Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Onefortyone (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 7 November 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Are they reliable sources

http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.

Google Maps and Streetview

I'm pretty sure they can't but I just wanted to make sure. Can Google Maps and Streetview be used as reliable sources? Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 01:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

For what information? Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

For any article. I saw it being used as a reference in Newbattle Viaduct. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In that article it's being used as follows:

The last arch at the south end is a skew arch to accommodate the A7 public road, which runs parallel to the viaduct before cutting underneath it. The viaduct is nearly straight, but with a slight curve at the northern end where it crosses the river. To the south of the viaduct is a caravan park.

References

1. ^ "Newbattle Viaduct" (Map). Google Maps. Retrieved 24 September 2014.
2. Reports from Commissioners: Fourteen Volumes. 1848. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I'm not sure that all of the information based on the source is immediately intuited form the map. Hope this helps - Ryk72 23:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what bit of information the citation is intended to support... google street view does not appropriately verify that the last arch is a "skew arch" (this is not a fact that anyone can verify just by looking at the street view) ... however it does verify that the road runs parallel to the viaduct before cutting underneath it. Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

At most I can see GM and Street View as a check against other sources, maybe as a source of coordinates (though I personally don't go that far either). But Street View in particular is the equivalent of going to the spot and reporting back what you personally saw here. It's one thing if you went to the location given by some source and discovered that there isn't anything there, or that what's there isn't even remotely like the subject of the article; then you can say that the source which gave you the location is plainly wrong. In this specific instance the part about the skew arch is not only an analysis of what's seen, but a supposition as to why it was built that way (it's possible, after all, that the road was put through that way because of the arch, or even that the arch originally accommodated a different road/path/whatever). Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that there is a second source given here which backs up all the statements made, except that it refers to the road just as "a turnpike road", rather than the A7, a name which would not have existed at the time. The skewness of the last arch is not obvious from street view but is very obvious from the aerial view. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Al Jaffee's brother Harry

1. Source. Weisman, Mary-Lou (2010). Al Jaffee's Mad Life. !t Books (HarperCollins). ISBN 978-0-06-186448-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
   • According to the dust jacket, Weisman and Jaffee have been friends for more than 30 years. The book was written in close collaboration with Jaffee.
2. Article. Al Jaffee, the famed Mad magazine cartoonist.
3. Content. replaced "mental illnesses" with "various illnesses". The sentence in full read:

His oldest brother Harry, who also had artistic talent, had long been coping with various mental illnesses—for a time he had been committed to Bellevue.

User:Modernist is adamant that "mental" not be mentioned, and deleted it. He claims to have personal knowledge of the family, and says the book "verges on libel" on this issue. See Talk:Al Jaffee#H Jaffee, where he is claiming that he knows personally that the book is wrong on this point.

(Previous attempts at resolution at ANI and DRN have been punted, with the suggestion that this is the proper forum.) Choor monster (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I added content to the sentence above which currently reads: His oldest younger brother Harry Jaffee (1922-1985), who also had artistic talent, had long been coping with various illnesses—for a time he had been committed to Bellevue.

Harry died in 1985 and he was one year younger than Al. I fail to see what Harry's condition needs to even be included on any level in this article. Harry worked with Al; but Al is an enormously successful cartoonist; well deserving of an article; and his brothers condition is irrelevant to the article anyway.

My position is - essentially what is stated in the Weisman book is the primary sources opinion; and I am stating that that opinion needs corroboration and that I have personally heard objections to that opinion. I have been told by people close to all involved that there is more to what happened then what is stated in the book. Weisman takes the primary source at his word, however I am stating my objection to that as a reliable source. I'm not bad mouthing anything by the way - these are extremely private matters, and my suggestion is to respect those objections...Modernist (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we follow WP policy and guidelines. I will point out that two other editors have accepted the Weisman book as an RS, see ANI (User:Only in death) and Talk:Al Jaffee#H Jaffee (User:KoshVorlon). Choor monster (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ZeroHedge Blog post by "Tyler Durden"

A user is repeatedly adding a a blog post from "Tyler Durden" of ZeroHedge to support the following statement:

As of Oct 27 2015, at least one hedge fund newsletter questioned whether the actual value of Theranos (and thus net worth for Holmes) is approaching $0."

