Talk:Death of Elisa Lam

Tumblr page

I think the part about her Tumblr page in "Unresolved Issues" should be removed or amended because anyone who is basically familiar with Tumblr can tell you that Tumblr has a queuing and scheduling function. It's most likely just automatic posting she set up before her death, no mysterious person leaving creepy messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.164.228 (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the posts I suspect that's what's happened as well. However, someone from Tumblr or Yahoo would have to confirm that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Needs an update?

There is scope for the main article to be updated. According to https://tieryas.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/elisa-lam-updates/ the toxicology tests etc. are now in. Also, as can be seen from the accompanying video here, access to the roof and onto the water tanks via the building next to them, is relatively easy. This is not made clear in the article.

First, the copy of the autopsy report I used as a source had the toxicology report at the end. Second, I would very much like to have some good way of saying how accessible the roof is, but I have not found a reliable source I can cite for that. The blog you linked to does not appear to be one we can cite as a source. Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few ideas regarding the issue of making the accessibility of the tanks more clear.

1. You could add a photo (of which there are dozens made at the time of the investigation) of the location of the tanks, which clearly shows that they are on a lower level compared to a flat roof of the two-storey structure right next to the tank she was found in.

2. Further, you could look around and present a photo (google maps has it) of that structure from the side opposite to tanks - where there is a CLEARLY VISIBLE WALL MOUNTED BRIGHT RED LADDER LEADING TO THE ROOF, WHICH IS ABOVE THE TANK SHE WAS FOUND IN. Not the stairs - THE LADDER.

3. You can point out to what I just did - no source issues, just describe what is shown in the photo.

I have seen the photos you're talking about, and I would love to have one like them. But I should clarify that such a picture needs to be freely licensed per Wikipedia policy. I can't just go and grab any picture off the Internet, in other words, unless it meets that requirement (if you find one, let me know). I can't grab one from Google Maps. If someone goes to the roof of a neighboring building (or even sneaks on to the Cecil's roof, as has been reportedly very easy to do, or at least was before this all happened) takes a picture and uploads it to Commons as cc-by, cc-by-sa or some other license that meets the requirements, then we can use it.

Also, if the Lam family's suit against the hotel ever comes to trial (I have not been able to determine what its status is), we may have a lot more reliably in the record on the extent to which the Cecil did or didn't actually secure the roof to the extent that they claimed they did. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can keep on fostering conspiracy theories and mysteeeeeriooouuuus circumstances the way you already do. It's up to you Daniel Case. --109.163.140.186 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith and back off with the personal attacks. I didn't write this to foster conspiracy theories; I wrote it because I thought there should be one place where all the facts that have been reliably reported so far can be presented without any speculation taken as fact. It should be clear from what I said above that I don't buy the idea that the roof of the Cecil was some fortress of inaccessibility as was claimed by some people at the time; I think it's quite likely she could have gotten up there and gotten into the tank (The real mystery, I think, is why she didn't get out). Can we keep this civil, please? Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well said Daniel Case! Empty vessels and all that ;)

Mary Jane Barker

• The Lam Case is fascinating and I envy the quality of this article for a subset of wiki I have not yet penetrated. Would anyone interested in these matters be so kind as to find the time to help along the Mary Jane Barker article? Thanks. Cake (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I unfortunately will be going on vacation for most of the next month or so so I won't be able to do much (but even so, a cursory search reveals there's not much out there that you didn't already find (at least online). I'm surprised Weird NJ hasn't run something on this—it's right up their alley. Or maybe they have, and I just haven't read the issue in which they did).

However, I did add that one to list of unsolved deaths along with a see-also section in the article, and I will add the Barker article to "see also" here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

after watching the Netflix documentary and reading several posts , I've notice a topic that was not even slightly discussed anywhere which is " How long did she survive after she entered the water tank ? I've read a person can tread water for up to hours . But ive also read a pwrson is capable of floating on their back long enough to starve before they would drown. im wondering if there is any chance she was still alive when the police allegedly searched the roof the first time ? 107.77.201.189 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Believe me, if I had found something on this, it would have been included. The autopsy report doesn't really go into this (I guess, from their perspective, does it matter?) Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Please omit the tittle-tattle

'The video went viral on the Internet, with many viewers reporting that they found it unsettling. ...one viewer has argued that the video itself has been tampered with.'

They are a credible source??? Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite know what you're referring to. The reactions of the viewers? People are always a reliable source for their own emotional reactions. As far as the latter, the blogger in question has posted his evidence in some detail on that page ... I believe viewers can be trusted to evaluate it for themselves. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Then why not helpfully include that detail in the article? They currently seem no more than an anonymous layperson, without merit for encyclopedic inclusion.

Btw, which male blogger are you referring to? The only citation is a piece by a female journalist named 'Marelise van der Merwe'. Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think she has a link in her piece (which was published by a major South African newspaper, so I consider it reliable, and if reliable sources rely on a source we might otherwise consider unreliable then I have always thought that we can report it secondhand) to the blogger who has explained why he believes the video was tampered with, with his evidence right there on the page. I have neither the time nor the computing resources at hand to easily find the link, and after today I won't be near an Internet connection for almost two weeks. But it can be found easily enough. If you're willing to wait until then, I'll put it in. Or if you find the link and feel comfortable about it yourself, go ahead. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

At the cited article's end, there's a link to a follow-up article, which contains this:

' As murky as armchair detecting can become, there is one area in which more than one amateur has raised a valid point: the elevator video footage of Lam, which was originally released fairly early on, appears to have been edited.

Independently, several different observers have noted that approximately 54 – 55 seconds of footage appear to be missing, and the time stamp appears to be blurred out, with the footage slowed down. Why? '

Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what I meant. I'm waiting on a flight to a wilderness location, so I can't continue this discussion for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Video explained

I think it is nearly beyond doubt that she was just trying to avoid elevator sensor, as the elevator doors weren't closing, it makes perfect sense and is most simple and clear cut explanation. Could someone find a credible quote about this highly likely explanation for the strange elevator footage - or could it be included without citation in this case - I've mostly seen these in youtube comments and such, with many people agreeing, but these are probably not eligible for citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.137.41 (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This article may help: http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-06-17-elisa-lam-the-mystery-you-should-care-about/#.VauyTyhwbMJ

'“I fear I would look exactly like this if there were cameras in the lifts at Tygerberg [Hospital] when they are on the fritz,” is the pithy verdict of psychiatry registrar Dr Kathleen Mawson. “She certainly isn't psychometrically agitated or posturing or anything else suggestive. She's rather well-kempt.”' Beingsshepherd (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've heard that theory too, but I think there's a good reason there's not been any reporting about it in a credible source: without someone knowing exactly how this specific sensor works, it's just uninformed speculation of the sort that predominates on, well, Internet comment threads.

And really, it doesn't make sense: if you're trying to avoid the elevator sensor, why go right through the doors? And then back again? That might make sense for the beginning of the video, but not when you look at the whole thing.

