service provided to the customer -- other components are the hardware on which the application runs, the network through which the application is delivered and enabled, the storage and other resources the application uses, etc. I'm sure application managers think of themselves as service managers, because I too made that mistake in the past, in IT service organizations where $3 billion was net revenue, let alone IT spend. That they think of themselves that way doesn't make them service managers in the ITIL context. If you don't want to debate, that's cool. Flybd5 01:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How a fraction is different from a subset is a semantic nuance beyond my poor brain. But you are clearly on thin ice with regards to ITIL v3. While OGC may have stated that the Red and Blue books constituted "ITSM" in v2, they have carved out no such fraction of v3, which means that Application Management is in scope. The application managers I know serve as single points of customer contact, proxying for the hosting and network organizations, which makes them service managers in every practical sense. They get the calls and manage to the SLAs. You seem to be equating application managers with lead developers or development managers, a mistake too many ITIL advocates make. See http://erp4it.typepad.com/erp4it/2006/05/whats_an_applic.html. You sound just like the ITIL consultant I am lampooning; care to defend him? See also http://blogs.pinkelephant.com/index.php?/troy/comments/naming_it_services/ and http://erp4it.typepad.com/erp4it/2007/08/the-evolving-do.html. Charles T. Betz 02:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm on thin ice? I fail to see how you have reached such a conclusion, Charles. The evidence, and a simple comparison of coverage of AM in V2 vs V3, does not support your argument. Where V2 devoted an entire book to best practices in Application Management, coverage in V3 has been reduced to one paragraph in 6.1 of Service Operation and a mere 12 pages in section 6.5 of the same book. The paragraph in 6.1 alone puts to rest any belief that ITIL considers Application Management to be an integral part of the core of Service Management, reducing it from its former status to a mere function of Service Operation. I've seen what you describe as application managers, the industry usually describes them as tier 3 or higher support. You're entitled to have a divergent opinion, but you can't support it using any V3 core material. Flybd5 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the substance of the Application Management volume found its way into Service Design, along with new material. It's not about the mere use of the term. And if ITIL is de-emphasizing the term, the agenda seems to be one of subsuming and incorporating - not eliminating, which proves my point. Second, tier 3 support in the organizations I am familiar with is typically understood to be senior developers and engineers, the most seasoned DBAs, etc., etc. - functional escalation, not hierarchical escalation. Does a tier 3 support person meet with the senior vice president on the business side and discuss the future of the application/service? Did you even read the post I pointed you to?


 * If you think incorporating as a function "proves" your point, more power to you. No one I have talked to who has studied the material agrees, but you're entitled to your opinion. The problem with it is that your opinion lies at the Foundation level. Truly understanding this issue requires a lot more study. And yes, in most organizations I have talked to, tier 3 engineers and senior developers must definitely discussion the future of the application with the business side. When I worked at that level in the software lifecycle that's exactly what I did, along with other members of the teams.


 * The Application Manager role as it is understood in the companies I come from at least, is a service management role. I make no claim for other countries or companies, but when I present on this issue at EAC or DAMA and ask these audience, no-one claims to have "service managers" in any meaningful sense for the business-facing applications, and everyone has "application managers" doing substantively the same work. Is it possible that some companies have chosen to substantively perform service management under the title of application management? If not, what is your evidence? Have you done roles & responsibilities analysis for every large IT shop under the sun? What really matters with ITIL is the substance, not the terms; ITIL does not have focus on organizational design or job title defin fitions.


 * A service management role perhaps, but not in an ITIL context, Charles. You need to be honest with yourself and recognize that.


 * This has been a long and wearisome debate over little more than semantics. But what started it for me was less the particulars of application management per se, than your statement that there is no foundation for ITIL other than the ITIL framework itself. That continues to have been an incorrect statement, as I think you have admitted and ITIL itself recognizes; page 7 of Service Strategy lists many other frameworks "relevant to service management." I'm done here for now, have the last word if you wish.Charles T. Betz 12:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Context, Charles. Context. To Service Management, indeed, those are all relevant. To the definition of the ITIL framework, no. The foundation of ITIL is the framework. This article is not about the integration of other service management frameworks or standards, this article is about ITIL V3. Flybd5 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have debated many, many people on this application versus service question and have heard a lot of poorly considered ITIL dogma in response and little that holds intellectual water. My v3 is at the office and that v2 quote was handy. Yes, I am currently studying v3 but it's quite a lot of material; I'm still reading the final cut of the Strategy volume (which you'll see I was an official reviewer of). Re: tone, it is incumbent on all ITIL folk here on Wikipedia to bend over backwards and avoid all hint of zealotry. Malleus is neither the first nor only person to raise concerns about ITIL religiousity; CIO Magazine columnnist Dean Meyer has also.Charles T. Betz 03:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Charles, I would also suggest you take another peek at Jan Van Bon's ITSM book. Look at the ITIL chapter; the very first few paragraphs, in fact. What the book says does not agree at all with what you or Malleus have been trying to argue here. As to what Malleus posted about my edits, his words speak for themselves. Flybd5 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jan is crystal clear that ITSM does not reduce down to ITIL. Here is a public response from him to me on ITSM-L when the question was raised: Charly: I totally agree with your statement on the scope of ITSM versus ITIL. If you look at the publications that were published in the Netherlands in the field of ITSM, you will see that it covers many times the number of pages of ITIL - covering so much more ground than ITIL. The annual series of Best Practices for instance have delivered 5000+ pages written by 500+ authors in the last decade - and that's just the tip of the iceberg... Charles T. Betz 14:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Without the original text of your question it is impossible to determine the context of Jan's answer. Can you post the original question? That would help. As far as I can tell, no one is arguing the issue of ITIL vs ITSM. The issue is whether ITIL is considered the de facto standard for IT Service Management. That's what Jan's book says on page 131. Jan's book presents a lot of material on things that are related to Service Management, but are not considered frameworks or methodologies in Service Management. That makes perfect sense to me. Flybd5 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The original question was I see the *entire* ITIL library as an instance of a Service Management framework. The OGC in turn has opted to term just the Service Support and Service Delivery volumes "IT Service Management," but I don't buy into that. It's all ITSM.  I have no problem with stating that ITIL is the de facto standard for ITSM, just with statements that it is the only foundation, which is what I thought this debate started off.