The blog is a primary source written by a pseudonymous author "Tyler Durden" -- not suitable in accordance with WP:BLP. Secondly, it doesn't really support the assertion that the net worth for Holmes is approaching $0. The exact quote from the blog:

That's ok: she lied again, something which appears to have been a recurring pattern for this 31-year-old paper multibillionaire. Sadly for her, following these escapades, "on paper" is where her young billionaire status will remain, as we doubt anyone, either in the private market, and certainly in the public one, will bother to invest even $1 more at a valuation anywhere approaching $9 billion, or even a valuation of $0 for that matter.

Need a third opinion on whether this is an acceptable source or not. utcursch | talk 20:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, Zero Hedge does not appear to meet the threshold of being a reliable source. No evidence of editorial oversight, the actual author is unknown (the "Tyler Durden" has been claimed to represent multiple writers) meaning there's no means to validate their actual qualifications to provide expert opinion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS and shouldnt be used as a source - especially in a BLP. Minor4th 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If Zero Hedge is not a reliable source, why does it have its own Wiki entry?

That entry states:

By September 2009, Zero Hedge had begun drawing more traffic than more established financial websites with 333,000 unique visitors a month, impressing even those who say the news site is full of conspiracy theory and "apocalyptic world view".

Matt Taibbi, in his book Griftopia, cites Zero Hedge in the last chapter as accurately assessing the level of corruption in the banking industry and credits its inside advantage. He questions why mainstream financial media did not earlier detect the corruption at Goldman Sachs.

These scenarios are precisely on-point with the current situation - analysis of key financial facts missed earlier by the mainstream financial media. That's the situation where Wiki's own entry of Zero Hedge supports the credibility of this site.

Rkaplan (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense: notability is a different concept altogether. The Bible is not a reliable source for Evolution. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a reliable source for history of Jews. Both of these have their own Misplaced Pages articles.

And like I've said, even ZeroHedge doesn't support your assertion: that blog post does not say that Holmes net worth is approaching zero. It says that the investors will not invest any more money in Theranos, whether its valuation is $9 billion or $0. utcursch | talk 14:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Good analogy.. The Wiki entry on History of the creation–evolution controversy does indeed reference the Judeo-Christian Bible in order to provide context. My point is - if you disagree with the Durden article, then add your own references to refute it rather than censoring the reference I have added. I already added an additional reference which additionally supports the theories in the Durden article:

The Economist notes that startups of this nature can wind up being valued as a "fantasy" rather than based upon present reality.

As for your comment that Zero Hedge does not say Holmes' net worth is approaching zero, look at the title of the article itself: The Beginning Of The End For Theranos?

Bottom line - Please add your thoughts to the article rather than censoring or deleting mine. The combination of references from Zero Hedge and The Economist is a reasonably referenced part of the Wiki entry. Rkaplan (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The article History of the creation–evolution controversy doesn't use the Bible as a source. It uses secondary sources that discuss the Bible as a reference. If a reliable source discusses this ZeroHedge blog post, the ZeroHedge claim can be added to the article.

"The beginning of the end of" is an expression, and even that line doesn't mention anything about the net worth of Elizabeth Holmes. (Not that this matters -- even if it did, ZeroHedge still fails WP:RS).

And there is no "censorship" here. You actually removed some of the content portraying Theranos in a negative light from the article. The only issue here is the "$0 net worth" bit, which is your interpretation of a source that's not acceptable.

utcursch | talk 15:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

stats-sh.gov.cn used for number of high-rise buildings in Shanghai

http://www.stats-sh.gov.cn/tjnj/nj14.htm?d1=2014tjnj/C1104.htm is being used to source the statement that there are 14,479 "high rise" buildings (defined as 12 or more stories) in Shanghai in List of cities with the most high-rise buildings. This would make that city first in the world in number of high-rise buildings. Mirandajovi posted to the article talk page, and at the Teahouse, expressing disbelief of this figure.

Note that the figure 14,479 does not appear in the cited page, nor does it seem a simple sum or difference of any relevant figures that do appear.

