Talk:The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Isn't this one of the most translated books from English?

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

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