Please do not assume that you know anything about my qualifications, training, or motivations for doing, or not doing, claiming, or not claiming, anything. Your own training does not allow you to claim that ITIL is the framework, and that's the issue at hand. ITIL is simply one of many. That in no way belittles it, it's simply stating a fact. There is an obligation in an encyclopedia article to present a balanced viewpoint. Please try to remember that this is not your article. WP:OWN --Malleus Fatuarum 23:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You've been asked to show your qualifications to make substantive edits of the ITIL guidance reflected on the article. Encyclopedic knowledge repositories relies on subject matter experts, not uninformed opinions. You've once again chosen to avoid the issue of qualifications, which speaks for itself leaving me no need to assume. That's the only fact I can see regarding your edits. What I have posted is the information necessary for people to understand what ITIL v3 is all about. ITIL has one framework, the one published by OGC, and this framework is the recognized worldwide de-facto standard for IT Service Management. The guidance on ITIL is available to anyone who is interested in learning from it. Please try to remember, once again, that just because you think you are capable of editing this article for content does not mean that you should. If you want to write an article discussing and comparing the various frameworks that have application in the IT world, have at it, more power to you, I think it's a great idea. That's where your arguments about ITIL v3 in comparison to other frameworks rightly belong. Flybd5 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand. I have simply pointed that your obvious zeal for ITIL v3 is in danger of biasing this article. I have proposed no "arguments about ITIL v3", either for or against, and neither have I expressed any opinion on ITIL in general, either alone in comparison with other frameworks. Please try to remember that just because you claim to be an ITIL trainer does not mean that you own this article. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And I have pointed out that your lack of basic knowledge about ITIL and specifically ITIL V3 disqualifies you from making edits on the basis of so-called "advertising" or "religious zealotry" arguments. If you don't have so much as the basic knowledge required to participate in an ITIL implementation, you should know better than to try to edit this material. I have put my qualifications on the table, you seem to be bent on continuing to make truly ad hominem arguments in support of your desire to be the arbiter of what ITIL is or is not. You simply don't have the qualifications to do so. It's that simple. Flybd5 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Flybd5, the ITIL work on Wikipedia to date has been carried forth in a reasonably collegial manner by a combination of ITIL experts and Wikipedians who are committed to maintaining consistency and neutrality across Wikipedia. Whether Malleus is more of one than the other is irrelevant. Wikipedians who are non-subject matter experts are certainly qualified to raise concerns re: religious zealotry; those concerns led to my adding the ITIL Criticisms section on the V2 article. WP:NPOV takes priority over your subject matter expertise, and anyone in the Wikipedia community may raise these concerns. Suggest you spend more time familiarizing yourself with the rules of engagement here, and less time studying ITIL. This is an encyclopedia article, not a brochure.