The page seems to be in Japanese. I used google translate to get a rough idea of its contents, and it does seem to be a table of number of buildings with a given range of stories, but I can't tell what area this table covers, nor whether this is a reliable source for these statements. Any advice, particularly from editors with knowledge of Japanese Chinese, would be helpful. DES 14:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• A Chinese government page is written in Japanese? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I should have said that is what was displayed by Google Translate. You are correct, Niteshift36, that doesn't make sense. No doubt it is actually Chinese, or one of the forms of Chinese. In any case, I can't read any Asian language, so "it's all Greek to me". Any assistance from someone who can read it properly would be welcome. DES 18:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• While discussing reliable sources on that page, we should also address whether the other source frequently used on that page- the commercial site emporis , actually meets the criteria for reliable sources as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Any comments on the reliability of Emporis for such figures? Mirandajovi seemed to regard it as a highly reliable site. DES 18:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

    On looking a little further, Emporis says that it "collects" information about buildings, but doesn't say anything about a process of fact-checking or who it collects that information from. Moreover, it doesn't appear anywhere to claim that its statistics are complete -- it seems to be focusing on individual buildings that a commercial user might be interested in, not on city-wide statistics. For example its page on Shanghai (from its "building directory) lists exactly 1 church. I find it very hard to accept that there is only one church in a city that large, so I am doubtful about its other totals representing accurate figures for how many buildings of a particular type there are in a particular city. DES 19:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think its only a city official claimed for Shanghai. Other cities in India, Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc also claimed their cities had thousands highrise. Only Emporis completed with the name of the building and with their stories. So we can trust Emporis not just city claimed. This article based in Emporis sources which is neutral sources and in English. But somebody had edited the article and put Shanghai highrise more than 14.000 based on local sources which is not neutral sources. Its impossible Shanghai highrise : Hongkong highrise + New York highrise

http://www.emporis.com/statistics/skyline-ranking In this source Shanghai only had 1,232 building. Emporis data completed with list the name of the highrise so we can verified not just city claimed. Somebody claimed Shanghai had 14.000 higrise. But cant give the name of the building just number claimed which is cant verified. Shanghai is international city why no single foreigner report it to Emporis ?? For example in the year 2014 Emporis count the highrise in Moscow only 3000 buildings. But there is a report completed with the name of the building. So Emporis change highrise count for Moscow more than 10.000 highrise.

There is a pattern for building more than 180 metre : Hongkong had 143, New York had 100, Chicago had 50, Shanghai only had 70. For the city without height restriction there is impossible Shanghai only had 70 buildings more than 180 metre but had more than 14.000 highrise building. New York had 100 building more than 180 metre but New York only had 6.000 highrise building. Except city with height restriction such as Sao Paulo.--Mirandajovi (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What are relevant and reliable source to describe someone's theory?

I want to describe a theory - the first theory published about some topic. The theory was published more than 200 years ago and it is related to the alternative location of Great Moravia. Are the studies about a historian who published this theory and his work (including a detailed description of his theory) considered to be a relevant and reliable sources? They were published by reliable and recognized historians.Ditinili (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili, it would have been helpful to other editors responding to your question if you had included, as specified in the instructions, information on the exact source you are asking about: "If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc." and "If it's an online source, please link to it."

To clarify, individual historians cannot be "reliable sources" as Misplaced Pages defines that term; a reliable source is a publication or publisher with editorial control and a history of fact-checking. This is why we need to know who published the work(s) by historians that describe the theory. —GrammarFascist _contribs 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

We'd have to know more details, but if a theory is extensively discussed by other notable historians (and by this I mean of course in reliable sources) then it possibly merits inclusion in an article. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Chinese tank pages and Chinese news sites

Type 99 talk page

Hi. I'm a new user here so I'm not very familiar with the rules but it seems like the the Type 99 pages has been embroiled in a back and forth and edits. Thus I seek clarification about a particular contentious source here.

Documentary This biographical documentary/interview of the Type 99's lead designer by CCTV has labelled propaganda and thus unreliable. I find it disturbing because although the documentary was filmed to achieve some kind of propaganda purpose, the source was not cited to support propaganda but to support other sources in explaining the development of the Type 99 tank.

I understand that CCTV has been in the news for continuous gaffes and being a state mouthpiece in general. But shouldn't this film be treated as a primary source first and foremost? The separation of fact and fiction would be harder than other news media but until contradictory information appears, must we not take the state media at face value? Shouldn't prefixing an "according to" or "it was claimed by" be sufficient, as seen by other claims on the page made by non-Chinese sources?

