# Talk:The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne

I think that I have heard (on the programme Countryfile) that this is the fourth most translated book in the English language. If any one knows whether this is an accurate claim and can give a good source for it, this fact could go in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of the "probably apocryphal" statement that it is the fourth most published book in the English language, having been brought out at least 300 times. Even if that claim had once been true, it probably isn't now. There's no evidence for a specially large number of translations but the book is popular in Japan and other countries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, could all editors please observe the policy WP:Civil, especially in edit comments.
Secondly, on the edit itself, I believe that the article does not require a pop culture section. Selborne has been mentioned in more or less minor ways in very many books (certainly hundreds), and we are certainly not going to list them in the article.
Thirdly, thank you for providing a link to the page on Google books. However, that simply shows that the mention was genuine. It does not show that it is notable, and contrary to the edit comment, it was not a "google review" but simply a link to the item itself. That remains a self-citation (certainly better than nothing), but not sufficient reason to add a new section.
Fourthly, I can understand that when people like a story (Dahl is an excellent writer), they may feel an impulse to celebrate it with mentions in other articles. However, an editor's warm feelings about a story are not in themselves sufficient reason for adding sections to articles. A reliable, independent citation is needed where other editors have challenged the notability of a fact, as has happened here. As I already indicated, I do not think that the item is worth mentioning in the article, nor a pop culture section, so what would be required is a citation to a reliable independent source, such as an article in a national newspaper which claims that the specific mention of Selborne in the Dahl story is notable for literary reasons. If such exists, then we could include it in the existing Reception section.
Fifthly, could everyone please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good reason for adding things to articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sixthly,
Just because  one person doesn’t  like, disagrees or is  unwilling to accept a contribution (for whatever reason)  of another that does not mean that such a contribution is invalid and should be removed.
No amount of editing in Wikipedia will  ever change the fact that references to Gilbert’s work ARE  found in popular culture and it does the article no harm to mention (even in passing) the that popular culture “tips its hat“ to this great work.  If other contributors do not like the words that have previously been used, then perhaps a suggestion would  be that they write something else more to their own liking to  add this missing section? 
Unless  categorically and  absolutely certain  that White’s  work has never had  any impact  or relevance to popular  culture,  then  entry  for  “The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne“ will always remain incomplete without a reference to such a subject. If editors  are happy with this omission and categorically believe that the work of White has had absolutely no bearing on popular culture then so be it,  remove the section but  the entry will thereafter be an incomplete one.

Sorry you're upset, but you have missed the basic point. Please read WP:V on verifiability. It's what the whole encyclopedia is based on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It has been said in this talk page that  "Selborne has been mentioned in more or less minor ways in very many books (certainly hundreds)" Well if this is the case then by these rules perhaps they  need to be  verify too?  If folks  are going to tell others what to do, then the rules need to be metered out fairly to all!
It is no longer a concerned  with which book/magazine/song/cartoon is referenced , but if there is interest in including a brief  popular culture section, an example with  the ISBN and page numbers has been given. If this is not appropriate there are claims that there are "hundreds" of other references that could be used. Why not use one of these rather than one from someone who is trying to help contribute and naively thought that all additions would be viewed openly and fairly?
What is of a concerned (and perhaps it is  others  who may have  missed the point), is the dismissive manner by which no recognition or acknowledgement (by way of a small section)  that White's work may at any level have had any impact on popular culture. 
There is the impression,  that perhaps popular culture is seen to beneath this article and not worthy of inclusion?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchkick (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 

You are confusing the existence of a mention in a story with independent discussion of that mention in reliable sources. For example, White's tortoise has not only been mentioned by other authors, but those mentions have been discussed by critics in national newspapers. Other examples of properly discussed mentions of White's Selborne can be added by anyone, if suitably cited, in the 'Legacy' section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Belittling  those who try to contribute is never helpful nor in a good spirit. Sadly this article will forever  be incomplete whilst there is a continual denial that  the work has never had any impact on popular culture (legacy whilst important is something different) .  
There appears to be no point in updating a parent page with facts (not opinions)  drawn from books whilst they will only be changed to suit an incomplete  and entrenched view which looks down on areas that are seen to be beneath it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchkick (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 

Could you please stop taking factual statements personally, and launching repeated improper personal attacks, which I am patiently refraining from reporting. I stated simply and directly, with an example, that (let's call it type 1) a mention in story A is not the same thing as (let's call it type 2) a discussion by noted critic B of the mention in story A, and it's really "type 2" sources that Wikipedia requires. Since there are surely many of those, there is scope for the Legacy section to be extended, and indeed I've added several points to it in the past 24 hours. Everybody is welcome to join in, provided they find suitable "type 2" sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
There are no personal attacks (it should be noted that where possible the use of pronouns has been avoid and not directed at anoyone), comments are general. Is there any point in continued discussion as editorial  differences of all appear to be too great and comments are now cyclic.  
Contrasting view points and contributions  make the world richer and should be  welcomed  rather than stifled under threat  of  sanction as a means of suppressing the views of others. 
Whats started out as an innocent comment on one page has escalated into something completely different and perhaps all parties need  to return to  the original gesture of adding straight forward information and sharing knowledge rather than the chosen alternatives?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchkick (talk • contribs) 09:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 

I have in fact been adding cited material to the Legacy section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)