Hi, Valtrepkos. A belated welcome to Wikipedia!
Per the site's Verifiability Policy, all or most material on Wikipedia needs to have a citation of a reliable source, especially material of a contentious nature like suicide, regardless of whether it is well-documented elsewhere online. Editors cannot add material based on their personal knowledge, since that's called original research, which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. Keep in mind also that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a memorial. I tried looking online for reliable sources for Gothard's suicide, and could not find any in sources that were clearly reliable to me. But if you can find some, as in newspaper obituaries, magazine articles, etc., then feel free to add them.
If you click on the policy pages that I have linked to here, that should explain it. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, or if you need help adding citations of the right sources, I'd be more than happy to help you, so feel free to ask.
(Btw, when you sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), you don't have to write out your name as well. The automatic signature function adds it by itself.) Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Nightscream. So, if there is a quotation from an article in a newspaper which says Michael committed suicide, I can use that as a reference, even if I was the one who posted it? Or should I just reference the date and publication in which the article appeared? It does seem odd to me that an actual physical proof in the form of a legal document my hand is considered less reliable than a report in a newspaper!
- No prob.
- I understand that some of Wikipedia's policies may seem odd to the uninitiated, but the way it works is this: The reliability of any other encyclopedia rests upon the expertise of its paid experts, who are established by their credentials to be competent writers and researchers. Wikipedia doesn't have paid experts, but volunteers, so the burden of reliability is shifted to cited sources. Cited sources, therefore, can be thought of as a substitute for expertise. One cannot vet the identity or knowledge of an anonymous user with a pseudonymous username like "Nightscream" or "Valtrepkos", who says they have a death certificate in their hand, or the authenticity of the death certificate in their hand (which we can't even see anyway, since the Web is not an in-person medium). This is why we cite sources, generally secondary ones. So yes, a newspaper would be fine, even if you were the one quoted. In general, Wikipedia cautions against conflict of interest edits, but it doesn't, strictly speaking, forbid editors from editing articles about someone they know or knew personally.