#(thus the rage-quitting until Days of Our Lives gets here lmfao)

[rushingheadlong]

Okay. So I fell down a rabbit hole of searching for “perfect” citations for another post about Brian and now I’m wondering where exactly we do, or should, draw the line with sourcing Queen stories and facts.

Personally I’m always torn between wanting to make my posts as accurate as I can get them, and recognizing that I’m still a pretty new fan and there’s a lot that I don’t know yet and a lot of sources out there that I haven’t found or had time to review.

One thing I think about is the “Roger locking himself in the cupboard” story, which resulted in a split between people who think Roger locked himself in a tiny kitchen cupboard and people who think the whole thing is fake... and then someone went out and found the original source for the story, and realized that it was about a storage closet (most likely where they kept the master copies of their tapes) and everything made more sense.

If I’m writing a post about Brian’s health problems in 1974, how far do I go to source specific claims that get made? The “Brian almost had his arm amputated” story seems to originate on queenlive.ca, which doesn’t provide any additional information about where that “fact” comes from. Mick Rock describes Brian’s arm as “gangrenous” in his book but doesn’t mention amputation. Is it enough for me to use the limited information I’ve found to declare the story a fake, or at least profoundly unlikely, or do I have an obligation to keep looking for more or better sources?

BrianMay.com doesn’t seem to have it either - but how long do I have to spend searching every corner of his site, before I can comfortably say that the story isn’t told there either?

For that matter, Mick Rock says that Brian collapsed on May 12th but other sources confirm it was May 11th - do I have an obligation to point out this discrepancy, as a warning that other dates he gives may not be 100% accurate? Or is it enough to give Mick Rock as a source and let people draw their own conclusions about the accuracy of his information?

If Brian May says the doctors told him to “go home” after being diagnosed with hepatitis and another article says that he flew back to London against the doctor’s recommendation, it would seem clear that the article is mistaken. But Brian frequently misremembers dates and is obviously not giving a direct quote from the doctor anyway, so should I mention both and let readers draw their own conclusions?

Hell, if I remember hearing Brian tell a story in an interview I listened to 8 months ago that was probably a decade old to begin with, can I retell the story if I can no longer find the exact interview to source it? Can I tell the story with the caveat that the source can’t be found? Am I obligated to omit it entirely to avoid false information being spread, even if I’m providing the information and being explicit about no longer having the source?

I mean, these aren’t questions that I’m actually looking for answers for... mostly because I don’t think there are answers. At least, not one-size-fits-all answers that will work in every scenario imaginable. I think as long as we’re all doing our best, and presenting information in good faith (and with whatever citations we have whenever possible, or at least admitting when we don’t have citations)... I think that’s most we can realistically hope for.

But it is frustrating, at least for me, that there is probably never going to be a situation in which citations and sourcing is perfect. When every story can be traced back to reputable sources, to people who were definitely there at the time, who we can trust aren’t making things up, instead of reaching dead end after dead end of books written by outsiders or websites run by fans with no citations provided anywhere in sight.

It’s just frustrating to spend hours trying to write a post to make sure it’s as accurate as possible, and your accuracy is always going to be questionable at best because there’s nothing “definitive” to be found anywhere.