As for that source, I already used that one. I don't see how the quotation in question supports the sensor theory, since it doesn't even mention it (and, returning to my original point, I submit that a psychiatrist is not the most qualified person to speak about how an elevator sensor works, in any event). Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh you're back! And in wind-up mode. Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so much back yet as on a different phase of my vacation ... not in the Canadian Arctic anymore, rather down in Mexico City sightseeing for a couple of days post-Wikimania. Come Thursday, I'll be home again.

While it should be noted that your comment was generally unconstructive, I suppose I should thank you for spurring me to look up what exactly you meant by "wind-up mode". We have no entry in Wiktionary for it, nor does any other online dictionary I can find; from the scattered uses I could find elsewhere online it seems to mean either "easily angered, touchy" or "actively trying to provoke others" (it also seems to be British English from those uses; I don't think I've ever heard or read it much, if at all, on this continent). Which of those two did you mean? (And when I create the Wiktionary entry, I'll be sure to thank you for the inspiration on the talk page . Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to aid the indigent author of this section, with a few tidbits of support from an acceptable source and myself.

That the authority of my named professional should be held to a higher standard than the anonymous spectator that you had advocated, from the same article, in our last discourse, was clearly intended as a p*ss take. Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Indigent"? Did you perhaps mean "indignant" and not catch AutoCorrect thinking it knows better? Because I'm not that badly off.

I still don't see what point you are trying to make. When I get the chance I will add a link to the blog post, which shows its work, alleging the tampering, to the footnote in question. And I don't understand how you see that psychiatrist's quote as having anything to do with the elevator-sensor theory. All she says is ... Oh, now I see your point ... She's suggesting, too, that the footage looks sped up.

I was reading it in the context of the IP's post above yours. Perhaps you should have put it in the section above where it would have been easier to understand what you were referring to. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is NOTAFORUM. This discussion page is only for request to changes in the article. While the OP was discussing a change, the conversation has devolved into speculation and discussion. There are other places to do that. This is not one of them. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"This conversation has devolved into speculation and discussion." Well, aren't conversations discussion? And frankly this is still about what level of sourcing this allegation of video tampering should have. Where do you get this idea? Do you even read the things you respond to before you drive on by? Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Case, I chose that word with some care, and deem the defective lift and possibly overly-detective sensor theories, to be, well suited. Beingsshepherd (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

So that IP above was you? Please try to use your account (I know sometimes it's possible to think you're logged in when you're not) at all possible times so we avoid this confusion. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I've signed 100% of my Wikipedia comments. Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, then, would you at least consider posting your responses under the comments you're responding to rather than at the bottom of the page? And while we're at it, would you consider not being passive-aggressive about my outdenting, because without it comments become harder to read? If you want me to just refactor your comments approopriately, I'll do that. But continuing to comment and discuss this way starts to come across after a while as, well, "does not play well with others" at best and disruptive at worst. Daniel Case (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Video section

Hi. I just came across this incident and thought I would look up what we said about it. I found the video description overly detailed. So much so that it was hard to follow what actually happened. For example the sentence Suddenly she steps out into the hall, then to her side, back in, looking to the side, then back out. What does looking to the side mean? Or then to her side?

This is because we don't yet have a copy we can put on the page. If we did, I wouldn't have felt the need to try to describe it the way some really militant supporters of our restrictions on fair-use third-party content believe we should be able to do to such an extent that it would eliminate the need to use any such content. I think the use of the video, or at least the most interesting 30 seconds (or a edited section) on the page would certainly be justified under those criteria. If we got one we wouldn't have to write that out. So, if you know where we could get a copy in WebM or .ogv format, or one that could be converted to either of those, let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we need to know what she was wearing or that she waves her hands out to her sides with palms flat and fingers outstretched.

See above for why (for now). Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the cited source. I assume it is the actual video, but it say "detectives".

That's short for the title of the video as it was originally posted by the LAPD (see note 29). They took their version down last spring—obviously, since she had long been found and copies were all over YouTube there was no need for them to keep it up. Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This does not seem like a reliable source either.

That's the source used by that South African newspaper columnist (which means since she reported on it we can include the theory in the article). I had misunderstood Beingsshepherd's posts above because of his tendency to post at the bottom of the page no matter what s/he was actually responding to, and I had thought the request was to cite it more directly. So I did (I was also far away from home and very distracted at the time, too). It probably should make clear that it is "as cited by ...". Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I also do not think it is good form to republish a random viewers quote. The '"I'm so scared, I'm shaking. I'm numb," said one reads more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia article.

It was quoted in one of the reliable sources. I like using quotes from people ... it's better than just saying "people found it scary." Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The theories need some attribution. Anybody can come up with a wacky theory, so we need to know their qualifications so we can adjudge their worth.

My understanding is that if the alternative theories are discussed by reliable sources, those theories can be mentioned in the article. I suppose we should say which reliable source reported those theories' existence, though. Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I added one "who" template, but there are many more that could be added.

Well, for now I qualified it down to the one. But you're right, the article isn't perfect (Although I am sort of glad that the guy who started this Reddit thread endorsing the idea that this was all an accident seems to imply this article is a bit more fact-based than some other reportage out there). Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if it comes across as harsh, but it stands out as I found the rest of the article to be in good condition. Looking at the talk page it appears someone has put quite a lot of work into it so I didn't want to just dive in and trim it out without leaving a comment. AIRcorn (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I do appreciate when people notice (see above). Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not used to this fragmented style of response so I will put my reply down here. You have also edited my post in the process, which is usually frowned upon. However, I am partly to blame for highlighting so many issues in one post. I will just focus on the video for the rest of this section. I understand that you are describing the video in detail because you can't post it, but the detail sometimes obscures the actual big picture. As I was reading it I found it hard to follow what was actually happening due to the extra, and in my opinion mostly irrelevant, noise. It would be better to describe it using a secondary source instead of the primary one. That way the secondary source tells us what the most notable actions in the video are. I can't help on the copyright issue sorry as that is not an area I am overly familiar with. If someone wants to watch the full thing they can always click the link so a description as detailed as this is unnecessary in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Sorry about the reformatting; it was late and I was unsure if I would be able to get back to you promptly. In retrospect I do think it could be trimmed down; since her actions in the video are the subject of so much debate I felt when I wrote it it was better to be more rather than less descriptive as the former could more easily be edited down depending on how things went.

