Talk:Clair Blank

Sourcing

• See WP:FAMILYSEARCH: this is not a WP:RS.

• FamilySearch is not being used as the source; rather, it is being used as the host of the source. Per WP:FAMILYSEARCH, FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• None of the books had their copyright renewed and are now in the public domain.[33][34] The sources just list copyright dates. It is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH to state that the publications are in the public domain, however.

• This is in Keeline 2016, which states "copyright not renewed". --Usernameunique (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

But still, it is you who are making the leap from "copyright not renewed" to "in the public domain". That may be true, but you still need a source which says it. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call that a leap, and I'm not even sure that it's a step forward; rather, being in the public domain is a necessary implication of the copyright not being renewed. But, in any event, I've removed the part about being in the public domain. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Please go read WP:SYNTH. You are starting with two facts: 1) The copyright was not renewed and 2) If the copyright is not renewed the work becomes public domain. You are combining those two facts to come to the conclusion that the works are indeed in the public domain. That is precisely what WP:SYNTH is saying you are not allowed to do. RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• You make extensive use of articles written by Anita Susan Grossman in Yellowback Library. Who is Grossman and what is Yellowback Library. I can find very little about YL. Claude calls it "a niche but long-running hobbyist journal for fans and collectors of American children's series fiction". I can't find anything in JSTOR or ProQuest about it. What makes this a WP:RS?

• In the tiny niche of research related to children's series books (and their authors), Yellowback Library (known, as you say, as YL) is the golden (yellow?) standard; it's been in print for close to 50 years, and, though ultimately a hobbyist publication, contains much information and serious research that appears nowhere else. Grossman's articles are also indispensable as far an information on Blank goes; she tracked down Blank's widower and sons and got a wealth of information from them, including both their recollections, and copies of Blank's correspondance with publishers. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinved this is valid to use as a source, especially when such a large amount of the article depends on it. RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to send you the articles if you would like to take a look. But these are the foundational articles about Blank; the other works that discuss her, such as Something About the Author (link), all rely on them. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, email me the articles via the link on my user page. But at this point, I'm more interested in understanding why this should be considered a WP:RS than in the actual content. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I have not seen them yet. Possibly they got caught in some spam filters (PDF attachments with no accompanying text sometimes do). It might be better to put them someplace like dropbox or Google Docs and send me a link.

Also, I've started a thread at WP:RSN. RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll try sending individually; they're 11mb and 13mb, so may have been too large together. As to reliability, I was in the process of typing a response here, but will take it to there. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Got the first two. RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Forgot there's a third YL article by her that's cited here. Just sent. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, based on the WP:RSN thread, I'm going to accept YL as a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• The fact that her father reported his occupation to the census as "knitter" seems like trivia, and certainly not worth devoting 3 references to it. I'd drop that note entirely per WP:GACR 3b ("stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail").

• It's certainly not necessary, but it's not doing any harm, especially given that it's in a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• In "Installs Microwave Phones". The New York Times, why the long quote in the citation?

• For accessibility: It's a relatively short article but behind a paywall. I can remove it if you think it's distracting. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the main subject of the article, so I don't see why we have it. RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The source, or the quotation? The source helps establish that the Keystone Pipeline Company, where Blank worked, was a subsidiary of the Atlantic Refining Company. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

How does it help the reader understand anything about Clair Blank to know the corporate structure of the company she worked for? RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It helps clarify the entity for which she worked. Let's say you were writing an article about someone who worked for AU Solar 1, LLC. Would you say "the person worked for AU Solar 1, LLC", or would you say "the person worked for AU Solar 1, LLC, a subsidiary of Tesla"? I suspect the latter. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Why the citations to five different obituaries? This feels like you're trying to convince the reader that she was important, which is a WP:NPOV issue. See also WP:OBITUARIES: these are all paid death notices and thus WP:SPS making them unusable.