 * By the way, I question the need for this article at all; I think many Wikipedia deletionists would just as soon see it merged with the other ITIL article. In the broad scheme of things, ITIL probably isn't notable enough to merit separate articles for each of its versions -- and there is no V1 article, so we aren't even being consistent. Charles T. Betz 14:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedians who are non-subject matter experts are certainly qualified to raise concerns re: religious zealotry... You will get no argument from me there, but there is a huge difference between raising the issues, and making wholesale edits with accompanying derogatory innuendo from a position of utter ignorance of the subject matter. There is a proper protocol to raise such issues, and it is not being followed. For example, there is zero excuse for deleting sourced facts just because someone is not happy with the conclusions the source expresses. Flybd5 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't agree with that. Just because a fact is sourced, does not mean it is encyclopedic. There is method behind what Malleus is doing, and while I may disagree with him on some specifics, he is entitled to do it. He is discussing things on the Talk page so it's not vandalism. He does not need knowledge of ITIL to contribute. If there is something specific you can convince me (or others) of, I will revert him. Charles T. Betz 11:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether you agree it is not encyclopedic is not the point. The point is that what Malleus is doing is not his entitlement. Deleting sourced material without discussion is vandalism. He is making wholesale changes without discussion in many cases, and that is vandalism and has already been reported as such. Since he does not consider it necessary to follow policy, I'll do the reversions myself. Flybd5 01:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say my agreement is very much the point. You seem to think no-one else is monitoring his changes and it is in some way your article to defend. At this point - and I just re-reviewed a number of his changes - accusations of vandalism are way, way out of line. If a moderator inquires, I will have to back Malleus. I think any moderator will examine the situation and conclude it's the basic back and forth of Wikipedia. Be aware of the 3-revert rule... if you violate it, you are the one in the wrong. Charles T. Betz 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Charles, I suggest you take the trouble to read the text of 3RR before you tell anyone else to "be aware of it." You're entitled to choose your own definitions and reach your own conclusions.  So am I. I also suggest you read the history of some of the issues Eric here has had with other editors, particularly where he has made comments such as "I've never trusted anyone who proclaims him or herself to be an expert, and I have absolutely no interest in 'the process', only in the quality of the output." I suspect you may not find much support for this position of yours either. Flybd5 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "He is making wholesale changes without discussion in many cases, and that is vandalism and has already been reported as such."
 * Perhaps unsurprisingly, I rather resent the charge of "vandalism", as I believe that I have played my part in discussing the development of this article, and that it has been significantly improved as a result of my non-partisan contributions. There are things in the article I still don't agree with, and that I personally would change, but I haven't engaged in any kind of war just because I don't agree with something.
 * As a matter of courtesy Flybd5, would you please direct me to where you have reported me for vandalism, so that I may be given the opportunity to defend myself? --Malleus Fatuarum 23:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to learn to deliver courtesy before you ask for it, Eric. The process of editing calls for the courtesy of discussions before choosing to plaster innuendos about other editors and making wholesale deletions, of sourced facts at that, on the basis of uninformed opinions and personal agendas. Flybd5 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again out of line, and I have not witnessed him doing either on this article. Just because a fact is sourced does not render it immune from deletion. His talk page seems quite collegial, with plenty of compliments and no warnings; anyone who has been doing Wikipedia for any length of time is going to attract some controversy. Also, he is making quite informed edits to computer science articles which means he has some general abilities in the IT domain; unlike you or I, he may be simply unwilling to share credentials that might surprise both of us. Have you considered that possibility?Charles T. Betz 13:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opinion has been noted. You've already ignored other things said here, even my clearly posted background and credentials. You should try practicing what you preach, and measuring everyone by the same rule. Flybd5 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should it matter what my credentials are, assuming that by "credentials" is meant "What ITIL courses have you attended?" ITIL is a part of the IT world, it's not the whole IT world, and it needs to put into context. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are clearly completely ignorant about ITIL. That, Eric, disqualifies you from any attempt at putting anything into context. In order to do that you have to know what you're talking about. You don't. Or is that you consider yourself an expert on everything you know nothing of? Flybd5 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Well, at least I know that ISO 20000 isn't a measure of ITIL compliance. Unlike you, it seems. Your persistent personal attacks are really not being very helpful. Please try in future to confine your remarks to the facts of the matter being discusssed. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you think you know that, on the basis of... well, who knows. ISO 20000 is the standard for ITIL compliance at this time. Of course, you're welcome to take your case to ISO and argue otherwise. Not exactly what I could consider to be a good idea, but it's your time to waste. Do you even have access to the two parts of the standard? My guess is that given your track record of study on the subject of ITIL, you haven't read ISO 20000 either. Then again, all of this would be so much more productive if you tried to confine your remarks and activities on the article to areas of knowledge in which you can claim verifiable knowledge. Flybd5 02:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
Do not merge. As an ITIL v3 instructor I have attempted to add to and rewrite this page multiple times only to have the rewrite immediately deleted. I believe this topic is necessary however I think this article is blatant advertisment and vote for speedy deletion of the text. It does nothing to address the noteworthy differences between ITIL v2 and ITIL v3. Nor does it talk about the training and credentialing involved in being qualified to implement ITIL v3 policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimchojhang (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I question the need for this article at all ...'
 * I am most definitely in that camp. The point I raised earlier about ITIL being a "standard" is addressed perfectly well in the main ITIL article. ITIL v3 is interesting, noteworthy, and probably a significant step forwards. But it's not interesting enough to warrant a separate article. Not unless your livelihood depends on mystifying ITIL v3. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you tag it proposing the merge, I will support you. I don't know the right tag and find researching such Wikipedia basics always more time consuming than I expect. Charles T. Betz 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I've managed to do that. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't support the merge at this time, but the V2 article will eventually have to be heavily modified to reflect V3 knowledge. Too many issues related to ITIL V3 are still in flux, and the subject material is just too different from the content and structure of V2 to be combined with a simple merge. V3 is not simply different from V2, it departs radically from V2 in its view of service lifecycles as the core of the knowledge structure, as opposed to process lifecycles. Flybd5 03:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your response in some ways makes the case. What is interesting and notable about ITIL as a whole (inclusive of versions 1, 2, and 3) is in fact this evolution of emphasis. Keeping things partitioned into separate articles makes it more difficult to consider and communicate the overall evolution of the framework and brand. I can imagine one, longer article that does justice to all three versions, while drawing out the bigger picture as well. The issues related to the evolution of the ITIL ecosystem are certainly in flux (and will always be) but the material of all 3 versions is now all in publicly available fixed form and suitable for commentary and analysis as is.Charles T. Betz 03:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The perhaps I must clarify. To me a merge implies the ability to combine into one. I do agree that there is a need for an article that presents V1, V2 and V3, each in their own context and emphasizing their focus areas. To do this will require much more than just a simple merge, it will require the creation of an entirely new article that cohesively tracks the evolution of ITIL. A merge would document the steps in the evolutionary process, but not how each one relates to the others, something which I believe is key to understanding what ITIL is all about. Flybd5 03:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just further mystification. There is no "V3 knowledge", there is simply v3, somewhat different from v2 in its emphasis on ROI as opposed to process management. The "knowledge" hasn't changed, it's just been redistributed. There is no doubt in my mind that ITIL would be better served by a single article that describes ITIL and its evolution honestly, without this focus on the present and future training aspects. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you think 1,000+ pages of reference material is not "knowledge" is of no interest to me. V3 is hardly a mere redistribution of knowledge. Most people have the common sense to read things before pretending to know enough to issue opinions and judgements. I'm surprised to see you don't seem to subscribe to such practices. Or maybe not. Flybd5 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that ITIL has always been widely accepted to be a "framework of best practices", then by definition whatever knowledge is within the books is not specific to ITIL v3. Hence my objection to the term "ITIL v3" knowledge which, if it means anything, can only mean knowledge about ITIL v3, not the content of the books. And as "best practices" was the content of ITIL v2 as well as ITIL v3, the major difference between the two must be the context for those best practices, the emphasis on "the business" rather than management of the process. So I think it is quite reasonable to describe v3 as redistributing the knowledge that was in v2. --Malleus Fatuarum 11:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your first sentence is a non sequitur. You're trying to prove your point through selective quoting. Following that one, the next one is circular logic, in which you have just admitted that what I said is correct. The books are the knowledge about ITIL v3. The word "redistribution" excludes new content. That is not the case with ITIL v3. What is so hard about understanding that if you haven't read the material, you're not in a position to argue its content, pro or con? Where I come from, this is grade school knowledge. What about you, Charles? Do you think that its possible to debate the content of ITIL without ever reading any of the material? At least you have a Foundations Certificate attesting to the basic boot camp knowledge of the framework... Flybd5 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it would be logical to have one acticle on ITIL, explaining its history, evolution etc. and seperate articles on ITIL v2 and ITIL v3. Currently the existing ITIL article contains a large section on ITIL v2 which makes it a litle unbalanced now that ITIL v3 has been released. Regarding all the comments on whether ITIL v3 is worthy of seperate article, I think it is. There are already a large number of articles on Wikipedia on subjects less significant than ITIL v3. Being electronic rather that paper based I don't see any reason why Wikipedia can't have articles on a much larger number of subjects than a traditional encyclopedia Wob E 15:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a sensible suggestion to me. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. The ITIL article needs to have all the ITIL split out into its own article. 198.49.180.254 18:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I’m unsure of the etiquette here. Do I just create a new ITIL v2 article now and move the information across? I’ve never attempted anything like that so if someone more experienced wants to make the change please feel free. Wob E 08:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * An ITIL V2 article already exists. Flybd5 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to see it left for now. This is leargely because v2 and v3 are still very much seen as different lines. Both are still current. Both have their own certification options for example. I don't think the merge should occur until further downstream, when v2 starts to fall away and v3 is dominant. And then it should be done by a more experienced wikipedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.95.58 (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with this assessment, particularly considering the fact APMG, OGC and itSMF have decided to continue offering V2 materials, certification, etc. until such time as demand for V2 services begins to wane, as happened with V1 to V2. Flybd5 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of sourced material, there are not many choices. Either many more sources are added or the article becomes a stub that should be merged. --Ronz 15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Any discussion of ITIL should include the history going back to version 1 and should be brought up to date with the latest publications.