Per your comments I will trim it down, but not right away as I have some other things on my agenda. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No rush and no worries. AIRcorn (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have finally found a copy of the video, converted it to .webm, and put it in the article. The fact that the Netflix doc about the case premieres tomorrow (well, later today at this point) has of course nothing to do with this; it's a complete coincidence. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Article Deletion

Why is this even an article? People accidentally die all the time every hour of every day in every country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.16.31 (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it was and has been the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Death of Elisa Lam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141029231120/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq4LmWiDiC0 to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq4LmWiDiC0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Dark Water

I changed the "plot elements from the 2005 horror film Dark Water" to "plot elements from the 2002 horror film Dark Water", since the 2005 version is a remake of the 2002 film. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 13:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Then you also need to find a different reference, since the one there only mentions the 2005 version. Ribbet32 (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd reckon it to be common sense. But here are some links - 1; 2. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 12:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the reliability of those sources yet, but honestly, we only need to use a reference when we mention the 2005 version, then separately cite the 2005 version being a remake of the 2002 version, for which there are probably plenty of sources in the articles about either one. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Here's an article to the review of the 2005 movie from Roger Ebert's official site stating it's a remake. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 11:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Rectal Prolapse

Very vague, which type and to what extent was in the autopsy report?A12bc34be5 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to check the source. All it says is "rectal prolapse" and for some reason, it only says that in the summary of the narrative, not the narrative itself. I'm not in any sort of position to judge the quality of autopsy reports, but I can't help but say that it seems to me that this one leaves something to be desired. Among them would be stating in the full narrative that the rectum was prolapsed ... it would have avoided a lot of needless theorizing about her being sexually assaulted premortem. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

False claims in article

"others asked if she could have gotten into the tank by herself. All four tanks are 4-by-8-foot (1.2 by 2.4 m) cylinders propped up on concrete blocks;[47] there is no fixed access to them "

ignorant people not knowing is such a valuable insight! so what? Easily accessed from the railing!

"They are protected by heavy lids that would be difficult to replace from within" So what? they have hatches that are easy to replace!--A12bc34be5 (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

First, those aren't exactly false claims, as they are merely statements of what people said, something they undeniably did. I think you mean that they are actually questions with easy answers. But seconfly, Those are what the sources cited asked about the case. The conclusions readers draw, or don't, are up to them. As it happens, I agree it may have been easier than people think to get into the tanks, but we need a reliable source making the points you've made. If you can find one, please put a link here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Elisa Lam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151026145142/http://laist.com/2015/10/01/elisa_lam_wrongful_death_suit.php to http://laist.com/2015/10/01/elisa_lam_wrongful_death_suit.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210223114/http://twitchfilm.com/2014/07/review-hungry-ghost-ritual-has-no-appetite-for-horror.html to http://twitchfilm.com/2014/07/review-hungry-ghost-ritual-has-no-appetite-for-horror.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Elisa Lam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) 06:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Preliminary read-through complete.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Because this is my first-ever GA Review, I am taking it one item at a time. I have just reread the article, and found no problems with the writing style and MOS compliance. I judge requirement A1 as satisfied.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Ran dab tool; found no disambiguation needed.

Checked all cites in lede. No dead links. All sources seem reliable. However, two identical cites follow one another in the third paragraph; one could be deleted as excess.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: I fixed that problem.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Duly noted.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Clicked all links in lede, and checked they are appropriately connected to relevant articles.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Clicked through Background section. I found the following problems/anomalies:

Cite 10 leads to a blanked page; thus it does not prove her travel schedule.

@Georgejdorner: I fixed that problem.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Cite 18 is a one-way cite; you can get to the source, but, most peculiarly, cannot click back to article.

@Georgejdorner: I checked the link; it worked fine for me.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I think I shall write that anomaly off as an artifact of using an iMac.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Cite 23 does not prove when Eliza began her blog. As it is a double for Cite 22, its deletion would not hurt anything.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: I fixed that problem.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Noted.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Checked all cites and links in Disappearance section. Only discrepancy is a single set of quote marks for "probable cause".Georgejdorner (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Checked all cites and links in Elevator video subsection. External video link goes to a 3 minute 59 second video instead of the 2.5 minutes referred to in article. I was unable to determine if the video descriptions given in the article's text for the shorter video still apply for the longer one. This needs clarification. Otherwise, no other problems noted.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I took mention of the run time out. Originally that xlink template linked to the version the LAPD had posted; when they took it down in early 2016 or so I had to choose from among the many other versions available. Ideally we'd have it inline in the article under fair use; which would eliminate the need for the lengthy description as well. But ... in the absence of that I will review the linked video. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I should think that solves the problem, Daniel.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Checked all cites and links in Discovery of body section. Cite 37 is problematic in a number of ways. No reader should be expected to wade through 10 pages of medical terminology ferreting out facts; the multi-refs should be broken out page by page. For instance, the first occurrence of cite 37 refers solely to page 3 of the autopsy report to verify her clothing. However, I did not find verification of her room key and watch in those 10 pages. I did find it elsewhere, linked via Cite 18. To top it all off, Cite 37 is a one-way click, with no return to WP.

Cite 38 also goes directly to the autopsy's list of clothing. Cites 39 and 40 checked out okay. Cites 38, 39, and 40 linked both ways with no difficulty.

I am truly baffled here. Sometimes a Cite link will not click back to WP when first tried, but will work upon a later usage. But whatever the actual problem, cites leading to Elisa's autopsy report need to be fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: I'll see what I can do. Since the first 10 pages of the autopsy report are sort of an overview that I may not have been expecting to cite as much as I did, I guess I'll have to break them down to specific pages. As for the first page not returning, I suspect that the site that put it up uses that gimmick of having something that your browser will reload a thousand times a second as soon as you click on it, so as to inflate their eyeball counts for advertisers. I do not know right now what we can do about this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

---

I had never heard of the "eyeball cheat" software before. I can see where it is a problem all in itself. Although I find myself wondering, Who would want to advertise on a morgue's website?

Daniel, I would advise carefully tracing your cites in this Discovery of body section. When I read through them, I found myself realizing that you just may have crossed up your references and mislinked them. I listed one of those confusions above. Also, you may be able to find your desired information in an article instead of the autopsy report.

Looking at Edit history of the article, I see another possible problem that is out of your control. Acebulf made a massive edit to the article. I fear that continuing massive edits may threaten the stability of the article.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Okay, I'm crossing my fingers against drive-through edits. And I do not know what you can do about 'eyeball cheat' software, but I take it on good faith you will do what you can. So, on to the Unresolved issues section.

Speaking of extensions of good faith, I accept the accuracy of the Chinese language editor/translator on the video linked to Cite # 42. Needless to say, I am admitting I do not speak Chinese.

A tiny nit to pick. Text says "...the ]]rape]] and fingernail kits..." Link is not to ]]rape]], but to ]]rape kit]]. Text then should read "...]]rape kit]] and fingernail kit..."

