Talk:Prince Albert v Strange

Link to images

I've added an external link that seems to have most if not all of the relevant images, to address the concern that the previous link had fewer of them. I've also again removed a citation to an unreliable source - it having some of the images as well doesn't make it an appropriate citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jheald: (a) The condition of certain copies versus others does not seem particularly significant, and certainly doesn't warrant removal of the link to the broader collection. (b) Showing the condition of certain copies is not the purpose of a citation for a different claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The DM is not blanket banned from this site. That is not what the policy on the DM says. The DM should be treated with care, because it can be unreliable. But given the other references we have in this article, there is nothing in that DM reference that might confuse or mislead our readers. It is an appropriate reference in the context of the auction of the Theordore Martin copies of the pictures, to let the reader explore further about the state of those copies, amongst other things. That is something additional to what the other references provide, so is appropriate to include. There is no good purpose that removing this reference would serve. Jheald (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The statement that it is actually referencing is not about the state of those copies - the conclusion of the RfC was that it should generally not be used as a reference where other more reliable sources exist, as they do for this particular statement. Further, there is nothing to indicate that the state of those copies is significant; if there were, the link might be included as an external link, but presently no reason has been provided that would require including a link to those particular images instead of the broader collection provided by the RCT. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The value in a reference is not just to verify words in the article. From WP:WHYCITE: "You also help users find additional information on the subject". That information can be visual as well as written.

We have a multitude of readers, who may be interested in all sorts of different things. Some may be interested in the different extant copies of the etchings (which is why we have a section on that), and the condition of the different copies of them. Providing this link adds some information, beyond what any of the others contribute. Yes, we should be quite cautious about using the DM to support factual assertions. But given the other references we provide, there is nothing in this link that might lead our readers astray. There is no good purpose that removing it would serve. Jheald (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

We typically place links that are intended to provide visual information, as opposed to supporting factual assertions, in an External links section - as I did for example with the RCT link that you removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

We can do either. This link specifically relates to the Theodore Martin copies of the etchings. It makes sense to associate it directly with that point in the article. And indeed the information about the extant copies is only a small part of an article that is primarily about a legal case. Jheald (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That last point is a good rationale to not include the link at all, as the specifics around the state of these copies are tangential to the article at best. But if we are going to include the link at all, it makes most sense to put it in the EL section, and restore the RCT link there as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

By and large floating external links should be avoided, when they can be related to specific sections or points in the article. And per WP:ELDUP they should not duplicate appearances attached as references to such sections.

I do not understand what you are trying to achieve here. The rationale of the DM policy is to avoid linking to information that may be unreliable or mislead our readers. That is not an issue here. The DM material on the Theodore Martin auction is much more extensive that eg the BBC article. Why do you think it is so important to try to suppress any link to it? Jheald (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out a way to address both of our concerns: yours that it is important that readers be able to see the state of these copies for whatever reason, and mine that we should not be using less reliable sources to support factual statements that are adequately supportable by more reliable ones. Having an external links section that includes links to both image sets (including the DM one as well as the RCT one that you removed) seems the best way to do that. It would also have the advantage of making it more clear to any readers who may actually be interested in looking at these images that that is where they might be found. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, I still don't understand. What is your problem with leaving things as they are? What precisely is the harm you think this DM citation is doing? (BTW, the RCT link is already given in context, in its appropriate place, as a footnote). Jheald (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The current situation presents the link as serving the more typical expected purpose of a citation: to support the factual assertion next to which it is placed. Your proposed use-case for the link - some reader may be interested in the conditions of the various copies - is best served by having links to the different copies side by side and annotated in an External links section to make it explicit to a reader that this is where these images can be found. What precisely is the harm you think would arise from this change? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't like big external links sections. They look cluttered and like a link farm. I much prefer precise footnotes attaching them to the specific points in the article that they relate to.

And per WP:WHYCITE quoted above, I don't accept the assertion that the typical expected purpose of a citation is just to support the factual assertion next to which it is placed. A good citation should be connecting the article to wider and more detailed context and further information about the point being footnoted -- as this one does.

That's why this is definitely my preferred solution in this case, and I don't see any harm from it. If you'd like eg "(includes extensive images of the Theodore Martin copies)" added to the footnote, to clarify its usefulness, I could go with that. Jheald (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree with your interpretation of WHYCITE - it's not intended to be so broad, indeed is not in usual practice, and it seems clear to me that your intended use of the link is better suited to an external links section. I remain against presenting this link as a citation given the RfC results. I also do not agree that three external links (or even two - I'm fine with removing the one currently there) would be "big" by any means; the only link farm concern would arise from the tangential nature of the link, but that is not mitigated by having it inline - it weighs towards removing the link entirely. I am going to seek a third opinion on this matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jheald and Nikkimaria: A third opinion has been asked. I can help with that. Let me start by asking: if these images are PD, why not upload them to Commons? Then either display them (the most representative ones) in the article or link to a Commons gallery or category in the External links section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea that I hadn't thought of! We could then remove the links and just have a Commons cat in the EL section, and have more sample images in the article to boot. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Re [1] Thanks for the good faith, I hadn't noticed this discussion. This is an odd case, the category is about the etchings, while the article focuses on the law suit. It would be good to sync them somehow: either by reworking this article so it focuses on the etchings and the law suit is a section, or to expand Commons so that there is a category about the lawsuit. For the latter, the obvious question is whether any media are available about the lawsuit specifically - the catalog in question no longer exists, but are there PDFs of the lawsuit records that could be uploaded to Commons? There are also some tangentially related files, such as File:Right to Privacy.djvu that talks about this case. Also pinging @Jheald and Finnusertop:. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't object to either proposal, but I don't think either is strictly necessary - the category as it currently exists provides images of potential interest to readers of the article as it currently exists. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I set up commons:Category:Prince Albert v Strange. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)