Talk:Utopia for Realists

Created article Rutger Bregman with some content from Dutch Wikipedia and from this article Utopia for Realists (book).Oceanflynn (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ref

@Drmies: How is a reference to a publisher's website "spammy"? 201Q (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Again, "direct source" as in the publisher's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201Q (talk • contribs) 03:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• I already commented on your user talk page. I find it hard to believe that I have to explain this. How can a link be more commercial than this one? "Direct source" means nothing here, and if it did, it would be a primary source, whereas we should be citing secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • is Google Books an acceptable secondary source? 201Q (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • 201Q, that depends on what you pull from it. This is just the book. This could be a valid citation for someone saying something about Bregman. (It may be that the difference between primary and secondary sources is new to you--it happens. See Secondary source.) More useful here, since you're dealing with a new book, is Google News, which should give you some reviews and things like that in reliable sources. You might already find his name in JSTOR--no, maybe not, since they take a few years to archive. HA I'm wrong: I found one review, here (don't know if you can see that), but it's in Spanish, about the Spanish edition. That should, by the way, be a reliable secondary sources if you want to add "the book was translated in Spanish and published by X". Good luck: I say, look in Google News for reliable worldwide English weeklies and newspapers. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Drmies, I was trying to cite the details I added to the infobox (original title, publisher, publication date). I think I understand what you mean though. Thanks for explaining it to me. I'm getting the hang of this; sorry if I annoyed you before. 201Q (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
        • No worries. I get impatient because I've seen it before. Hey, that infobox lists De Correspondent (didn't know they were a publisher--I thought they were just a web news outfit), but they published it in both languages? That's interesting. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Yeah, the author is a writer for De Correspondent. They compiled a bunch of his articles and published them in book form [1]. 201Q (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
          • And in the US it's published by Brown and Little. OK, my suggestion is to not worry about it too much, sourcing what editing in what language etc., until you have sourcing for all of it, and then write up, as a separate section, "Publication history". For this guy that's kind of interesting because it is slightly interesting, and I have no doubt that in the next couple of weeks, after that Tucker Carlson (Carlson Tucker? I keep forgetting) debacle, sales of his book will shoot up, and that may be newsworthy--and if it is, then we have more material to write.

            For the rest of the content, I'd look and see how much can be sourced with the reviews; there's quite a few. Here's a nice interview. This is not worth the effort. This is worth citing, and so is this. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

            • I was thinking the same thing. Thanks for the help. 201Q (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)