Talk:Franko B

Hi i do not know much about how this works, but there is an article about Franco B on Poliwh Wikipedia which is not linked to this one: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franko_B I do not know how to link them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.19.202 (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reversion policy
Don't mean to bellyache, but a recent edit I made of this page has been reverted, and I'd like to know why.

My edit was: Franko B has mandibular prognathism.

Now, there is no doubt as to the factual veracity of this assertion. Google a picture of the artist and take a look at it: he does unmistakeably have mandibular prognathism. And a glance at the page dealing with that condition will show that it can often be regarded as a "disorder [...] if it affects mastication, speech or social function as a byproduct of severely affected aesthetics of the face", despite often simply being "due to normal variation among phenotypes"; and my edit reflected the condition merely as a tolerable variation among human facial norms by highlighting its incidence in a (reasonably) well-known individual. So why was the edit reversed? Nuttyskin (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted that edit because you did not provide a reliable source for the assertion that he has mandibular prognathism. That you have looked at a picture of him and made that assessment yourself is of course your right, but carries no weight here; even if you are the world's leading expert on the condition, without a reliable third-party source your diagnosis is just a personal opinion, and not admissible here as it is considered original research. The crucial point is that even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Please feel free to add the content back to the article as and when it is supported by reliable sources. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, a photograph bears factual witness as a text in itself; prosecutions in criminal law have been pursued so far as actual conviction, merely on the strength of a photographic image. So why is photography not in itself admissable as textual evidence?
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)