Talk:Monarch butterfly

New reference

Please excuse the following reference in its 'raw' and without the correct 'wiki' mark up language that is required to include it in the article. The following reference is from a very reputable organization - Monarch Watch. The map that exists on the webpage: http://monarchwatch.org/tagmig/spmap.htm suggests that some monarchs migrate northwest from Mexico during the spring and actually end up in California. Discussion?

Significance of their bright colours.

I have read, a long time ago, that these butterflies are brightly coloured to warn potential predators that they are not good to eat because they are bitter because they feed on (bitter) milkweed. Also, that there are other butterflies / moths that are actually not bitter (and are good to ear) but mimic the Monarch as a bluff. Is that true? If so, someone better skilled at scientific writing than I should include that somewhere in this article. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:2586:E005:AF6E:B56B (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's the Viceroy Butterfly you're thinking of. However, it's also bitter tasting, so its coloration isn't completely a bluff. JDZeff (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Conflicting etymology for "Monarch butterly"

The article currently cites Fred A. Urquhart's book for etymology, but the book The Monarch Butterfly: International Traveler got a poor review in Journal of the New York Entomological Society. Another etymology was it came from Scudder for a different reason, see Scudder, S. H (January 1874). "English Names for Butterflies". Psyche: A Journal of Entomology. 1 (3): 10. doi:10.1155/1874/98734. ISSN 0033-2615.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) I don't know which is correct, and would welcome learned advice. Happyseeu (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Principles of Biology 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2025 and 9 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gxc25724 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Tajhberry.

— Assignment last updated by ChipmunkDoc (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Use of blogs in Wikipedia

WP:UGC states that personal blogs are not reliable sources. For that reason, I have cited two such blogs instead of one to support my recent edits. As the two blogs are independent of each other, they together constitute a reliable source, even though WP:UGC does not state this. Please comment if you disagree with this.~2025-34025-36 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Two unreliable sources do not equal a reliable source. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The home page for one of the blogs (https://thegardendiaries.blog) shows that its owner has received a number of awards for their work. It therefore appears to be a reliable source. Further, the URL for the other "blog" (https://monarchbutterflygarden.net/) does not identify the website as a "blog". However, the website is self-published, which makes it a primary source. Although not preferred, many statements in Wikipedia articles are supported only by primary sources. ~2025-34025-36 (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Self-published sources, whether blogs or otherwise, are allowed when "published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", per WP:SPS. Can you demonstrate that to be the case here? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The home page for https://monarchbutterflygarden.net/ states in regard to its owner, Tony Gomez: "Why Trust Us? Tony Gomez has been gardening to support monarchs, swallowtails, more butterflies, bees, moths and hummingbirds for more than a decade. All the info posted here is from first-hand experience or harvested from other trusted sources." Mr. Gomez has authored a paperback book entitled Bring Home The Butterflies: Raise More Monarchs, with Less Effort, and at least a 90% Survival Rate (see https://www.amazon.com/Bring-Home-Butterflies-II-Monarchs/dp/1736023500?ref_=ast_author_mpb). Mr. Gomez, therefore, appears to be an "established subject-matter expert". The owner of https://thegardendiaries.blog, Claire Jones, has authored a paperback book entitled The Beekeeper’s Field Guide: Everything you need to know, from honey to the hive, which HarperCollins published (see https://harpercollins.co.uk/collections/books-by-claire-jones-27269). Ms. Jones' designs have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Chesapeake Home, Style Magazine, and Garden Design. A magazine, the American Gardener, has published her articles (see https://thegardendiaries.blog/about/). The Princeton University Press has published a book entitled The Beekeeper's Guide: Building Skills and Knowledge, which Ms. Jones co-authored (see https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691263564/the-beekeepers-guide?srsltid=AfmBOop9wVwx1QPVIFj-hfAjBzDyAZRgFasAlOLP126kzRWG6GT6eDN_).~2025-34025-36 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The Gomez book appears to be self-published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

---

You are on the right track in attempting to establish that the blogs in question pass the test in WP:BLOGS:

"Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Be careful when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources."

The question is whether the above qualify.

Let's start with the obvious: writing and publishing a book doesn't make the author of a self-published blog an established subject-matter expert. If it did every creationist would qualify.

Next, multiple awards and publications about a person's garden/floral designs might make her an established subject-matter expert on garden/floral designs, but they certainly don't make her an established subject-matter expert on whether Mexican sunflower (Tithonia rotundifolia) is especially attractive to adult monarchs, which is what you are trying to user her as a source for.

Please give us another list, this time with examples that meet the requirements founf in WP:BLOGS. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

There's no need to be bothering with a discussion of blogs. T. rotundifolia is one of several flowering plants attractive to adult monarchs, particularly during autumn months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLOGS states: "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. However, WP:BLOGSdoes not state that those are the only self-published sources that may be considered reliable. WP:SOURCEDEF states: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." The authors of both publications that Monarch butterfly cites can be regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject because they are reporting their own observations in regard to Mexican sunflower. Note that the cited references contain the following quotations regarding Mexican sunflower: Mr. Gomez: "Attracts swarms of migrating monarchs". Ms. Jones: "If anyone ever asks me what flower draws the most butterflies to my garden, I don't hesitate to say- Mexican Sunflower." Other examples: K.C. Corcoran: "Another monarch magnet has bloomed amongst my zinnias which they also love to feed on. This is Mexican Sunflower, scientifically known as Tithonia rotundifolia." (https://www.facebook.com/groups/monarch.education.milkweed.ecosystems/posts/1784542695496107/). Kaye Kittrell: "Grow Mexican Sunflowers and attract Monarchs to your garden. Monarch Butterflies are so friendly once they know your garden is a welcome waystation for them. This male landed on the flower I was holding while taking a picture." (https://www.latebloomershow.com/2015/01/21/grow-mexican-sunflowers-attract-monarchs/). "The blooms of Mexican sunflowers range from red and orange to yellow, with fuzzy stalks that branch out in a big, gangly bunch. ..... That makes them a nectar buffet for swallowtails, monarchs and other butterflies,” says Keri Wilson, a horticulturist with Garden Media Group." (https://www.birdsandblooms.com/gardening/flower-gardening/mexican-sunflower/). When so many people (including a horticulturist) have published the same observations, it is clear that the statement in Monarch butterfly ("Publications have reported that Mexican sunflower (Tithonia rotundifolia) is especially attractive to adult monarchs") is well-founded and correct, regardless of whether or not their work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.~2025-34025-36 (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone reporting their own observations in an SPS is absolutely not acceptable for statements of fact on WP. It doesn't matter whatsoever that their observation has been replicated in other SPS. WP:SPS explicitly states that self-published sources may be used as third-party sources if they are by established experts, and even then their usage is discouraged; this is a clear prohibition on using any non-expert SPS. JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Being self-published doesn't make a source primary. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works, especially the section #"Self-published" does not mean "primary". Many editors are confused by this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I have added the following reference to the article's listing and discussion of Mexican sunflower (Tithonia rotundifolia): Ajilvsgi, Geyata (June 3, 2013). Butterfly Gardening for Texas. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press. p. 141. This publication meets the criteria that WP:SOURCEDEF sets forth.~2025-34025-36 (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)