Talk:Caitlin McHugh

Notice of intent to remove WP:reFill template
For some reason, Meatsgains flagged this article with a template stating "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." This is both unhelpful and in error. "Unhelpful" because it does not say which source is claimed to lack citation, or is poorly sourced. Every assertion made has a reference to a source, and those sources are reliable for the kind of information included, such as IMDb for past appearances in films and television. And of course the article contains nothing "contentious...potentially libelous or harmful". So if no one can point out specifically what is needed, I'm going to remove the template. WP editors are not expected to have psychic powers with which to be able to divine what others think is needed, but they are expected to exercise good faith. In the future, it's always a good idea to take issues to the talk page before plopping a template on a page and expecting others to somehow do their bidding.Bricology (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not unhelpful nor is it in error. This page uses IMDb, Linkedin, Cosmopolitan, and People magazine - all of which are poor sources. I suggest you read through WP:RS. Do not remove the tag, provide additional reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability. Meatsgains (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Meatsgains: show me where in WP:RS it states that national magazines such as People or Cosmopolitan are "poor sources" when it comes to describing public figures. Both are in the top ten in readership of newsstand titles in the US, and are published by two of the largest international publishers in the world. At WP:SOURCES it says "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context...Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks / Books published by respected publishing houses / Magazines". WP:PUS states "In general, tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail (see also the February 2017 RFC discussing its validity), equivalent television shows, should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims. The Daily Express and Sunday Express should be treated with even greater caution."  People and Cosmopolitan are nowhere near "tabloid", nor are the claims they make about Ms. McHugh in any way "sensational". So your objection to using Cosmopolitan and People as sources is noted, but unsupported and unpersuasive. Bricology (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like the Cosmopolitan reference was removed. People Magazine may not be considered poor, but its a certainly a tabloid  and must be used with caution. Because it supports uncontroversial content, I have no problem with keeping it. Now, let's discuss the other two "poor sources" that I noted - IMDb and Linkedin. IMDb pages are written by IMDB registered users and Linkedin is of course self-published. I maintain that the BLP sources tag remains on the page until additional reliable sources can be provided.  Meatsgains (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. There is no difference between "tabloid" and"serious" outlets anymore, as the shitty, stupid, woke, and fucked-up writers are the same (woke shit heads);
 * 2. The pussy here is noticeable only bcause she had been fucked, and birth giving by Stamos -- delete this shitty "artice".
 * 2001:16B8:C732:900:643D:D841:501:285C (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)