Talk:Kabosu (dog)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.instagram.com/p/C7V8AGvJPm9/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable link to Kabosu death
Please link the actual blog referenced in the article: https://kabochan.blog.jp/archives/51831907.html?ref=popular_article_slidelist&id=7331795-5154399 as a source to the death of Kabosu.

Countless news sources mistakenly reported her death in 2023. Also, sourcing a claim of a blog post with a news article about the blog post, and not the actual blog post, is not a reliable or trustworthy source, and frankly doesn't make much sense at all. Sappyduck (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It would surprise many here that the New York Times is unreliable and untrustworthy. Of course, all sources can make mistakes, but did that paper fall for the 2023 misinformation? They are a serious quality newspaper with a proper editorial team. Citing them meets WP's policy requirement for verifiable reliable sources, preferably secondary. That said, the blog should acceptable in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. In my view it would be fine to use both in this case. - Davidships (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)