"

 Question for Gwen Gale 

Gwen, I'm asking you this question mainly because of your frequent participation at this article and its talk page. Would you consider material presented from this source acceptable and helpful if used in a proper context? Thanks.   
My question was asked in good faith. Perhaps you could find some time to answer it. Thanks.   

The only answer I can give to an open question like this is, please do see WP:RS (it's where I'd look first if I had a broad question about a source). If you'd like further input on a given citation, lots of editors other than myself watch this page, you might want to post it here and see what that stirs up, that's what article talk pages are all about. You can also try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which at least may sometimes give one something akin to a further take on neutrality.   
Thanks, Gwen, for getting back to me. Obviously others are welcome to give further input concerning the source I asked you about. I was curious as to what your opinion was regarding The Sun as a reliable source. I read an interesting article given by Rochus Misch there.   
Misch himself didn't see everything and recall can get way fuzzy after six and a half decades, but he saw a lot nonetheless. Could you post a link to that article here? I'd be happy to read it. Thanks.   
Sorry, Gwen, for the delay in getting back to you. I actually was hoping for your opinion about ""The Sun"" rather than about Misch. If I decide to add the information at some later point we might be able to discuss its relevancy at this talk page. For now, your opinion regarding using The Sun as a source would be appreciated.   
I'm sorry, I had missed this. I would need to see the article itself. That said, I'd be wary of citing anything from the Sun without knowing who wrote it and how it was sourced by them. Moreover, if I found something in the Sun I'd tend to dig deeper and find a source on which one could more steadfastly lean. It's not that tabloids get things wrong (all newspapers botch details, all the time) so much as tabloids tending to over-spin stuff for entertainment, which is their slice of the market, in much the same way the Times and the Guardian spin heavily for politics in some topic areas. It all makes for sloppiness, through which a cite may, say, be ok as to WP:V but then skids into the ditch owing to WP:UNDUE.   
I wonder if this relates. I would think it would be wrong to reference, edit, or dispute sources which are not at hand to be checked. Perhaps a person should only use information that they have read and can understand.  
Wm, I doubt that only  ""using information that they have read and can understand"" would be the best criterion to use and be the most appropriate and helpful method in referencing an encyclopedia. Being partial to an exopedian version of this project (I do err from time to time myself), I think the inclusion of ""quotes"" and anecdotal reminiscences gleaned from border line tabloids should be avoided.   
I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article.

The U.S. is big on free press, and it works. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). That’s on the next shuttle van. Most of the rest of the assets of a state with 12 million people are a couple of days away by mail. The specialty stuff on AE from Radcliffe took maybe a week. And I am an amateur. Dan, you are over three million people higher in the food chain, you must be “world class”. Kierzek has clearly read and analyzed everything, reviewed most of it, and as far as I can tell, every word he says is accurate and informed.

Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my pos