That's it for Unresolved issues section. And the Litigation section has no problems.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: I fixed that problem. I think Daniel did what he could. Is the article pass-able now?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Fix noted. There is still the In Popular Culture section to be reviewed and corrected. However, I am passing the article down to this point.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Just went through the In Popular Culture section. I noticed one minor item. The city name "Vancouver" is linked down here, but not in the first line of the article. I should think it should also be specified as being in Canada; there is also a Vancouver, Washington.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: I fixed that problem.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

---

I admire the thoroughness with which this article is cited. There are an overabundance of sources referenced. I am glad to certify this as a Good Article. Congratulations!Georgejdorner (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: Thank you! When can I expect it to have the Good Article symbol and be showcased on the "Recently listed good articles" section of the Good Articles page?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, is that what I am expected to do next? Guess I gotta learn how to do it.

And how the heck do you think she got into that tank, anyhow?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: The image you placed below this text goes at the top of the talk page where the "this a a good article nominee" message currently stands. I believe Lam was murdered by a hotel employee or employees and that the infamous elevator footage may have been doctored by hotel staff so that no one was incriminated.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Okay, I placed the tag at the top of the article's Talk page. Should I reset the assessments in the various WikiProject banners?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Community reassessment

Death of Elisa Lam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Other editors have been quick in responding to concerns raised, and there is no consensus that the article includes original research in its current form. The article otherwise fits the six good article criteria and will be kept.StoryKai (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)​

GAs cannot contain OR. Both the reviewed version and the present version include the text One page of the report has a form with boxes to check as to whether the death was accidental, natural, homicide, suicide or undetermined, in large type and a sufficient distance from each other. The "accident" box is dated June 15; however three days later the "undetermined" box was checked instead. This was at some point in the three days before the report's release noted as an error and crossed out and initialed., attributed directly to a scan of the autopsy report itself. The review did not address this, and seems to have completely missed that there was such textbook OR in the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:Tell me when in the article the OR is and I will remove it.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@Hijiri88:OK I fixed the problem you brought up.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

It doesn't matter if you "fixed the problem I brought up"; the article had a really blatant problem that was apparently missed in the review, so we should be assuming that there were a lot of more subtle problems that were missed in the review. A thorough source check is needed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I'm not reverting the edit, but can you do more to explain your complaint than say "textbook OR"? All the now-deleted sentences said was merely descriptive of what the primary source said. I'll grant that the wording needed a little work, but I don't find the verifiable description of what the autopsy report showed to be problematic. I think the cited source may even have discussed that detail. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It is clearly inappropriate to speculate on the reason why "accident" or "undetermined" was filled in unless reliable sources have done so previously, let alone to talk about how far apart they are and how clear the lettering is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: The source cited does indeed say exactly that: "On 15 June the cause of death was ticked as "accidental", but on 18 June the cause of death was ticked as “could not be determined” but was crossed out, and the word "error" was written next to it." That's why I included a link to the autopsy report, so readers could verify that detail with their own eyes.

Second, if we took out "in large type and a sufficient distance from each other" and left the rest in, would you still call it "OR"?

Third, just how does the text speculate on why? The mere juxtaposition of these details might lead readers to speculate, but they do not manipulate them into doing so, properly worded. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of details gleaned from a primary source, even if those details are completely accurate (and that's a big "if"), implies some reason for doing so. The text as it was at review clearly implied that there was some confusion over the cause of death, rather than the much simpler reading that it was simple clumsiness. I have not checked to see if you or someone else has inserted a new citation of a secondary source that actually supports the content, and I don't see why I should have to. The initial review was inadequate, and I decided to leave it to the community to discuss how to address that. This is not an individual reassessment (I have been very careful about that ever since an incident in 2016). Please do not ping me again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: After reading the article and all of the sources used to reference any potentially OR text, I'm satisfied that this article doesn't contain original research. To be clear, I don't believe simple WP:TRANSCRIPTION constitutes OR. Maybe the last sentence in the text quoted by Hiriji88 could be perceived as OR, but the entire quoted text has been removed in any case. I couldn't personally see any other issues/any reason to demote while reading the article. Which all leaves me with the impression that this could've easily been dealt with at the article's talk page. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: The policy you cite does not address the issue of selecting certain material from primary sources and creatively interpreting it; in fact it doesn't apply to the text I quoted at all, since it is not transcription of quoted material (or faithful translation of foreign-language material) but rather original prose interpretation of a primary source -- yes, maybe a lot of it is accurate description of some of what is in that primary source, but that's different from faithful transcription of quoted content. 99% of experienced Wikipedians would demand a reliable secondary source for such content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

But there isn't much difference between the now-removed prose you quoted above and the text Daniel Case quoted from the source. So the intent of transcription could be applied to this. And I don't see any further issues arising in the article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have some sympathy for Hijiri88s view. These death of ..., murder of ..., killing of ... etc articles are a haven for fan theories and speculation. However, I don't think this is that bad compared to some I have run across. Saying that I have actually raised similar concerns at this very article over the use of primary sources. This was over an overly descriptive account of the video using the video itself as a source (see Talk:Death of Elisa Lam#Video section - My original post was split up by Daniels responses so it looks a little messy). This was a couple of years before the article was passed as good. The same issue is still there, a description of the video based on the video itself. It needs secondary sources if for nothing else than to allow us to assign the correct weight in what we describe. I don't know if I would classify it as textbook OR, but it is definitely not best practise.

"These death of ..., murder of ..., killing of ... etc articles are a haven for fan theories and speculation. However, I don't think this is that bad compared to some I have run across." Why thank you ... what articles like this need is someone keeping a regular eye on them, and I've been doing that for the last five years.

. As for the description of that part of the autopsy report, I've been thinking about that that maybe we could just take a screenshot of that part of the page and put it in there; that would speak for itself and end any need to describe it. Such an image wouldn't create any copyright issues, either, as just words and incomplete phrases. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC) (signed belatedly)

The autopsy report is used 16 times as a reference. This is far too much use of this type of primary source in an article like this. Again if it is descriptive and not interpreting the results it is not strictly speaking OR, but it does again provide a weight issue, which is essentially a NPOV concern.

I am suspicious of long in popular culture sections. I looked at one at random - the "How to Get Away with Murder" paragraph - and from the review the only reference to Lam I could find was Is Lila Stangard inspired by Elisa Lam?. I don't know how a stray seven word thought from a reviewer deserves a paragraph and it overplays the source in suggesting that it is actually inspired by Lam.

Was this one recent? I have taken so much out of that section over the years that I can't remember all the additions. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Overall there is enough to suggest this article relies too much on primary sources for information that would better sourced from secondary ones. Primary sources are allowed to be used so they don't all need to be replaced. I am not a fan of Hijiri88's hit and run approach to these reassessments, but there is merit to looking closer at this one. AIRcorn (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: I am not a fan of Hijiri88's hit and run approach to these reassessments Umm ... what? That's a ... pretty bizarre accusation, given my history at GAR. Can you back it up with something? I've almost always been told that I should be less involved with these kinda things, and leave them for the community to decide, the one exception being a disastrous occasion on which I accidentally opened an individual assessment when I meant to open a community one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You tend to drop an article here after identifying one or two problems and then expect other editors to identify the rest. Now in theory that is perfectly reasonable and maybe even one of the purposes of this part of the project. I even do something similar myself to see if any editors are interested in addressing the concerns before I go too far in depth. However in practice you will be lucky to get many other opinions here and in the end it just creates work for someone else or ends up with the other issues not being addressed. So, yeah I am not a fan. I am not a fan of many things so don't take it personally. I don't know who told you to be less involved with reviews, I would say that unless things get heated or unproductive you should stay involved as much as you can. I feel that with your experience you are more than capable of conducting individual reassessments. BTW I see nothing disastrous about the above review. In fact you left some good points, others agreed with you and it was delisted. The beauty of this reassessment is that there are editors interested in it keeping its Good status. That is relatively rare and worth working with. AIRcorn (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Good point (about the description of the video). The prose there struck me as a bit repetitive, but nothing insurmountable. Perhaps it could be tightened up a bit, @MagicatthemovieS: @Daniel Case:? And I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort to find a secondary source describing what she's doing in the video—considering the coverage this... "incident"(?)... attracted? As far as your point about the autopsy report being used 16 times, several of those occasions see that source being used as a secondary reference to information also sourced by other references—so that isn't necessarily a deal breaker. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Part of the reason for the long description is that it has always been my goal to get the video itself in the article ... there are sure enough copies out there, if someone knows where we can get one and upload it I'm all ears (so to, uh, speak). It's entirely justifiable under fair use (although we may have to go with a 30-second clip; perhaps we can edit it down to the most interesting parts). If someone else can upload a good copy, let me know beforehand so I can write the fair-use justification. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: The only videos I've ever seen uploaded to Wikipedia are 100+ year old silent films whose copyright expired long ago. I'm sure hotel security footage is public domain, but I wouldn't even know where to start with any of that. Maybe someone at the Wikipedia:Teahouse might have some advice on how to proceed? Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Take a look at American Beauty, which has one clip from the film nestled next to a section discussing critical interpretation of the film relevant to it, per the fair-use criteria. We also have user-created video, like the one I produced (my son was the cameraman; I edited the separate takes) showing how a French press is used to make coffee. I particularly like the one I found on Commons that has been the lede media on rain ... if you were one of the possible handful on the planet who had grown to adulthood without ever experiencing liquid natural precipitation, that video would explain it.

Under current US law copyright attaches to the video even though it was produced automatically by the hotel's security cameras. No, I don't think the Cecil would sue, but the fair use policy doesn't take the likelihood of a rightsholder suing into account. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: What exactly do you mean by "upload a good copy" of the video? Do you mean quality-wise? Because the video linked to in the article as an 'External video' is the best quality one I've seen. I seriously doubt anyone is going to remaster this, and I doubt we'll ever get a full, unedited version of it. Is the problem that you can't download it off YouTube? Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: If you find a downloadable version, I'll take it. Seriously, I thought you couldn't just download anything you wanted ... the uploader has to give permission? Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Technically, you can't download anything off YouTube, either with or without uploader permission. Technically. ;) Uploading to Wikipedia without permission of the copyright holder – if one exists, which in this case is extremely doubtful – is a separate thing entirely. I'll leave that up to you to decide. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Aircorns comments

I guess I should make a more formal review section.

• I looked at the autopsy reference and am a little concerned. It appears to be scanned and uploaded to PDF archive. There are no indication of who the uploader is, copyright status or even any way to be sure it is legitimate. This is the information page and is not very helpful. I have a similar concern about this one too. I can't access the original site [1] so have no idea on its reliability. It again looks like a scan of some court document without any indication of legitimacy.
• The use of primary sources has been raised as a concern so I looked closer at them
  • Lams blog is used to source the date it started. I would be a bit more comfortable if it actually used Lams name instead of Ether Fields, but another source seems to confirm it is her blog.
  • Her Tumblr is also used as a source to say she was starting a tumblr blog and then describe what was on it. I am not sure how that detail is important. That is why we need secondary sources to mention this stuff as otherwise we are assigning our own weight to information based on our interpretation of primary sources.
  • The video is at least linked to the LA police so is a reliable primary source,even though it is hosted on youtue. The cites below the main one are not up to GA standard though. It should actually link to the video, Detectives means nothing as far as cites go. I brought this up years ago.
    • It drew worldwide interest in the case is not supported
    • The whole description is too convoluted. Take the She walks to it again and stands in the doorway, leaning on the side. Suddenly she steps out into the hall, then to her side, back in, looking to the side, then back out. She then steps sideways again, and for a few seconds she is mostly invisible behind the wall she has her back to just outside. The door remains open. paragraph. You would be much better off using a secondary soure that says she acted strangely than trying to convey that by describing stage prompts. Descriptive enough not to be original research, but very dry. There must be secondary sources describing the video, otherwise why would we include a full section on it

As I've said before, my goal has been to have the video in the article, so there wouldn't be a need to describe it.

A lot of secondary sources simply embedded the video, making it unnecessary for them to describe it, so there's a paucity of that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• • This [2] is not a reliable source

I didn't add that but it is used as a source for the tanks being open and the roof being accessible after her death. Presumably we can trust the datestamp. If we just use specific time references in the video (near the end) to what it is said to support, which is visually self-evident, I don't see how it's a problem. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• • The autopsy report is used as a reference for
    • It took the Los Angeles County Coroner's office four months, after repeated delays, to release the autopsy report, This is in the lead and the four month can be supported by the dates in the body. There is no mention of repeated delays however in the body.
    • I don't see why the autopsy report needs to be used alongside reliable secondary sources (i.e the LA times saying a video has been released) In fact the autopsy report doesn't say anything about a video being released so I am not sure why it is needed here. Also the report makes specific mention of her not appearing distressed. The description and comments, which are from random viewers much less qualified to make calls in this regard, in the article tend to suggest otherwise. Some argued that she was attempting to hide from a pursuer, perhaps someone ultimately responsible for her death, while others said she was merely frustrated with the elevator's apparent malfunction. I would be tempted to tag the "somes" with a {{who}} as it is important to identify armchair detetives from real ones. At the least it needs to make clear at the start of the paragraph that these are armature theories. It reads a bit like some reddit thread on conspiracy theories, which is understandable since a part of the notability of this case is the releasing of the video, something the police only really have themselves to blame. I think we need to be clearer though on this and not give too much weight to the conspiracies over the actual police conclusions.
    • The tank was drained and cut open since its maintenance hatch was too small to accommodate equipment needed to remove Lam's body Not seeing this in the autopsy report cited
    • Toxicology tests – incomplete because not enough of her blood was preserved – showed traces consistent with prescription medication found among her belongings, plus nonprescription drugs such as Sinutab and ibuprofen This is cited to five pages of the report. It is doing my head in because they are scanned sideways and everytime I click on next a pop-up appears. I am really not liking how this source is presented (I am getting banner ads flashing at me). I will take your word on the drugs, but can you confirm where it says that it was "incomplete because not enough of her blood was preserved".
• It also records subcutaneous pooling of blood in Lam's anal area,[34] which some observers suggested was a sign of sexual abuse; however one pathologist has noted it could also have resulted from bloating in the course of the body's decomposition,[3] and her rectum was also prolapsed. Some observers really needs more info as there is a big difference between a doctor, pathologist or coroner compared to a layperson.
• Apart from the exageration in the popular culture source mentioned above the others at least make Lam a major part of ther story. I still feel some of the descriptions are a bit detailed, but probably not a GA thing.
  • There is quite a paragraph devoted to a filmaker saying they would make a film of the incident, but it doesn't say whether this happened or not. This was four years ago so might need an update (and removal of all the speculation). In fact a few of these need either updating if they have been done or removing or trimming if they never made it past the concept phase

Overall I personally don't like the use of primary sources in this article, and many of them should be pretty easily replaced with secondary sources. Some of the points above are important for a GA, while others are not. I really would like to know how you came across the autopsy report as it seems a strange site to be hosting it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep I don’t view this as being original research at all. It's just a straightforward description of what the document says, and it clearly wasn't meant to imply anything. Maybe there is some misunderstanding here, but a careful inspection of the article and the sources definitely shows no original research. Granted, it's already been removed, so this observation doesn't really matter anymore. The only issues worth discussing are those that haven't already been addressed. Looking over the original good article review, I can see that it was very thorough, so if the misunderstanding over original research is the only issue here, then of course I have to vote to keep. My recommendation is that further misunderstandings be discussed on the talk page, rather than through good article reassessment.ErinRC (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The lead seems way too long and detailed to me. See as as examples two GA's I wrote: Alan Hale (astronomer) and Robert J. Cenker. I recall I was talked into shortening the leads during the reviews. RobP (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rp2006: MOS:LEAD says the lead section should summarize the article and be no more than four grafs long. I think this intro fits within those parameters.

Whether other people have persuaded you to shorten intros to other articles during the GA process really isn't relevant to that, IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Article in very bad taste and over sensationalized

I'm shocked that this is being considered for GA. As it stands it reads like a true crime over sensationalized article about a person who recently died. Imagine you were her family reading this article, seriously do you need to include every single thing just because you have a citation for it? Look at some of these details ... "Lam's body was moderately decomposed and bloated. It was mostly greenish, with some marbling evident on the abdomen and skin separation evident." And "incomplete because not enough of her blood was preserved... ". "Her body was naked[4] with most of her clothes and personal effects floating in the water near her". "The tank was drained and cut open since its maintenance hatch was too small to accommodate equipment needed to remove Lam's body". "Some later claimed their water was colored black, and had an unusual taste". "It also records subcutaneous pooling of blood in Lam's anal area... " "and her rectum was also prolapsed."

This whole section needs to go also, what it has to do with the death of Lam I don't know. The only reason I think it is in this article is to "set the scene". "Built as a business hotel in the 1920s, the Cecil fell on hard times during the Great Depression of the 1930s and never recaptured its original market as downtown decayed around it in the late 20th century. Several of Los Angeles's more notable murders have happened at or have connections to the hotel—in 1964, Goldie Osgood, the "Pigeon Lady of Pershing Square," was raped and murdered in her room at the Cecil, a crime that has never been solved.[12] Serial killers Jack Unterweger and Richard Ramirez, the "Night Stalker", both resided at the Cecil while active.[13] There have also been suicides, one of which also killed a pedestrian in the front of the hotel.[14] After recent renovations, it has tried to market itself as a boutique hotel, but the reputation lingers.[15] "The Cecil will reveal to you whatever it is you're a fugitive from," says Steve Erickson, a journalist who spent a night in the hotel after Lam's death.[14]"

And the whole description of the elevator video with exactly what her hands were doing. So sorry you couldn't include the video and describing the video in as much detail as possible was the next best thing. You seem to be missing the color of the interior of the elevator, someone should rewatch the video again.

And what is this nonsense? Since when do we add in speculation from YouTube comments? "Several theories evolved to explain her actions." and "Other viewers argued... " "... they claimed ... " "others asked ..." "Some argued that she was attempting to hide from a pursuer, perhaps someone ultimately responsible for her death, while others said she was merely frustrated with the elevator's apparent malfunction". "Some proponents of the theory... suggesting that ... or that she might have ..." " conclusions have also been questioned" "which some observers suggested"

And why are we allowing the editor to speculate? "This could have been done ... or to conceal evidence" and this bit about the lid " there is no fixed access to them and hotel workers had to use a ladder to look at the water."

Why is this included "Police dogs that searched through the hotel for Lam, even on the roof, shortly after her disappearance was noted, did not find any trace of her (although they had not searched the area near the water tanks)." The police searched the roof and not near the water tanks ... and why are we mentioning this about how they didn't find a trace of her?

"Theories about Lam's behavior in the elevator video did not stop with her death." What? They didn't stop after her death? What does this sentence even mean?

There is a lot of quoting from an article by The Daily Maverick, I'm sure a very scholarly source with true journalist integrity. They are speculating also about the corner's report "Even the coroner's pathologists appeared to be ambivalent about their conclusion that Lam's death was accidental".

I'm pretty disgusted reading this Wikipedia article, I understand that the tabloids have turned this woman's tragic death into conspiracy theories and fodder to gross out our inner 13-year old. But just stop. Wikipedians don't speculate, they don't use statements like "some say, some believe, some thing ... " Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a true crime novel. To even try to make this a GA is an insult to real GA articles. Sgerbic (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, you make several good points. That said, the article is about a death in the strangest circumstances, and the content being "shocking" is not a reason to remove it. If there's poorly sourced (ie speculative) or poorly written information, you're welcome to mark it as such, and it will have to be either sourced or deleted, or you can edit the article yourself. --uKER (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is it marked GA-Class paranormal articles? There doesn't seem to be anything paranormal about beyond the abundant speculation. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is arguably true of everything that comes under "paranormal". Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Long point-by-point reply

• I'm shocked that this is being considered for GA.: It's been one for a few years now.
• As it stands it reads like a true crime over sensationalized article about a person who recently died. "Over six years ago" is not "recent", IMO.
• Imagine you were her family reading this article ..." Her family, who unsuccessfully sued the hotel?
• This whole section needs to go also. I presume you meant the section on the hotel?
• The only reason I think it is in this article is to "set the scene". Yes, exactly, and what's wrong with that? The hotel's past notoriety was part of this death's notability.
• And the whole description of the elevator video with exactly what her hands were doing. Did you mean to write a complete sentence there? As I noted above, I do have a downloaded copy of the video that at some point in the near future I will grit my teeth and edit for this article.
• What does this sentence even mean? OK, this should probably be clarified. At the time the LAPD released the video she was still considered missing; the discovery of her body soon afterward did not put to rest theories about what had happened that had been spawned by the elevator video.
• Since when do we add in speculation from YouTube comments? Check the cited sources; they aren't YouTube comments (and you must admit that not doing so makes your own critique of the quality of the sources look at least a little hypocritical ).
• And why are we allowing the editor to speculate? Again, sourccd speculation. It's pretty much accepted that if an entire graf is sourced to one source, the cite need only be at the end.
• I'm sure a very scholarly source with true journalist integrity. I think you meant "journalistic integrity? When I was researching the article I found nothing to indicate that the Maverick was not considered a reliable source. (And I would further commend WP:SARCASM to your attention).
• They are speculating also about the corner's report. First, that's coroner. Second, as noted, while we may not speculate ourselves, we can cite sources that do.
• To even try to make this a GA is an insult to real GA articles. And to even try to represent your emotionally motivated, superficial hot take as a serious critique of this article is an insult to real critiques of articles. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

In general, I agree with Gerbic and think this the entire tone of this article sounds like the National Enquirer rather than an encyclopedic article. Reading through this defense, I am perplexed by many of the rebuttals. The one about the YouTube comments (if that's what they are) in particular. Either way, it seems you are saying criticism about article content on the Talk page (which is partly what the Talk page is for) is equivalent with the claim of USING unreliably sourced comments IN the article itself. Also, regarding the comment about editing the article after watching the elevator video: How is that not adding original research? RobP (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how you're getting from A to B there. She insinuated that some of the theories as to what happened in the article were sourced to YouTube comments; all I did in direct response to that was note that the cited sources for those theories are not YouTube comments, something I would have expected her to have done before making that comment, something I would have done myself. I don't know where you got the idea that I was connecting that with my critique of his critique. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, regarding the comment about editing the article after watching the elevator video: How is that not adding original research? You mean adding the elevator video would constitute original research? See WP:OI. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I'm going to counter the counter point by point as that is really going to get strange. But here goes. A death six years ago is recent IMO. See how that works, you have your opinion and I have mine. When the current family members are long dead, then I would think that this isn't recent. I'm not sure why you think the family should be punished further by reading about her bloated dead body and blood pooled in her rectal area. Yes they sued the hotel and lost ... and? Are you saying that somehow they don't deserve a bit of respect for their daughter because they lost the suit? Yes, I do mean the whole editorializing stage setting of the hotel. The Cecil is seedy I expect you are trying to say ... and? What do other crimes/deaths have to do with Lam? You have a downloaded copy of the video and you are going to edit it and upload it? What permissions are you going to use to allow that to happen? The video IS relevant to this Wikipedia article. Editorializing about the video by editors is not. I'm not following who these people are that are speculating about the death, "they say" and "some think" needs to be cleared up to which persons think that. And you need to be clear why these people's speculations are relevant. Do the police or coroner think this? Do experts think that? Who? You can add all the smilies you like but commenting on another editor's grammar or misspelling on the talk page is rude. You clearly know what I meant to say. I have never heard of the South African new agency The Maverick before today. Not sure why they are writing about a woman from Hong Kong who died in California but I'll leave others to investigate their journalist integrity. They have been used in this one article 14 times. Looking over this source makes me a bit suspicious as it is doing the same thing as the Wikipedia article "some say ..." "people speculate" and the journalist's tone is more about the Internet's unhappiness with the outcome, than the facts of the case. Maybe others will have a different opinion? http://web.archive.org/web/20180907192931/https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-12-12-the-elisa-lam-mystery-still-no-answers/ They only mention one expert by name, David Klatzow everyone else is just "someone says". Describing the video is original research, you are adding in what you think is important. The lede is way too long and I also am wondering why this article was on my paranormal watchlist? Sgerbic (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Elevator game

Why is there no mention about the theory of Lam possibly trying to play the "elevator game"? The "elevator game" is a one-player that requires an empty elevator in a building with at least 10 floors (the Cecil has 19 floors, so no problem there) which is thought to be a paranormal ritual that transports the player to another dimension. Back on track, ever since that video went viral, the "elevator game" has been one of the theories about Lam's death. As much documented evidence there is about this theory, why doesn't the article say anything about it.

I did have it in there at one point; EEng took it out and I have subsequently agreed since it does not seem like the source in question was reliable. I am aware of it; if a reliable source does discuss it, even to be dismissive of it, we can put it in again. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It may also be because her behavior did not match up with the behavior of one who might play the elevator game. Katieb181 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Water tank

The article says that "hotel workers used a ladder to look at the water". Was the ladder there when the LAPD did a brief search of the roof the first time? If it wasn't there then how exactly did she get up and in? The need of a ladder suggests to me that it's possible someone else was involved, who possibly used a ladder to place her body in the tank, and then took the ladder away. DebbieLakehurst (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@DebbieLakehurst: I've read in some non-RS sources that the ladder was usually left on the roof (which would make sense), but since they're not RSes we can't put that in. Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Outdated/Invalid Sources

Hello there, While I’m not a Wikipedia guru, I feel that that it should be noted that sources 4 and 5, both related to the autopsy report, both link to a website with an error message. It would do the page a favour to replace these sources with valid ones, seeing as much of the information in the article originated from the autopsy report. To whoever has a higher standing than me in the Wikipedia hierarchy, feel free to delete this discussion once the matter has been dealt with.

Thank you and adios NexusNarr (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem. I will replace them with links to the archived versions of the page. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Netflix: Crime Scene The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel

Netflix released a documentary mini series that interviews hotel staff and police involved in the case. Vast majority of the "mysteries" associated with this event seem pretty non sensational and they paint the conspiracy nuts and internet sleuths in general in a pretty negative light. The 2 points I want to comment on (can we use the video as source?) are that the elevator is not broken, not tampered with, and was functioning normally as per all parameters. They explain button sequences and that Elisa was holding doors open the entire time. They also interview (through a translator) the actual staff who found the body and he states on the record that the water tower was opened when he found the body. Police searching roof at night apparently do not notice the small opening. Kav2001c (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)kav2001c

I'm not sure what you mean by "can we use the video as source?" We cannot interpret the video in any way, per WP:NOR. I don't see any way the video could be used as a source. There's no point in explaining what is obvious to anyone watching the video, and any conclusions based on the video alone are not appropriate. Any conclusions, whether from the video or otherwise, need to be from reliable sources. Your comments about the video are personal interpretations and cannot be added to the article without a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Video offers several statements from the Hotel Cecil employees and the police, including official police statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.171.63 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

By "the video" in this discussion we mean the elevator video, not the docuseries. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

We did use the video as a source for my bare-bones description of it (which is permissible) until two days ago when I was finally able to put the video in the article and thus we didn't need to have a couple of grafs describing what she does and how the elevator does (or rather doesn't) respond to it anymore.

What reliably-sourced commentary on her actions I have been able to find is in that section.