Maan News

Source. Maan News . Article. . Content. : **Farmers in Burin were blocked from harvesting their olives by settlers, who reportedly also stole olives and agricultural equipment in the Bab Sanna area of Burin,<

Is this source reliable for this claim?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Also, to be clear, Ma'an is reporting what locals in Burin said and attributing the info in the quote you mention above to those locals. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

See for serious questions regarding their reliability. It looks like NGO Monitor and Palestinian Media Watch have found serious cases of quoting untrue reports and for espousing hate propaganda. I suggest they are not used as reliable sole sources for Misplaced Pages articles.

References

1. "The fable of the unicorn: A much-hyped medical startup is suddenly plagued with doubts". The Economist. 31 October 2015. Retrieved 2015-10-31.
2. 'Locals: Settlers prevent Palestinian farmers from olive harvest,' Ma'an News Agency 31 October 2015

{{reflist-talk}} template added by GrammarFascist _contribs 16:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki is not a reliable source. The NYTs article mentions Ma'an Network which uses a Ynet video, hardly anything in this checks out. They do not cite the Ma'an newspaper on line we use, which is far more cautious. By the same token, all Israeli newspapers we use are not RS because in at least 7 cases they have unanimously reported throughout the day that a 'terrorist' was killed in a stabbing attack in cases where it is known or suspected no attack occurred or appears to be underway when the 'terrorists' are killed. Amnesty International has made the point. For that matter, the NYTs is not a RS, either, by these standards.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Every source in this area has critics. Ma'an News is routinely quoted in major media, including Vox, NYT, Wash Post, Guardian, Al-Jazeera, and Israeli newspapers, like JPost, Times of Israel. Links can be found by simply Googling for them, so I am not giving them explicitly. There is absolutely no evidence that Ma'an is unreliable in general. If there is evidence that it is unreliable in this particular case, one should provide it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the Arabic language site (whcih seems to be the focus of the thread you linked to), but the English language version of Ma'an News is a very valuable source for detailed coverage of the Palestinian territories and is a source of local (and sadly routine) stories that major international news simply don't cover. In the same way that Israeli news networks have value for local coverage of Israel, Ma'an News is valuable to the news coverage of Palestine. Nothing to me indicates that Ma'an is unreliable, even with that recent story where they reported a Palestinian teenager had been killed by Israeli soldiers, instead of wounded. Most news sites have made mistakes here and there, but that doesn't classify them as unreliable. If there is a real pattern of false or exaggerated reporting or racism, then I would consider that there is a real problem with reliability. That has not been demonstrated and again, I'm referring to the English language version. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi - third-party publications

In May 2014, User:Soul Crusher made a posting to this noticeboard, generally pointing out that Scaruffi's writings on music had been accepted as authoritative by several unrelated sources. That posting is here.

With this posting, I am adding information about Scaruffi's publications by third-party publishers. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Scaruffi was being published by Arcana (Milan, Italy). In 1991, it published Guida all'avanguardia e alla New Wave (Guide to Avant-Garde and New Wave). According to WorldCat.org, print copies of this book are held in the university libraries of Princeton, Pennsylavania, Columbia, Cornell, and Georgia, as well as the city libraries of Seattle and New York (plus other libraries in Italy, Germany and Switzerland). One edition of this book was coupled with a CD from Nonesuch Records.

Aracana also published a multi-volume series Grandi opere rock (the exact number of volumes is unclear, but it is at least 22). Scaruffi wrote one of these volumes -- Enciclopedia della musica New Age (1996, volume 16 of the series).

Comments on this will be welcome. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter Dale Scott

1. Source. Peter Dale Scott's essay "Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia; Bush’s Terror War and the Fixing of Intelligence".
2. Article. Safari Club
3. Content.

a) "Jimmy Carter discussed public concerns over secrecy in his campaign, and when he took office in January 1977 he attempted to reign in the scope of covert CIA operations."

b) "Thus even as Carter's new CIA director Stansfield Turner attempted to limit the scope of the agency's operations, Shackley, his deputy Thomas Clines, and agent Edwin P. Wilson secretly maintained their connections with the Safari Club and the BCCI."

After explaining that the War on Terror should be called "Bush's Terror War", Scott writes: "This essay will demonstrate that before 9/11 a small element inside the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit and related agencies, the so-called Alec Station Group, were also busy, 'fixing' intelligence by suppressing it, in a way which, accidentally or deliberately, enabled the Terror War." He heavily cites not only himself but 9/11 conspiracy authors Anthony Summers, Kevin Fenton, John Farmer, Jr., and an article in 911Truth.org by truthers Rory O'Connor (filmmaker) and Ray Nowosielski.