• So that an interested reader can take a look and see if there is anything of interest in them. This is in line with WP:WHYCITE, which states that one reason for providing citations it that You also help users find additional information on the subject. These are not being used to establish notability (after all, they're about the husband, not Blank), so neutrality isn't an issue. Also, they're not being used as a source of information beyond the fact that they were printed (with the exception that one of them is used to help substantiate a single sentence), so WP:OBITUARIES isn't implicated. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Why do we care if they were printed? Anybody can call up a paper, ask for the obit desk, dictate the text they want printed, and pay the listing fee. There's no editorial oversight. No fact checking. It's just how many words times whatever they charge per word and off you go. Except these days, I would imagine it's all handled on the paper's website. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, so an interested reader can go find out more information about him, even if the information isn't included in the Wikipedia article. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you are fundamentally not understanding what a reliable source is. Paid death announcements are not reliable sources. They are paid advertisements. They can say anything the person placing the ad wants them to say. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, Each ... source needs to be credible for supporting the particular claim(s) it supports. In the article here, for which claims that the obituaries support are you suggesting the obituaries are unreliable? --Usernameunique (talk) Usernameunique (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but these are unacceptable as sources. As WP:OBITUARIES says "Paid obituaries, or those that are released by private individuals, are self-published sources about third parties, and should generally not be used at all." I'm particularly perplexed why you feel the need to cite five different versions of what are essentially the same item in five different papers. And on top of that, all this to be able to provide employment details about Blank's husband. This level of detail would be inappropriate for the subject herself. For the subject's spouse, it's absurd. RoySmith (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The obituaries are not used to provide employment details. The only details they substantiate are (a) the date of Moyer's death, and (b) the fact that the obituaries were published. Per this discussion, paid obituaries are permissible sources for simple statements of fact, such as date of death—which they are used for here. Indeed, that discussion recommends updating the essay WP:OBITUARIES to reflect such guidance, although no one appears to have taken on the mantle of doing so. The policy WP:ABOUTSELF is also relevant, because (although paid obituaries are generally written by family members, not the person who died) it envisions using sources by interested parties for basic statements of fact. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that I've taken on the mantle of discussing paid obituaries at WP:OBITUARIES. There's now a section that incorporates this and previous discussions. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Ancestry.com is not a WP:RS. See WP:ANCESTRY

• As with FamilySearch, the source is a government document for which Ancestry is the host. Per WP:ANCESTRY, Ancestry.com is a genealogy site that hosts a database of primary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable under WP:PRIMARY. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

So it sounds like you're saying that familysearch is not actually the source. It's just the content provider. So, cite the actual source: City of Whatever Marriage Records. And upload a copy of the document to archive.org so people can actually get to it without having to make a familysearch.com account. RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I tried switching to the {{cite document}} template instead of {{cite web}}. Unfortunately, however, that doesn't support a url parameter, which is pretty vital. If you have another idea, I'm happy to take a look. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you. What is this document? Where did it originally come from? Why can't it be cited from there? Maybe manually stuff a copy into archive.org it cite it from there? RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The documents are primary sources that FamilySearch (or Ancestry, or similar) scanned and/or transcribed and posted online. Because the {{cite web}} template is used, FamilySearch/Ancestry show up in the citation, whereas other templates might hide that information. For example, the {{cite census}} template is also used, and though the links are also to the census as hosted on FamilySearch, the name of the cite is not provided in the citation. Placing the images on Archive.org would have the same problem, and introduce several others (e.g., the copyright status of some of the sources is unclear, and some of the records are from entries that are over 100 pages long). It also wouldn't work for entries like this one, which exists only as a transcription of a document, with no image attached.

In any event, WP:FAMILYSEARCH and WP:ANCESTRY are clear that this type of record is the type that is permissible to cite from those databases. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, I'll go along with this for the census records. I looked up the original records at the US Archives site and was surprised (shocked, really) to discover that the archives actually directs people to familysearch (among other places) for these documents. RoySmith (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Other items

• It's not a WP:GACR, but consider using {{inflation}} to convert dollar amounts to current dollars.

• Good idea, done. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

There's just too much here that's marginal. Too many primary sources, too much going off into the weeds on details of her husband's life, too much dependence on a single source (Yellowback Library) which despite the WP:RSN thread I'm still not fully convinced should rank as a WP:RS. I'm going to request a second opinion. Left to my own, I can't quite get to calling this GA, but if somebody else feels they can, they can do so. RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for soliciting a second opinion. In response, I'll note that these are, in fact, marginal issues. The primary sources are used sparingly: They substantiate non-controversial details (full name of husband, dates, etc.) in only four sentences. Four sentences, too, is all that her husband gets—not an exploration into the weeds. And as for YL, there has already been a second (and third!) opinion finding it to be reliable. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The following two articles in academic journals discuss Blank's work:

• Serial Monogamy: Extended Fictions and the Television Revolution Margaret Mackey, Child Lit Educ (2006) 37:149–161 DOI 10.1007/s10583-006-9003-7
• The Emergent Reader’s Working Kit of Stereotypes Margaret Mackey, Children’s Literature in Education (2013) 44:87–103 DOI 10.1007/s10583-012-9184-1

RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Is the point of listing those to suggest that they should be included in the article? I'm aware of them, and they're cited in a draft of an article I have going for a certain yellow-bound periodical. But they're principally about Beverly Gray, not Clair Blank; the biographical details all ultimately derive from the Yellowback articles (even though they're not cited therein). To the extent they provide pertinent information, it belongs in the article on Beverly Gray. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion: the use of primary and marginal sources here is acceptable and within guidelines, as for example that obituaries may be used for basic facts (they're certainly not safe for opinions). The article as a whole covers what it should, is informative, clear, well-written and fully-cited. The review has been admirably thorough and has usefully picked up several errors. I don't see that additional sources are needed, so I'm happy to pass this now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)