I have a concern about the way this page comes up when searching on the term Service Management. Service Management is a generic term that predated ITIL and goes well beyond technology management. I believe there should be a specific Service Management page even if it is just a place holder. From there a link can be created for this page on ITIL.

This is my first time making any kind of post to Wikipedia so if there is a better venue for this type of comment, someone please let me know about it. RonBPalmer 20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. There perhaps ought to be an overarching Service Management page, which links to ITIL amongst other frameworks, operating in other areas. I'm also of the opinion that one ITIL article is quite sufficient; there isn't enough that's encyclopedic to say about it's different versions to warrant a page for each version. Just look at this page for instance. Very little but advertising in it pretty much from the start. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an IT Service Management page that I think is sufficient for our concerns here. Service Management, not restricted to IT, would be a much more difficult article requiring the insights of qualified business scholars.Charles T. Betz 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're probably right, although I thought that one of the stated aims of ITIL was to extend its scope beyond IT service management? --Malleus Fatuarum 01:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure I have seen concrete language to this effect, but you're right it's at least implicit in the Service Strategy volume. ITIL's reach probably exceeds its grasp in this respect. The words "IT Infrastructure" will continue to set its scope in the eyes of the world; volumes 2-5 are all about IT and nothing more generic. Charles T. Betz 02:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I support the movement to merge any ITIL vX articles into this one. Of course, having subsections for each version would be valuable to see the evolution of this system, but I do not think that the different version are distinct enough (at a big picture level) to warrant being kept separate. If I want to learn about ITIL as a concept and as a practice having a single point of reference would be far more useful than having to page-hop around to get an idea of what this is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.139.83.24 (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with putting all ITIL articles into one. They all need a major overhall too. Its quite opaque just what on earth ITIL is and what it involves for someone not familiar with the field just from the article.--Him and a dog 14:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Certification and Version 3
I'm also concerned at the level of detail in the Certification and Version 3 section. Is that really appropriate for an encyclopedia article? I'm not questioning its accuracy, only its relevance. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The detail was included because the certification scheme is now completely different than for V1 or V2, and the many people worldwide who are certified in ITIL are very interested in knowing how ITIL V1 and V2 certifications apply or carry over to V3. Flybd5 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree that it is too detailed. Wikipedia is not an [indiscriminate collection of information]. They have other means for finding out that information. It may be notable that the certification scheme changed significantly. Charles T. Betz 14:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The certification scheme is a very important component of the framework because formal training in the framework is key to participation in implementations, as well as a key component of successful implementations. OGC clearly and unequivocably recognizes this and therefore subcontracts a provider for worldwide management of certifications, The APM Group. The scheme for V3 is currently being developed, is in a state of flux which can be confusing to people who are trying to decide which way to go, V2 or V3, and the evolution of the scheme in the short and long term is part of what the development of encyclopedic content is all about. Once the dust settles, editors can reflect this in the article text. Besides, certification information for ITIL does not fall into any of the categories pointed out in the link you present, because the information presented, by simple definition, is definitely not indiscriminate ("failing to make or recognize distinctions"). Flybd5 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The [certification] scheme for V3 is currently being developed, is in a state of flux which can be confusing to people who are trying to decide which way to go, V2 or V3, and the evolution of the scheme in the short and long term is part of what the development of encyclopedic content is all about.
 * If the certification has not yet even been decided upon then it most definitely ought not to be a part of an encyclopedia article, other than to point the fact that it has not yet been decided upon. An encyclopedia should only contain relevant, verifiable facts. Not speculation, or in this case what appears to be "breaking news". --Malleus Fatuarum 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The certification scheme has been decided. What is still in flux is how some portions of it are achieved. Everything posted on the subject is relevant and verifiable through the references I posted on the subject from the certification authority. Flybd5 02:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have deleted what I consider to be overly detailed material about a fluid situation. Charles T. Betz 23:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Flybd5 thanks for your restraint in restoring a limited amount of material with appropriate pointers here. Support this edit. Charles T. Betz 03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

De facto standard
I've been unhappy about the claim that ITIL has been (promoted as) a de facto standard since the mid 1990s since I first saw it. ISO 20000 is a standard, but surely ITIL of any flavour is a collection of guidelines, not a standard? --Malleus Fatuarum 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * De jure vs. de facto. ISO 20000 is a de jure standard; there is little question in my mind that ITIL is a de facto standard. It does have tremendous momentum and mindshare, and many organizations have adopted it in the sense of spending lots of money to send their people to ITIL training, buying lots of consulting services, and changing their organizational structure and processes to more closely reflect ITIL guidance. That's good enough for de facto status for me. Charles T. Betz 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

de facto status as what though? You used the word guidance. I used the word standard. Standards imply some independent means of assessing compliance to those standards. Something that I don't believe that ITIL either has or is seeking. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - I guess I would consider the fact that ITIL is itself in fixed form, with a subtantial infrastructure of consulting and training to promote it, as approaching de facto standard status. If I hire two consultants, both with ITIL Masters' certification, they will have generally comparable approaches, and represent a sort of "standard" against which I can baseline my existing IT operations. Charles T. Betz 11:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that you have used the word "standard" in a rather disingenous way. If you hired two consultants without ITIL Masters' certification, they may well also have generally comparable approaches. Would that imply the existence of another "de facto" standard?


 * A library of books cannot be a standard. Isn't ITIL simply a framework described in those books, a set of guidelines? If ITIL is indeed any kind of standard, then why is there no certification for an organization to be ITIL compliant, as opposed to those individuals dedicated to pumping it? --Malleus Fatuarum 00:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There most certainly is a certification for an organization to be ITIL compliant, you just don't know about it because you're not an SME on this subject. It used to be British Standard 15000, now it's ISO 20000. The ISO defines the parameters to obtain the certification, without the ITIL library there is no standard because it defines the core of the standard. But then again, this is all academic. This article is not about making you happy, this article is about documenting ITIL V3 for Wikipedia users. You can't seem to separate the two, for some reason. Flybd5 02:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, a Google search on "Define:Standard" presents (among others):


 * a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated; "the schools comply with federal standards"; "they set the measure for all subsequent work"
 * criterion: the ideal in terms of which something can be judged; "they live by the standards of their community"
 * conforming to or constituting a standard of measurement or value; or of the usual or regularized or accepted kind; "windows of standard width"; "standard sizes"; "the standard fixtures"; "standard brands"; "standard operating procedure"
 * established or widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence; "a standard reference work"
 * conforming to the established language usage of educated native speakers; "standard English" (American); "received standard English is sometimes called the King's English" (British)
 * regularly and widely used or sold; "a standard size"; "a stock item"


 * None of these stipulate certification. They all might apply to ITIL. With Flybd5 on this one. There is however a disconnect currently between ISO20000, based as it is on ITIL v2, and ITIL v3. It will be interesting to see how ISO/IEC deals with this. There is every chance that the two standards will diverge; centrifugal political pressures may mitigate against continued tight coupling of ITIL and ISO/IEC20000. Certainly, ISO is not accountable to the OGC, and in a political tussle my money would be on the UN-chartered ISO. Flybd5, continuing to question his credentials is simply not helping your cause. Suggest you cease. Charles T. Betz 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What credentials, Charles? I haven't seen any. Have you? Point me in the general direction.