Regarding the content in question, the only statement in the article that mentions Jimmy Carter, Stansfield Turner, Theodore Shackley, or Thomas Clines states: "Then senior CIA officers and ex-officers (notably Richard Helms), who were dissatisfied with the CIA cutbacks instituted under Jimmy Carter’s CIA director, Stansfield Turner, organized an alternative network, the so-called Safari Club. Subordinated to intelligence chiefs from France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and (under the Shah) Iran, the Safari Club provided a home to CIA officers like Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines, who had been marginalized or fired by CIA Director Turner." Edwin P. Wilson is not even mentioned in the article. Thanks! - Location (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bob Mosher

Source: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=65438816

Article: Bob Mosher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This source was recently added to the page to source the names of Mosher's parents. However, the edits adding the source also removed any mention of Mosher being Jewish (backed up by another source of dubious reliability), presumably because the source claims the elder Mosher to be an Episcopalian. My instinct is that Find A Grave is unreliable due to its user-editable nature, but I'd like to get a few other opinions if possible. clpo13_(talk) 03:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: What does Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) cover?

There is a request for comments at .

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Misplaced Pages's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Misplaced Pages's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Misplaced Pages pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Breitbart reliable for its own opinion.

My understanding is that a source is generally always reliable for its own opinion, but numerous people at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Censoring_any_criticism appear to contest that. Is Breitbart reliable for the statement: The conservative website, Breitbart, was critical of Sarkeesian's ability as an art critic. sourced to "Let's Stop Pretending Anita Sarkeesian Is an Art Critic". Breitbart. Retrieved 2015-11-03. Thanks, Second Quantization (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is generally considered a questionable or unreliable source, especially when it comes to claims about living persons. The publication is also not known for its opinions regarding art criticism. It would not be appropriate to source claims about a living person to a non-expert questionable/unreliable source. Woodroar (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is about as unreliable a source as it is possible to be. Per WP:RS a reliable source has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Breitbart has a reputation for fabrication and defamation; and should never, ever, be used to source what seems to be criticism of a living person. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source as the above users have already stated. It is especially not reliable when it comes to BLP's. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying we can't rely on Breitbart to reliably report their own opinion despite WP:NEWSORG ("Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author")? Second Quantization (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of people have their own opinions, but that doesn't mean we must include them, especially when the sources aren't experts. In addition, claims regarding living persons require a higher standard for sourcing, fact versus mere opinion. Woodroar (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that this is not a statement by Breitbart about its own opinion but by Mytheos Holt about his own opinion. Not that that changes the arguments above greatly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Opinion sources are generally usable for opinions cited as opinions. Those who think that a source can not be used for its own opinions are mistaken. For material about celebrities in any nation on earth, it is hard to find any truly reliable source for contentious facts or claims of fact. Mao was a reliable source for the opinions of Mao - yet I would not use him for claims of fact about his reign (yes - I know he is dead, but I am referring to written opinions here). If the issue is "what is art criticism?", then we may consider whether the person (apparently Mytheos Holt) holding the opinion is notable enough for his or her opinions about what is or is not art criticism (in the case at hand whether the person holding an opinion can state that the material is not construed by him as art criticism), but that has nothing to do with whether the opinion is printed by the NYT or the Daily Mail - the opinion at issue belongs to the person voicing it, not to the publisher. One might note this is exactly the same position I cite for all such matters and sources from RT onwards. Collect (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of ink was spilled on pretty much the same question last year. Rhoark (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we have an FAQ section, we really need an FAQ section --ℕ ℱ 02:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Even bothering to mention somebody's opinion of somebody else's art criticism as posted on breitbart.com is a violation of WP:UNDUE anyway. A reputable art critic, published in a reputable, reliable source: that might be relevant to the article. But breitbart.com is not known for discussion of artistic issues any more than Juggs is known for tofu recipes. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Give In to Me

There is a dispute over whether to include Slash as a featured artist on this song. The single cover (not to mention the Discogs entry) indeed has Slash listed, but some users disagree. (I brought the issue here because that article's talk page doesn't see much activity.) Erpert 00:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources on Presley

Recently multiply removed from Toilet-related injuries and deaths:

] was found dead on his bathroom floor on August 16, 1977. According to the medical investigator, Presley had "stumbled or crawled several feet before he died"; he had been using the toilet at the time. Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick writes, "It was certainly possible that he had died while 'straining at stool.' "<ref>Peter Guralnick, ''Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley'' (1999), p.651-652.</ref> Elvis' personal physician, Dr. George Nicopolous, wrote in his 2009 book, ''The King and Dr. Nick'' that "We believe Elvis died from a normal physiological event brought into play called 'Valsalva Maneuver.' This ... caused the heart to stop when the body strained. When Elvis compressed his abdominal aorta by straining, his heart, in response, went into arrhythmia and quit working suddenly." According to Guralnick, "the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested ... that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death ..."