I don't have Netflix myself; these things sound like stuff we could cite, and if someone would post here all the information from it (like the time in the episode when these things are said or shown) that {{cite AV media}} requires, then we can put them in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Reintroduction of lead format that was reverted

Hi,

Sorry, User:Daniel Case: I changed the lead back to a wording you disapproved of and reverted. I didn't realise this was the case at first, so I have to apologise for that. However, I don't believe that describing who she was in the first sentence is an issue – this is done in other articles where the subject doesn't have their own biography article because they were only notable for their death. Personally I don't think describing who she was in the first sentence makes this a biography – it just feels like better wording to me. Please let me know if you still disagree with this so that we can hopefully work out a better compromise. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I understand that you feel that way, but just because other articles begin like a biography of someone notable only in the context of something that happened to them doesn't mean IMO that they all should, any more than articles about people killed by others must always begin with "Murder of ..." because we've always done it that way despite it arguably being in conflict with several core policies, and people being too lazy to change things, much less their understanding. We're writing about an event, not a life, and if your intro starts off giving the reader the impression it is about the person it usually requires unnecessary and awkward wording later on to change the focus of the reader's attention. There is a word for this: confusion.

Further, framing such an article as a biography induces some people with agendas, or who just like doing this, to believe they then have the right or even the obligation to introduce verifiable yet salacious and irrelevant details of the (usually) victim's life into the article (actually, this isn't hypothetical, it has happened). When it's crystal clear that it's about the event which made the victim's name public knowledge, it's much easier to keep that out per WP:BLP1E.

I have researched and written many articles about unsolved murders, unsolved deaths and disappearances over the last decade. Always I have followed this principle in writing the ledes (see Ramona Moore homicide for one other example that begins with the decedent's remains being discovered), and no one else has ever made this complaint.

If you feel this should be done as a matter of policy, it's better to have that discussion at the level rather than constantly reverting each other in one article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

To be honest I just think it sounds awkward this way. However, I can think of a way to reword it without reintroducing the wording that you disagree with:

On February 19, 2013, a body was recovered from a water tank atop the Cecil Hotel in Downtown Los Angeles. The body was identified as that of Elisa Lam, also known by her Cantonese name, Lam Ho Yi (藍可兒; April 30, 1991 – February 2013), a Canadian student at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

Do you find this wording acceptable? :) Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Alternatively, for less redundancy:

On February 19, 2013, a body recovered from a water tank atop the Cecil Hotel in Downtown Los Angeles was identified as that of Elisa Lam, also known by her Cantonese name, Lam Ho Yi (藍可兒; April 30, 1991 – February 2013), a Canadian student at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

DesertPipeline (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Addendum 2: Although one slight problem with the second wording is that might imply the identification occurred on that day, not both the recovery and identification... hm. What do you think? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You could solve it this way:

On February 19, 2013, a body was recovered from a water tank atop the Cecil Hotel in Downtown Los Angeles. It was later identified as that of Elisa Lam, also known by her Cantonese name, Lam Ho Yi (藍可兒; April 30, 1991 – February 2013), a Canadian student at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, cool, I'm happy with that :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have edited the article appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and see you around! :) DesertPipeline (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The 4 October 2020 edit mis-represents Lam's death in popular culture in a video game

The edit that introduced the section on the 2019 video game, Y2K: A Postmodern RPG, is part of a broader disinformation campaign generated by users on Twitter and various gaming websites.

The edit that introduced the misrepresentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Elisa_Lam&diff=prev&oldid=981735463

ACKK Studios has categorically denied this assertion on their official twitter: https://twitter.com/AckkStudios/status/1366885515014897665

Further, the sources used do not stand up to Wikipedia's guidelines, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, and fall squarely under questionable sources due to the abundance of personal opinion without factual evidence behind it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:8700:e470:747d:31ea:90d2:e4fe (talk • contribs)

It was removed earlier today. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Elisa Lam at Find a Grave

...

Please can you list her Tumblr or other potential social media accounts that belong to her instead of Elisa Lam at Find a Grave.com ...

That would be, for sure, more respectful and valuable for everyone (i heard she was a really good writer), instead of participating into sending unknown people and potential creeps to her resting place.

--90.6.160.214 (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it per WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. However, since her Tumblr page is used as a source for what she wrote on it and is therefore cited inline, it shouldn't be in the EL section. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Issues concerning sources and dates

Overall, I'd hoped my edits to the article could help put to rest some of the wilder theories and speculation. I know it's hypocritical but I feel badly for her family and hoped that by laying out the facts as clearly as possible, it might reduce the wild speculation that people engage in. I made some fixes to the article and added a source clarifying that the LAPD released the elevator video on Feb 13. Other sources might cite Feb 14, possibly because they were published a day after the release. I'm not sure.

Concerning sources, ideally I'd like to cite the depositions from the civil suit as sources. PDF copies of the docket seem to be uploaded here (https://prosecutorspodcast.com/2020/05/20/elisa-lam-ep-1-dont-drink-the-water/). However, per discussion here about sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_a_PDF_that's_hosted_by_a_3rd_party_website), I can't say for certain that these copies are legitimate. I don't personally have access to lacourt.org without paying so I'm stuck on that end. Additionally, depositions are considered primary sources which are less preferred compared to reliable secondary sources. In all fairness, the autopsy report and motion to dismiss documents are also from 3rd party sites but I'm not going to ask for them to be removed (especially not w/out consensus).

As far as the facts go, I've noticed a couple things. LAPD states she arrived in Los Angeles on January 26, 2013. The deposition states she checked into the Cecil on January 28, 2013. Check out was supposed to be on January 31, 2013. The police reported that she called her parents every day "up until the day she disappeared". My assumption is that they meant she called her parents January 30 but did not call them on January 31st. Which exact day they reported her missing (Jan 31 or Feb 1) and which day they flew down are not certain except that the latter was shortly after the former. Also, a lot of the confusion about which day she was last seen is likely because there's no time stamp on the video. Based on the coroner report and other documents from the civil suit, it seems that the video was from shortly after midnight (ie. early morning hours of February 1st).

The big fuss about the changing of the autopsy.....I'm not sure. The date next to "Accidental" could be June 15, 2013 or it could be June 18, 2013. I'm inclined to think it's the 18th. But without any formal documentation, can't say.

Anyhows, hope this was somewhat helpful. Jasonkwe (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"Other Issues" regarding elevator video

Earlier I removed this paragraph, and my change was subsequently reverted. My issue is that this paragraph is so redundant with the "elevator video" section that, for me, simply stylistically, we need to collapse one into the other. I am not particularly picky about which gets collapsed! But as it is, we give 90% of the same information twice, and I don't think that makes for a good article. Eager to hear others' thoughts! Dumuzid (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

After having reverted you earlier, I took a look at the two passages again and realized you had a point. I have cut down the second part so it mentions the elevator video only in passing and discusses it more in the context of whether she was on drugs or not. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)