 * Well, my credentials are linked off my Talk page. Yours? I have no evidence that you have any more standing than Malleus. Charles T. Betz 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I posted my credentials here. Second, it was you who said "continuing to question his credentials." Make up your mind, Charles. Are you saying I'm questioning your credentials, or his? Who's on first? :) Flybd5 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no evidence you say who you are. You're just an anonymous poster to me making claims about your experience. My full name, bio, and CV are all independently verifiable. I'm now questioning your credentials. Charles T. Betz 12:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm a lot of things, Charles, but definitely not anonymous. You just haven't digged deep enough. Look me up on LinkedIn. For example, I'm perfectly accurate and very specific about my ITIL certifications, and I too am a published author of one book (1985) and quite a few articles on subjects such as Intel CPU identification for the defunct Turbo Technix magazine, a review of neural network software for Databased Advisor, a detailed review on the then-breakthrough NEC V20/V30 microprocessor for PC Techniques, a 15-part series on ITIL for a local newspaper, and a couple hundred articles on various aviation subjects (my hobby)... just to name a few. Flybd5 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your point on the disconnect is valid, that's why Wikipedia recognizes that knowledge that is in flux requires tolerance for editors viewpoints on what material should be presented at a given time to help guide people through the process of stabilization. It serves no purpose to squelch knowledge in this kind of situation. In time the knowledge stabilizes and then becomes encyclopedic knowledge, as you and Malleus seem to be so fond of those two words. ISO 20000 will probably remain as the V2 standard for the foreseeable future because there are many organizations with significant investments in the implementation of a V2-based methodology and most will not see value in changing course in mid-stream. My understanding is that work has already begun on the definition of an ISO for V3, but that will take time. Lots of other things need to be in place for that to happen. Flybd5 03:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "None of these stipulate certification."
 * Agreed, they don't. But what they do imply is an ability to measure. Wasn't it Kelvin who said that if you can't measure it, you can't manage it? What's the measure for ITIL compliance? --Malleus Fatuarum 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Kelvin clearly wasn't thinking of the law or other discursive domains. GAAP is a standard, but compliance is subjective requiring a licensed auditor to render an opinion. I'd argue Strunk and White is a "de facto standard" for clarity of exposition. How do you measure Strunk & White compliance? Charles T. Betz 03:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that Strunk & White was one of a number of style guides, not a standard, de facto or otherwise&mdash;Fowler's springs to mind as a plausible alternative. But in neither case is there an imperative on offering certfication, merely guidance. I'm sure it would be quite possible to offer courses and certification in compliance with Strunk & White, but what would be the point? Kelvin's point was that for there to be a standard, then there has to be a measure for that standard. What's the measure for ITIL compliance? What would "ITIL compliance" mean in any case? Compliance with a framework? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The measure of ITIL compliance has been around for quite some time, first as BS15000, now as ISO/IEC 20000. Flybd5 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Aroll 20:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The concept of ITIL compliance has been tossed around for sometime and has simply been something that has come out vendors selling tool sets. There is reference to the ISO20000 certification but the ITIL library only makes up a part of that certification, not all of it. With the case that ITIL is just that best practices, it is a frame work, not a playbook of how processes should be implemented into your organization. I'll include a response i received from a member of ITSMf in regards to "ITIL Compliancy". (I can forward original email if requested)
 * 2 - I've heard this phrase used by certain management and vendors of "ITIL Compliancy". Other professionals I've spoken with agree that this does not exist. Is there an authoritative statement regarding this? Or is this something new that has come about with V3?"
 * Answer to Q2: The term "ITIL Compliancy" has been thrown around for years (even prior to ITILV2), especially by, as you point out, managers and vendors with managers saying it in the context of their organization or their processes to be "ITIL compliant".  Vendors make claims that their software is "ITIL compliant".  What you have learned is correct: it does not exist.   As far as an authoritative statement, there is not one explicitly.  Implicitly, only people can get an ITIL Certification.  Organizations can get ISO/IEC Certification (which does not certify they are "ITIL compliant").  Software vendors can strive to align their offerings to ITIL best (or good) practice, but there is no such thing as "ITIL compliant".
 * Hope this helps.
 * All my best,
 * Ken
 * Ken Wendle
 * Client Engagement Manager, HP Education Services
 * itSMF International Treasurer, Governance Director
 * Thanks Ken, great point. ISO/IEC 20000 only measures ITIL compliance in an indirect sense, and as I mentioned above, there's the possibility that the ISO and OGC agendas may diverge; they certainly operate in two very different political contexts. Claiming ITIL compliance via ISO/IEC 20000 would not be advisable for anyone wanting to be careful and precise. Charles T. Betz 23:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to state there is no way to determine ITIL compliance for tools. The fact is any such determination of compliance would be subjective, regardless of who determines the parameters required to achieve such a status. I happen to think that's a good thing. Pink Elephant has made available their PinkVerify service for quite some time now, and an examination of their self-assessment guidelines shows that they are quite balanced and realistic. All of the major industry players in the tools market for ITIL (including HP) have submitted their tools. As to processes, we all know about the self-assessment guidelines and questionnaires to determine maturity of processes. Yes, the questionnaires were starting points -- that's where experience and the knowledge obtained from the training that leads to certification comes in.


 * Claiming ITIL compliance based on ISO 20000 is no different than claiming compliance for quality frameworks through ISO 9000, for example. ISO 20000 is very clear about what the assessor is supposed to examine and seek evidence of: "a Service Provider organization must be able to demonstrate that it has management control of all the processes defined within the standard." To claim that ISO 20000 cannot prove compliance to ITIL because ITIL is just a framework makes no sense at all. That is precisely what such a standard should set forth for organizations implementing ITIL -- the standard for compliance must recognize that the framework is just that, because setting a methodology as the goal of compliance would make the standard useless. Flybd5 02:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Flybd5, I'm bemused that you are contradicting Ken Wendle, especially considering how important credentials seem to be to you. He is stating the well-documented, official position of ITSMF and OGC (perhaps just the OGC, I'm not sure) - a position developed in part as response to PinkVerify.


 * By the way, Ken's being understated on the credentials side - perhaps you didn't know that he is past president of the U.S. ITSMF, and is the current U.S. nominee for international ITSMF president.


 * Good for him. I know of his credentials. Now, should I be bemused that you're debating me on ITIL issues on the basis of a mere ITIL Foundations certificate, and an invitation to review V3 material? Please. I suggest this one is the kind you just need to let go, just as you did when I clarified my credentials. Also, keep in mind that while Ken may have an opinion on this, and I respect that opinion, the official position of HP is otherwise. Openview ServiceCenter is prominently listed on PinkVerify for ITIL V2 and I have no doubt HP will also seek to be on the list for the next evolution of PinkVerify for ITIL V3. ServiceDesk was listed as well for both versions 4 and 5, though it is no longer there, for obvious reasons. It seems HP doesn't just support the PinkVerify program, it actively participates in it. Were you aware of this? Flybd5 02:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My credentials are quite sufficient; I won't belabor them here but they extend a bit beyond what you cite. My desire for your credentials had more to do with wanting to know your real name. You seem to think that an ITIL masters' is required for anyone to have an opinion (just curious - did your ITIL training cover PinkVerify and ITSMF/OGC/ISO politics?). I imagine that if someone showed up with an ITIL master's disagreeing with you, you would point to your practitioner certifications, and if someone showed up with comparable practitioner certifications, you'd point to your years of experience, always trying to claim the higher ground of authority and belittle everyone else.


 * Would you insist that only bishops contribute to an article on the Catholic Church?


 * Unfortunately for you this is Wikipedia, and "by their fruits ye shall know them." You'll just have to use your considerable powers of charm and persuasion to recruit others to your cause, because there is no Wikipedia policy recognizing  certifications.


 * HP's participation in PinkVerify is irrelevant to this debate, as you well know. There is no officially recognized ITIL certification for organizations or tools, if we understand ITIL as a copyrighted term of the UK government. I am a bit weary of debate that does not result in any changes to the article. Charles T. Betz 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You brought up the issues of comparison of certifications, Charles. If you regret doing so, that's a personal issue you have to deal with on your own, can't help you with that. My point is much simpler: zero verifiable training in ITIL disqualifies editors from editing content, let alone making bald accusations of ulterior motives. As to Wikipedia policy recognizing certifications, there is no need for one. There is enough history on this particular medium supporting the common sense approach of not pretending knowledge of a subject as an excuse for editorial participation... more than enough to make it a moot point I no longer intend to debate with you. HP's participating in PinkVerify is far from being irrelevant. That you consider it so does not make it so, regardless of how many times you try to put words in my mouth. I never said there is official certification for tools -- you did. As to organizations, I think I'll give a bit more weight to the industry and their actions than to your opinion on that one. Flybd5 23:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to bring things back - this all started off as a debate around the passage "Since the mid 1990s, ITIL has been generally considered a de facto international standard for IT Service Management" which I *do* think is defensible. It leaves room for a statement to the effect that "ISO/IEC20000 is the de jure standard for IT Service Management."


 * "Compliance" is a much stronger term, bordering on "certification," and I would not support the use of that term. Charles T. Betz 03:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I teach ITIL to students from all kinds of companies. This activity brings me very close to the source when it comes to ITIL initiatives in the real world. The people I teach are the people who are tasked with making ITIL work within their organizations. A large percentage of my students come from Fortune 10, large federal agencies and the military, and there is no doubt in their minds, or mine, that ISO/IEC 20000 is the goal when it comes to evidencing ITIL compliance. Go look at this page on the itSMF sponsors page, and search for ISO 20000. Given the federal government and major players are very much interested in ISO/IEC 20000 compliance and certification on this side of the pond, and BS 15000 was very much alive when it was turned over to ISO on the other side of the pond, I believe this is a moot issue. Everyone else will follow the top dogs, including HP, which is already ISO/IEC 20000 compliant! Flybd5 02:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your undocumented personal experiences are not admissable; see WP:NOR. Publish them (or better yet, have someone else validate them and publish them) and they might be admissable as an alternate point of view. The official OGC position would still need to remain documented.Charles T. Betz 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Undocumented personal experience? LOL! That's funny, Charles. You keep stretching your arguments this way and you'll soon find them spaghetified. OGC does not control ISO/IEC 20000, and neither can it mandate what the industry accepts as evidence of compliance. Flybd5 23:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you now lost control of whatever few faculties you had at your disposal when this "debate" started? I understand that your training business depends on mystifying ITIL, but I fail to see any credence in your claim that sharing your religious zealotry brings you closer to anything other than your next pay check. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I get it. You don't understand it so to you it's mysticism. To use your own terminology, "Yawn." Flybd5 23:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This was an unhelpful and overly personal comment.Charles T. Betz 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. My apologies Flybd5. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Amazing. It only took what... several months to notice the pattern of behavior that started this long debate? Oh, well. Life goes on. Apology accepted. BTW, I don't have a training business, I have a consulting business which happens to benefit from training activities. :) Flybd5 23:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever. BTW, I apologised for one comment that I ought not to have made, not for any "pattern of behaviour" that exists only in your imagination. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything about you apologizing for that behaviour, you did. Nevertheless, if it bothers you that much, I'll accept that apology as well. Have a nice day, Eric. Flybd5 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is mainly plain marketing. A "de facto standard" is marketing talk and not an actual description of a statistical "facto". How many users are there and how many use another solution? And please clean up the esoteric language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.244.113 (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been an IT consultant for many years, and have been implementing "IT support" processes and procedures for over eleven years. Until recently, I had never heard of ITIL, although I have worked with SEI/CMM, CMMI, and SOX standards. The concepts of incident management, problem management, change management, release management, security etc, are certainly not new, and certainly have not been originated by OGC or any other organization. Certainly, it is a "best practice" to use these processes and procedures, but I could have implemented them in an organization without ever having heard of ITIL. I think it is pretentious if not fatuous to claim that ITIL is "the" standard on this subject Ncarsca (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Advert
The article needs independent, reliable sources to meet WP:NPOV and not come across as just an advertisement.

I've removed a number of external links per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT. Please read these policies/guidelines and discuss if you disagree. --Ronz 23:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See your discussion page. The links you are removing are official OGC or OGC-contracted sites. OGC is the owner of the knowledge. Please have the courtesy to ASK before assuming your edits are correct, particularly if you are not familiar with the structure of ITIL. Thank you. Flybd5 23:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:EL concerning the inclusion of official sites. --Ronz 00:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:EL indeed. The links fit the policy, under What should be linked, items 3 and 4. Also, see the policy on NPOV editing] Flybd5 00:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been a running theme for far too long now. I absolutely agree with you Ronz, this article reads like an advert, not an encyclopedia entry. The only editor who seems to disagree with that is Flybd5, who appears to take the view that if you haven't attended a few ITIL courses then you have no right to edit this article. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fortunately there is some information on that very subject.  Shot info  00:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's also a clear policy on how to proceed with NPOV disputes. The policy is not being followed by either Ronz or Malleus Fatuarum. Both think they have the right to delete without notification, discussion or consensus. In the case of Malleus Fatuarum it's worse, because the user has no knowledge of ITIL. Flybd5 00:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So you agree that there is a NPOV dispute? And so what if MF has no knowledge of ITIL.  Can I draw your attention to "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.".  Ronz has ever right under WP:SPAM to delete spam and suspected spam.  Your editwarring to keep it in.....rather than discussing why is isn't spam (or shouldn't be regarded as such) is the problem.   Shot info  00:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will remind you for the third time, that NPOV policy requires DISCUSSION FIRST, then consensus, then edits, NOT the other way around. You continue to defend those who DO NOT submit to policy, and accuse those who try to get the policy enforced of edit warring. You don't have a leg to stand on with this one. Either apply the policies equally across the board or don't get involved if you don't think you can be impartial. Flybd5 01:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a misreading of WP:NPOV. I suggest you recall this quote "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."  Shot info  01:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there's also a very clear case of WP:OWN as well. How does it go? "... the owner [of the article] may patronize other editors, claiming that ... they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it." Seems plain enough to me. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No claim of needing deep understanding is being made. Mr. Betz proved his basic knowledge, and that was the end of that. You were simply asked if you had any evidence of any knowledge of ITIL based on any formal training. Not deep... any. You refused to answer and claimed offense at being asked. This would be akin to me showing up in the ferrets article and editing on the basis of zero knowledge of the animal, you challenging my knowledge and my pretending to be offended rather than answering the question. Get it? Flybd5 01:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * MF, have you revealed your personal information of your own voliation here in Wikipedia, or is Flydb5 trying to out you? Flydb5, I should warn you, outing other editors and/or using their personal information (names) without their approval is a blockable action.  I will wait until MF comments until reporting this to AN/I.   Shot info  01:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The next time you even think of trying to warn me about something as serious as this I suggest you read first before you type, Shot info. The entire thread of information and my comments on the subject is here on this page. You should have been responsible enough to exercise the very minimum level of prudence and search for the word BETZ in the text. Flybd5 02:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Flybd5 is being very parsimonious with the truth, but the Mr Betz he's referring to isn't me. That's another editor who has been involved in this protracted discussion, who uses his surname in his user name. I certainly declined to answer Flybd5's demands to know what my ITIL certifications were, as I didn't see the relevance to the issue of spam. But I never claimed any offence at being asked though. Flybd5 has an agenda to do promoting his ITIL training company in my opinion, so I thought it best to just stay away from this article after he claimed to have reported me for vandalism. Who needs it. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion is almost an exact analog of discussions around the main ITIL article, which was being strongly criticized by Wikipedia editors until I added the criticism section. The trouble is that replicating that section here would be merely redundant. I continue to believe that the best solution is one ITIL article covering all versions, with all the criticism and context necessary to understand ITIL comprehensively and from NPOV. I am open to one "master" article with small, stub-like "satellites" for each major version. Those "stubs" might run the risk of seeming a bit promotional, but in the case of an official government standard that is a matter of public record, I am not sure that we need to contort ourselves and insert criticism or context or "independent" sources in each and every sub-article. I do not support a major article for each version and want to see this one trimmed back as far as possible.


 * I am weary of the posturing here and if people don't keep the debate strictly pointed on how to make the article better (rather than the meta-debates about the debate, credentials impugnment in violation of at least the spirit of WP:OWN, who said what in what objectionable way, and useless speculations as to motive) I will simply drop out. I fear the bad is driving out the good. None of us is perfect, and each has made some useful contributions. We all want to see the article improve. Right?


 * Thoughts? Charles T. Betz 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Flybd5 needs a chance to cool down. Until he can agree to allowing simple external link cleanup, he's unlikely to agree to anything more complicated. --Ronz 03:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with making the article better. To do that, implies that the article needs to be better. A way (which I support) is via tags being added to the article to attract attention of editors. Wikipedia is improved by the collaboration of editors.  Shot info  03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article can certainly be improved, there is ample agreement on that, but that cannot be achieved with random deletions with no rhyme, reason or evidence of supporting knowledge, or worse yet, no discussion. What started all of this was edits backed up by accusations of advertising intentions, backed up by total ignorance of the subject at hand. That's not the way to go about improving an article, and no amount of rationalization or wild interpretations of policy will change that. Flybd5 13:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your argument is both a straw man and unconvincing. A straw man because you have no idea what knowledge anyone else has of the subject. And unconvincing because one would not need to be an expert in the manufacture of carbonated drinks to be able to distinguish between an article about Coca-Cola and an advert for Coca-Cola. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You were asked what knowledge you claim to have of ITIL and on what you base your conclusions, other than just mere random opinion. You refused to answer, and implied some non-descript right to be offended at being asked. As long as you continue to take this position that you don't have to prove any knowledge of anything to justify content edits that go to the core of the subject, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, Eric. It really is that simple. Your analogy is also incorrect. You have to have the elements of judgement of what constitutes an advertising and know the subject to be able to differentiate between valid information and advertising. Flybd5 14:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is "Eric"?  Shot info  22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be me. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"ITIL v3 web-based material" Section
Best Management Practice --Ronz 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Certification and Version 3" Section
the APM Group Examination Institute for Information Science Information Systems Examination Board of the British Computer Society --Ronz 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"External links" Section
Note that these are in part duplicates of the above: --Ronz 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The OGC ITIL website - this looks like the official site, but actually redirects to best-management-practice
 * The ITIL Open Guide
 * The APM Group website
 * The EXIN website
 * The British Computer Society's ISEB website
 * I've found and added the real official site. Of the rest of the links above, I see no reason to keep any of these except itlibrary.org.  The others are off-topic, and their inclusion could appear promotional for those organizations and their services. --Ronz 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * EXIN and ISEB are not duplicates of APMG. APMG is the umbrella certification authority and EXIN/ISEB work under them to administer and manage certifications within geographic areas. They've been associated with OGC/ITIL for quite some time. Flybd5 13:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There was perhaps some merit in some of your arguments on the basis of APMG being commercial Ronz, but you lost me completely by changing an OGC link to a totally commercial website like 'itgovernance'. I humbly suggest that any further changes require more in depth research into the topic matter, because this now seems to be heading off track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.66.107 (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I explained below, I found a replacement link for the one that is now bad. Who hosts the document isn't very important, but I don't think anyone would object if it was replaced with another working link to the same document hosted elsewhere. --Ronz 00:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replaced this with the correct original and official reference source, rather than the copy of this hosted on that commercial site. 77.232.66.107 00:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz 00:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think all the original itil.co.uk references can now be found on the official replacement, Best Management Practices. They haven't exactly made them easy to find, but they will be there. 77.232.66.107 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the other links per EL, SPAM, and NOT#LINK. --Ronz 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

itil.co.uk Redirects
This site is no longer being used and isn't redirecting in a useful way. The official site is now itil-officialsite.com. We'll need to fix a number of references to link properly. --Ronz 15:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've updated two of the links. I've been unable to find the other two, but I notice that only one is actually being used as a reference at this time. --Ronz 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The domain itil.co.uk belongs to Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. That agency no longer exists, it was merged into OGC, that's part of the basic "ITIL 101" knowledge that everyone who teaches ITIL imparts on their students. The domain is managed by The Stationery Office, the people who publish the basic ITIL knowledge for OGC. The domains best-management-practice.com and itil-officialsite.com are both owned by OGC as well. The link you used to replace one of those (itgovernance.co.uk) is a commercial link that doesn't belong in the article. Flybd5 13:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem solved even before you made the comment above. --Ronz 15:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"ITIL v3 web-based material" and "Certification and Version 3"
Neither of these sections are supported by independent sources. If no independent sources are forthcoming, they should be removed per WP:NPOV. --Ronz 05:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The first comment is correct. Looks like ITIL Live didn't fly. The second comment I do not agree with. That portion of the article has ample independent references, EXIN and ISEB have been certification authorities for decades, APMG was recently appointed as the umbrella certification authority by OGC (March 2006, also referenced on the article). Flybd5 13:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But there are no independent sources. They all have a relationship with ITIL as you point out. --Ronz 15:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OGC is the source of ITIL. You don't need independent sources when you are at the source and the source tells you that they are part of the worldwide organization to manage the ITIL information and certify skills and education. Flybd5 13:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sections per NPOV given everyone agrees that there are no independent sources as required. --Ronz 15:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Changes reversed. No such agreement was formed in 1 hour and 57 minutes. Flybd5 17:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. The material violates NPOV.  No one is arguing that is does not. --Ronz 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I argue that it does not violate NPOV. The material is simply factual and is not in dispute. Therefore NPOV does not apply, per Neutral_point_of_view/Examples. I think the material more likely violates WP:NOT, e.g. "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements." Charles T. Betz 02:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Further on this passage: While the new ITIL core draws heavily on current industry practice in IT service management and relevant research, it reflects the major changes in the way businesses buy and utilize IT services. The complementary material will make it easier for ITIL to address specific vertical markets and industries (e.g. Public Sector, Financial Services) and will provide a venue for more rapidly changing guidance around the application and implementation of the best practice described in the core works. It is likely that the complementary material will include, process maps and mappings to governance and other frameworks (e.g. COBIT) and methodologies (e.g. Six Sigma). I think the passge does have POV in it and needs sourcing. If it is based on official OGC documents it should be represented as such ("it is claimed that...") and those documents should be cited. Other deleted material however is more factual, and in particular I'd recommend we keep the links to the OGC "documents of record" concerning ITIL v3's charter and scope at least, as well as the publicly-available Glossary. Charles T. Betz 02:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer to apply NPOV/WEIGHT, which gives a detailed discussion on how to solve the problems, rather than WP:NOT#INFO, which does not. Either way it's the problem of determining what information is worth including in the encyclopedia.  I think the overlap between NPOV and NOT is clear in WP:WEIGHT:
 * "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. 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."
 * Whether others think this is a case of WP:NOT, WP:WEIGHT, or both, the only solution is to find independent sources. I'm not arguing that the information is wrong. I'm arguing that there is nothing that indicates the information deserves any treatment in this encyclopedia. --Ronz 03:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconsequential
I've decide to no longer participate in edits and discussion of this article or any other ITIL article on Wikipedia. After consultation with my colleagues in the industry in the US and abroad, we've come to a consensus that what Wikipedia says about ITIL is inconsequential, irrelevant and has no impact on anything of our activites or on the ITIL framework and its widespread, worldwide acceptance. The participation of totally uninformed people under the guise of "editors" basically reduces this article to the level of hearsay. There are plenty of sources of information for ITIL, all of much higher quality than is possible in Wikipedia. Have a nice day, folks. Flybd5 (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to review WP:RS and WP:V to see how material should be editing in Wikipedia. WP:NOT will help you find what Wikipedia is not, and you will also find that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so it will not impace or influence yours or others decisions.  Wikipedia reports.  What you should do is encourage your colleagues to have the information published in reliable sources rather than random newgroups and factoids.  Until then, Wikipedia will be like an encyclopedia that it is rather than the spam site you have tried to make it in the past.  Shot info (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps at last this will be allowed to evolve into an encyclopedia article instead of a sales brochure. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Shot info (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Final page redirection
User:192.18.8.1 has redirected the page to Information Technology Infrastructure Library. Though I cannot see contributions from this IP during the discussion process, reviewing the lengthy discussion about merging on this talk page I suggest any further discussion on this matter is conducted on Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library as the consensus appears to be in support of this merger.—Ashleyvh (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)