Talk:Madison Young

The photo

OK, the photo used in the infobox is a nice artistic photo and maybe usable in another article. But for a basic infobox photo that supposed to convey what somebody looks like, it doesn't work. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even go so far as to say it's artistic. It looks like a video capture of extremely poor quality, and the lighting is certainly far from flattering. Shouldn't biography articles show the person's face? Unfortunately, my wiki experience is not enough to know what can go onto wikimedia commons and what can't. Klopek007 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: is a Facebook post which documents the event first hand by an official witness sufficiently reliable?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is that Facebook is not a reliable source for this information. AlbinoFerret 22:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The source for the reverted change was Annie Sprinkle's Facebook page where she says she was the official witness and posts pictures of the event. I believe this is sufficiently reliable given the photos for use as a reference in a BLP article. Discussion please? Diff here; [1] BenBurch (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Facebook should not be used as a reliable source. Not to say this is the case in this example but who is to say Facebook photos can't be manipulated or edited to make a point? Meatsgains (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that the couple *is* married now, it is inaccurate to imply that they are not married in the article. Do you have any suggestions as to how to document that change? Thanks! BenBurch (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is being implied about their marriage status. Wikipedia is not a news outlet; and until the couple announces their marriage status to press or on both of their respective outlets, we respect their privacy and don't acknowledge their status. A sense of truth completion is not reason to ignore policy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Let's hold off until the marriage is documented in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Who cares where she might be living now, and that Facebook posting isn't the best source IMO. Guy1890 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Summoned by bot. What "event"? This RfC is poorly drafted. I can say that as a general proposition Facebook posts fall under the category of self-published sources. Without seeing the post I cannot really say anything more. Coretheapple (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• It appears they are referring to this facebook link. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ditto Coretheapple. What are we talking about? If it's something like a celeb, using a verified account, announcing the birth of a baby, it should be OK. But generally those are rereported by RS anyway. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) -- Per WP:NOYT since Facebook has not designated these pages as official they should not be considered reliable sources. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• The bot sent me. I've got to agree with Meatsgains and the others. My view is that Facebook would be a primary source, and as WP MOS says RS is to use secondary sources, that rules it out straight away. And not that it applies here, but photos on Facebook can be manipulated, etc., so even photos would not be reliable in my view. I'd sooner take on the Daily Mail as a RS rather than Facebook. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• (Bot) What event? Is it notable? What is the question? Why am I here? If this is about RS, it belongs on RSN, not in an RfC. Atsme^📞📧 01:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.