Talk:C1 Television

message: I noticed the request for a third opinion and thought I would drop by. Discussions about the conflict should be placed here, on the article talk page, so that all can see the discussion and perhaps offer assistance.
The question seems to be whether or not the station web site is an acceptable source for attribution and whether the builder/designer of the station is a significant part of the article.
=== Suggestions for consensus === 
Please avoid
*Personal attacks or slurs
*Edit Warring
Please use
*extreme civility
*professionalism
*kindness
*respect
=== Station web site ===
Inasmuch as the statement regarding SDI is challenged, it ought be supported by attribution to "a reliable published source" (WP:ATT). Is the television station's website a reliable source?
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of WP:ATT 'seems' to suggest that it is not. Consider the following from the guideline: 
*Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.
*I do not have specialist knowledge and could not verify the claim. Therefore, at first glance, it would seem the material is not sufficient for inclusion. However, please note the following exception: Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves and Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources.
**Inasmuch as this is an exception to the rule, leaving the comment "According to the station" does not seem out of line and I would think, should be kept. It must, however, be properly sourced to the website. JodyB 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My arguments are essentially the same as yours, the given sources are not reliable or independent. That's why I added the qualifier "according to the station", so that readers will know to treat the "first in Mongolia" claim with a grain of salt (we don't have information about competing station's equipment). --Latebird 21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The question raised here was that of relevance. High-tech installations like TV studios tend to replace their equipment in relatively short intervals. Therefore any information about specific systems may easily become obsolete with the next hardware upgrade. The important distinction is between analog and digital, adding more detail is likely to result in a maintenance nightmare each time something changes at the station. --Latebird 21:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

message: Inasmuch as the statement regarding SDI is challenged, it ought be supported by attribution to "a reliable published source" (WP:ATT). Is the television station's website a reliable source?
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of WP:ATT 'seems' to suggest that it is not. Consider the following from the guideline: 
*Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.
*I do not have specialist knowledge and could not verify the claim. Therefore, at first glance, it would seem the material is not sufficient for inclusion. However, please note the following exception: Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves and Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources.
**Inasmuch as this is an exception to the rule, leaving the comment "According to the station" does not seem out of line and I would think, should be kept. It must, however, be properly sourced to the website. JodyB 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My arguments are essentially the same as yours, the given sources are not reliable or independent. That's why I added the qualifier "according to the station", so that readers will know to treat the "first in Mongolia" claim with a grain of salt (we don't have information about competing station's equipment). --Latebird 21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station web site 

message: I am not sure this is still an issue as it seems to have been dropped. Perhaps the two of you would discuss the pro's and con's here. JodyB 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question raised here was that of relevance. High-tech installations like TV studios tend to replace their equipment in relatively short intervals. Therefore any information about specific systems may easily become obsolete with the next hardware upgrade. The important distinction is between analog and digital, adding more detail is likely to result in a maintenance nightmare each time something changes at the station. --Latebird 21:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station construction