Is this use of Guralnick and/or Nicopolous proper? (I ask here rather than on the article's talk page because there have recently been similar removals and replacements elsewhere.)

Pinging @Excelse, Onefortyone, and 182.77.82.62:. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Several problems here:

• Onefortyone is misquoting the medical examiner, who merely conjectured that Elvis was using the toilet at the start of the ordeal based on the location of the vomit. The source then reads "it looked to the medical examiner as if he had 'stumbled or crawled several feet before he died'". We're definitively writing that Elvis was on the toilet and did stumble and crawl based on the conjecture of the medical examiner. That's a misinterpretation and misuse of Guralnick.
• It's Guralnick's own conjecture that Elvis died "straining at the stool" and is actually counter to the opinion of the medical examiner. Guralnick isn't an expert, and he's merely spreading a rumor based on zero scientific evidence. His opinion shouldn't be taken seriously or used to source text in an encyclopedia.
• Nicopolous seems to be OK to back up the claim that Elvis had a bowel condition, but it's not cited properly (I had to go searching for the page number) and it's being improperly mixed with Guralnick in violation of WP:SYNTH to come to the conclusion that Elvis died on the toilet.

In conclusion, Guralnick needs to be thrown out completely in this context and the bowel condition sections belongs elsewhere. This passage does not belong in this article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Apart from Guralnick and Nicopolous, several other independent sources say that Elvis died on the toilet, among them studies published by university presses. See . Do you really think that these sources are not reliable enough? Onefortyone (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that you're misinterpreting them or cherry-picking because you want to write that Elvis died on the toilet. The preponderance of what you've provided indicate that he was on the toilet (again, this is popular extrapolation from the medical examiner's conjecture and repeated across sources) and that he stumbled or crawled several feet before dying. So, he didn't "die on the toilet" and there is no scientific evidence to that effect. --Laser brain (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not much about the source, I even failed to find many of these quotes if they exist or not. It is more about the information which is indeed unreliable. When we give such undue weight to these theories, we must also give similar weight to theories that the singer died from bone cancer, but that is clearly not going to take place. Excelse (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Excelse: I have found the quotations in the sources given without a problem, although I've come across a couple of page number mismatched. This may be attributable to different versions of the book. The real question is whether the sources are reliable (probably yes) and whether they're being used appropriately (likely not). --Laser brain (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream biographers are of the opinion that "Elvis died on the toilet". See Greil Marcus, Dead Elvis: A Chronicle of a Cultural Obsession (Harvard University Press 1991), p.154. If you have a problem with the fact that Elvis had a heart attack while straining at stool (a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver) and, after suddenly having risen from his wallhung ceramic toilet, stumbled or crawled several feet before he died, his pyjamas still being around his ankles (as is common when using the toilet), what about this version:

Elvis Presley presumably died while using the toilet in his bathroom. "Most sources indicate that Elvis was likely sitting in the toilet area, partially nude, and reading when he collapsed." See Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina, When Doctors Kill: Who, Why, and How (Springer Science 2010), p.211. One plausible cause is "a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver (essentially straining on the toilet leading to heart stoppage — plausible because Elvis suffered constipation, a common reaction to drug use)." See Frank Coffey, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Elvis (1997), p.247.

This wording, including direct quotes from some reliable sources, should cover the opinion of most medical examiners. Onefortyone (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Query: did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments for his massive removals of content? No, he didn't. Where are his reliable sources contradicting my edits? I have cited many independent sources supporting my view. And this is what counts on Misplaced Pages, not the personal opinion of Wikipedians. Furthermore, it should be noted that it was another user who added some additional details to the article on 'Toilet-related injuries and deaths', quoting Elvis's personal physician, as the history of the article shows. See and These passages were also deleted by Excelse. Onefortyone (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution