Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457

Additional notes:

• 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.

Start a new discussion

The Daily Caller is not a reliable source

Source: [1]

Article: Bob Menendez

Content: According to an English translation provided to The Daily Caller by a native Spanish speaker, it is reported that a young Dominican woman wrote nine months ago that she slept with 59-year-old New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez at a series of sex parties organized by Dr. Salomon Melgen, a Menendez campaign donor. “That senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2012, according to the same translation.

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

The Daily Caller is very partisan in nature. Its prostitution allegation on Bob Menendez is based entirely on anonymous sources (prostitutes). Furthermore, ABC News has talked to the same sources, but concluded that it is not news because it doesn't pass the smell test. ABC News also said the meeting was arranged by anonymous Republican operatives, clearly a partisan effort.

According to the Washington Post: one of the prostitutes later told Dominican authorities that she never meet Menendez, but was paid to make allegations against him.

The Daily Caller claim that that prostitute is the wrong prostitute, because her name and age doesn't match. The Daily Caller has not verify that the prostitutes use their real names and age.

Illegal Operation (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion above has addressed this at length. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say it is a reliable source, it has editorial oversight, and although it has made its mistakes, as has many major reliable sources who publish on a daily basis (there are some who have disparaged CNN as a non-reliable source at the Fort Hood Shooting article), that doesn't mean that it isn't reliable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

For instance, CBS News made its mistakes as well, but they are still a reliable source. Additionally, multiple reliable sources are covering the Daily Sources contention of the WaPo article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

−

I think it is usually reliable, but this particular item reads very poorly, like tabloid trivia. Can we please have the links to the ABC and Washington Post reports? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. [2] [3] [4] [5] Illegal Operation (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say TDC is non-RS for statements of fact, in the same way that salon.com is non-RS for statements of fact. It is a tabloid that sometimes does real journalism, but the unevenness and lack of day-to-day fact-based reporting (unlike CNN, CBS, or other outlets who do make mistakes but because of their output we can see that they are outliers) make it unreliable. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The story is notable and should be covered using all the news reports. TDC, Washington Post, ABC, also Forbes, Mother Jones and the Guardian have mentioned it. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The story is notable, but that doesn't mean that every website is covering it is a reliable source. Also, Matt Boyle who broke the original "scandal" moved to breitbart.com. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nor is there any requirement to use all reliable sources in any case. The best should be used, obviously, but having many citations after a single fact is discouraged as it looks like synthesis. Just use the single best (most reliable) source for the fact. Yworo (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That's why I've been saying. There are plenty of reliable sources: ABC News, Washington Past, etc. Also, Wikipedia's policy is: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Illegal Operation (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll second Yworo. The Daily Caller's coverage shouldn't be treated as fact in this case, but their coverage can be described, along with conflicting coverage in ABC and the Washington Post. It's also important to keep in mind that this is a biography of a living person. Biographies should reflect a person's career holistically, rather than becoming a catalog of tabloid-ready controversies. Need to be very careful about how we present possibly defamatory allegations, and how much weight to give them. TheBlueCanoe 06:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all these last three posts. When I said use all the sources, I meant, all the mainstream news sources that have something to say. Those like ABC and Forbes that aren't part of the story itself should be particularly useful. The original TDC reports can still be linked, as that would be an appropriate use of primary sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is the one making the statement opposing the reporting originating from Washington Post. For their reply, it could be said the article where they dispute the Washington Post article is a primary source for their own comment. I do not see with providing the direct source for their comment. This meets WP:ATTRIBUTE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let's be clear: this is a story in which prostitutes were paid to lie about having contact with a U.S. Senator ([6]). It was picked up and promoted heavily by partisan media (i.e. the Daily Caller) for rather obvious reasons, although more reputable media wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole because it was so obviously dubious and lacking credibility ("ABC News did not broadcast or initially report on the claims because of doubts about the women's veracity and identity."). Seriously - even the New York Post wouldn't risk its journalistic credibility, such as it is, on this crap ([7]). We've really beclowned ourselves by creating a standalone section in someone's biography about this.

  If WP:BLP has any meaning, then we should be very circumspect when someone is accused of a crime with absolutely no credible evidence and no charges filed. We should be even more circumspect when the accusations are so obviously sustained by one-sided partisan media.

  I'm not saying we shouldn't mention these allegations. But if we do, then the coverage needs to be based on independent, reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking, care, and accuracy - not on dubious partisan media. Such coverage would read, in essence: "The Daily Caller, a conservative website, featured accusations that Menendez had patronized underage prostitutes in the DR. The accusations were unsubstantiated, and multiple other news outlets, including tabloids such as the New York Post, declined to publish them given their lack of credibility. Subsequently, one of the accusers stated that she had been paid to falsely implicate Menendez and had never actually met him. The Daily Caller nonetheless continued to promote the claims ([8])."

  Seriously, folks. This episode is actually exhibit A as to why the Daily Caller is not a reliable source, and shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of a BLP. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • The problem there is that you're actively taking a side on the matter. You've passed judgement on TDC without enough evidence to do so, you're assuming one group's word over another when both have a reputation for care, fact-checking, and accuracy, and then presenting the information not neutrally, but with a bias against a source simply because you do not believe the findings. The question is not whether TDC is reliable: it clearly is. The question about whether the claims are appropriate enough to list is another discussion altogether. This situation got coverage in a number of places, so you simply put it, at this point, as "The Daily Caller claimed that Menendez X. Washington Post, in a subsequent investigation, found someone who disputes X. TDC responded with Y." That's about all we can do neutrally. TDC isn't ThinkProgress or Media Matters, isn't WND or NewsMax. It's closer to Salon, we should treat it as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You're the one who is pushing the evidence-free assertions here. Nobody in serious mainstream journalism takes The Daily Caller seriously as serious mainstream journalism. We should not either. To put up a recently created hack partisan outlet as a he said/she said equivalent of the widely-respected 135-year-old newspaper is lunacy. Gamaliel (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
      • You present an interesting contridiction. While I would not use TDC as a primary source for an event (much like HuffPo), Tucker Carlson, of TDC is considered a journalist and appears on FNC regularly along with other journalists. Now I suppose if you don't consider FNC as serious MS journalism, than your premise holds true. However, in that case what you appear to really mean, is that no one in left-leaning journalism views TDC as serious journalism, which is probably not too suprising as TDC takes a partisan stance, at least they are honest about it. Arzel (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The scope of this forum is whether the source can be considered a reliable source in the context of the content. Can the Daily Caller be a source for the content it is used to site. Let us look what it used to verify:

In an article[111] by The Daily Caller

“That senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2012, according to the same translation

The Daily Caller can be used to verify what itself stated, but the content can fall under WP:BLPCRIME, but that is not for this noticeboard that is for WP:BLPN. The article is about emails from CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) Here is a link directly from CREW of their initial release and the non-redacted version of the email exchange. Here is a link to the redacted emails which is linked in the article which is the subject of this discussion. The Daily Caller content is further verified by this Daily Mail article.

Therefore, the question is not is the Daily Caller article a reliable source for the content, but is the Daily Caller the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Daily Mail reliable sources to verify this content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the question in my mind is whether editors who view the Washington Post and the Daily Caller as equally appropriate sources should be allowed anywhere near a BLP. You're seriously advocating that we repeat a totally unsubstantiated and apparently false claim that a living person "likes the youngest and newest girls" at a brothel? A claim so defamatory and lacking in credibility that no reputable news source - not even the New York Post - would touch it with a 10-foot pole? A claim promoted solely by a dubious partisan website? Don't turf that the to BLP noticeboard - I'd like an answer here. This is frankly pretty disgraceful, and should disqualify several of you from ever editing a political BLP again. MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. Additionally arguments against myself are fallacious. I can agree to civilly disagree with MastCell.

This is not a noticeboard for discussion of BLP guidelines/policy, nor is this a noticeboard about content. This is a noticeboard about whether a source is a reliable source or not.

As the source has been corroborated by another reliable source, and I have linked the original content which both sources write about, we now have a clearer understanding of the sources in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That a story is repeated by the Daily Mail is no indication of its truth. Please write the section up, with bare facts only, from the uninvolved mainstream press, mentioning how the allegations were in TDC but denied by W. Post. No editorialising. Double check the wording with BLPN. Do not feel obliged to include all detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Judith, to be clear, the allegations were not denied by the Washington Post. Rather, they were investigated by the FBI and found to be totally baseless, a fact reported in the Washington Post ([9]). This confusion is unfortunately perpetuated by a number of the comments above, which seek to frame the issue as a he-said-she-said between the Daily Caller and the lib'rul mainstream media.

Instead, this is a case where someone was paid to fabricate salacious allegations against a living person, and those allegations continue to be promoted by a partisan website despite a universally appreciated lack of credibility. We should handle such situations with extreme care, but instead we seem to be committed to doing the opposite. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We're not committed to doing anything except for following our own policies. TDC seems to be reliable as a rule but in this case it has become part of the story, so is a primary source. The Washington Post too - note I do not say that their roles are in any way parallel. There is plenty of coverage in the rest of the mainstream press (ABC, CNN, Forbes, NYT, AP), use that. Links to the primary sources may help the reader, but they must not be the main sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've revised the section to emphasize high-quality, independent reliable sources and to aim at something more closely approximating due weight. Although it's probably already been reverted to the version that highlights the false smears and partisan sources... MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

MastCell has left out that the Daily Caller, and reported by others, that the information for the individuals who claimed they were paid to lie is disputed. To only include the one link to the Washington Post regarding this is cherry picking.

I have provided links to the documents which the article which is the subject of this discussion reported on. That is from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington which has called liberal, as indicated on their Wikipedia article. I have issues with the new "revised" version, but this is not the place to discuss it.

The question remains: Is the Daily Caller the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Daily Mail reliable sources to verify this content? I am of the opinion that they are, and the content was properly attributed to the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is an abysmal source. I think Wikipedians pretty much gave up on it a year ago or so, when they were caught just plain making stuff up (complete with fabricated quotations). Even before then, there was a clear consensus not to use the Daily Mail for even remotely contentious BLP matters. MastCell ^Talk 01:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How about the specific article which was formerly used on the article?

What about the CREW document?

I understand MastCell and myself will disagree, but what is the opinion of other editors?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Neither the Daily Mail nor the Daily Caller is a reliable source. Neither should be allowed within a metric mile of a BLP article. Pretty much per MastCell. --John (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

And what is John's opinion of the CREW source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talk • contribs)

Your continued insistence on citing the CREW source (but not subsequent CREW sources that say the evidence for these allegations is "skimpy", or that characterize it as a smear campaign) in this forum, when the most appropriate place to discuss them is the article talk page itself (and where I have discussed it with you at some length), smacks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This RSN entry is about the Daily Caller specifically, so CREW don't enter into it. I admit that I cannot come up with an explanation for this behavior that I find sufficiently AGFish, so please, enlighten your fellow editors (perhaps on my talk page, to keep the off-topic discussion here at a minimum). I would appreciate it, anyway. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 00:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Just stick to what's in AP and you will be fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that we need to stick to better sources (e.g. the AP) in this particular case. The AP's reporting makes clear that the accusations were false, and that the women were paid to frame Menendez ("3 women were paid to falsely claim they had sex with Menendez, Dominican police say"). I don't think RCLC will be satisfied with that, but hopefully we can move on.

But I'd also like to put this question of the Daily Caller as a reliable source to bed. This isn't the first time that the Daily Caller has pushed dubious or outright false material for partisan purposes. In fall 2011, The Daily Caller published an article claiming that the EPA under Obama wanted to hire 230,000 additional bureaucrats, at a cost of $21 billion. That claim got repeated a lot - in outlets like FoxNews and the National Review - but it was completely and transparently false ([10], [11]). When they were called out on the falsehood, the Daily Caller doubled down rather than correcting it ([12]).

WP:RS demands that we use sources with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In light of these two incidents, I don't see how anyone can argue that the Daily Caller has or deserves such a reputation. There have been several high-profile instances now where this site has prioritized its ideological goals over basic journalistic accuracy. We should be very cautious about using this website as a source, and should definitely avoid it altogether when it comes to contentious material about living people. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Too bad you are omitting the up too part that TDC originally used. I remember that story when it came out and equated it as to "you can lose up to 100lbs on the wikipedia diet". Reading is fundamental.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not omitting anything; I'm conveying the view, found in the reliable sources I cited, that the Daily Caller published and defended an ideologically driven falsehood. That's not my opinion; it's the conclusion of the reliable sources I linked. MastCell ^Talk 00:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You should read those sources more closely again. They confirm exactly what I said with respect to "up to". And the WaPo blog isn't reliable, even under the auspices of WP:NEWSBLOG. It's opinion, and partisan opinion at that. It seems odd that one would discount a source for partisanship and yet rely on another partisan source (the blog) to impeach the former. This is why we can't and shouldn't stick a branding iron onto the face of things we don't like. We look at each article in question to make a determination.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. You think a Washington Post blog is unreliable "partisan opinion", but you think the Daily Caller is a reliable source? Even if you choose to dismiss the Washington Post, there are other sources which called out the Daily Caller for publishing falsehoods. I think you're usually pretty reasonable, but I'm having trouble understanding your viewpoint here. I'd be interested to hear some outside views here, because I think the Daily Caller has clearly demonstrated a lack of fact-checking and accuracy and thus should not be used as a reliable source (per the relevant criteria). MastCell ^Talk 04:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I should have been more verbose, that's a symptom of tablet typing. I'm not sure what your level of familiarity is with the WP, but their online arm is quite a bit different than the "print" edition. That is starting to change. My understanding of NEWSBLOG is that we accept blog entries from normally reliable sources as reliable themselves. I don't think there is any source on the planet more reliable than the WashPost. The blog in question here and for most blog entries on the WashPost are written by columnists, thus opinion based. Of course we don't need a RS to make a determination if another RS is reliable or not, so perhaps this is moot. However you did state that you had a RS saying the TDC got it wrong. You don't (and they didn't really say that). TDC does make some over the top headlines, no doubt to generate a buzz. We should be more diligent in the usage of such sources so not to mislead our reader, but so far there is no compelling reason to disqualify an entire organization.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; that makes more sense. Let's talk about "over-the-top headlines". Leaving aside the instances I outlined above, the Daily Caller once notoriously printed a headline reading: "NEW URBAN DICTIONARY ENTRY PEGS HARRY REID AS CHILD MOLESTER". The article concluded: "Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson has not responded to The Daily Caller's request, first made August 4, for confirmation or denial about whether the Senate Majority Leader is in fact a pederast." ([13])

That's yellow journalism at its worst. I'd hope no one would seriously suggest that we go to the Harry Reid biography and include a section entitled "Pedophilia allegations" - but we've done essentially the same thing on the Menendez biography, prominently featuring false smears publicized by this "reliable source". I'm not sure how many such examples I need to present to convince people that we shouldn't let this source anywhere near a biography. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, especially for BLP. I would say TDC's article about Mr. Reid is a non story along the lines of asking him when he stopped beating his wife. Short of corroboration, we can't use this. The Menendez articles are a different story. I would include them only if this story got legs and led to other consequences, for example political fallout. But why speculate? Lets just wait and see what happens. Personally, at the moment I see no need to mention the prostitute whatsoever. We are not a newspaper with up to the minute details.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Given the latest scandal, perhaps we can agree to have a moratorium on using or adding any of their outrageous allegations. I can't recall hearing about a story where a news organization was this widely ridiculed by its peers. That's not a good sign for reliability. The latest article, ironically, is an AP article I saw at the dailycaller. No discussion yet on who in the United States is ultimately behind it at all. Reviewing the front page - I don't know. I've always thought that Newsmax was pretty bad, so if this is like that, it should be used very cautiously. The reality is that a blanket statement is probably not going to be ever get consensus, and I can't see the website being added to the blacklist. Maybe continue to collect evidence of exaggeration and mistakes. Also, to "Little green rosetta" - just because a news organization runs a blog doesn't mean it isn't reliable. I've never heard that news organizations "silo" off their reliability; my guess is that they are generally unaware of the enormous significance that Wikipedia users put on certain titles. II | (t - c) 06:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NEWSBLOG before you decide if blogs of RS are always reliable sources. Often they are reliable, but certainly not always. It's a case by case basis.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that in light of the litany of recognized disinformation and slander published by TDC they should be considered an unreliable source, with the usual rejoinder for consideration on a case-by-case basis for specific articles that someone deems reliable being raised here, instead of the other way around. In light of the foregoing discussion, I don't see justification for adopting the premise that their articles are to be considered RS.

It is a waste of time and effort to have to refute on this board every piece of 'yellow journalism' they print because some partisan wants to use it in an attack. I think it has been demonstrated that the burden of proof should be shifted.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Participation on wikipedia is not compulsory. This notice board is precisely the sort of venue that may be used to determine the veracity of a specfic source. AFAIK there has never been an organization that has been effectively banned as a RS. I'm not sure how we would even entertain such a proposal.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think we finally gave up completely on the Daily Mail because of its utter disregard for journalistic standards (I linked the relevant RS/N discussion above). Interestingly, the Daily Caller editor who pushed this prostitute "story" just left to join the Daily Mail ([14]), which I suppose makes a certain kind of sense. MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting read, as it echoes this conversation to a degree, but there was no consensus that TDM was banned as a RS, perhaps for the same reasons I mention here. Look, the bottom line is if an article from TDC or TDM or whatever is unreliable, it should be apparent from the article in question and corroborating sources (or lack thereof). There is no need to cb any RS.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe this hasn't been done yet, but perhaps there should be a basic distinction between tabloid and bonafide news publications.

Articles published in tabloids would not be assumed to be reliable in the proposed schema; it's that simple.

When I referred to shifting the burden of proof, that is all I meant; that is to say, it hinges on what is assumed to be reliable versus what is assumed to require substantiation to be considered reliable.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I gather that it is perhaps controversial to call the media outlet at issue a tabloid, but for all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter what term one chooses to characterize media outlets with a conspicuously poor track record in relation to criteria required by Wikipedia to be considered reliable.

The point is should there be some way of implementing preventative measures against the careless use of such sources.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem, again, is that this is one of those situations where ideological dominance kicks in a bit. People with a problem with TDC will turn around and say Media Matters is okay. Those who think Truthout is a bad source will then add stuff from NewsMax or WorldNetDaily. It would be good to settle upon this a bit sitewide, but as it stands, it appears to be case-by-case. As TDC is a journalistic enterprise with a history of fact-checking and accuracy (even if they get it wrong on occasion, as do plenty of other reliable sources), the question moves from "is TDC reliable" to "given the evidence available, is it appropriate to use in this context." Barring more developments in the prostitution case, the piece might actually make more sense in the TDC article than in the Senator's given that the issue has become more about the reporting and less about the activity. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

On what basis do you describe the Daily Caller as a "journalistic enterprise"? Its executive editor was (until his recent departure for the Daily Mail) an individual with no journalistic background at all, whose prior experience consisted of trying to infiltrate and discredit environmental groups on behalf of a conservative PR firm ([15]). The Daily Caller's cavalier approach to factual accuracy has embarrassed its own employees, a number of whom have left as a result ([16]). I agree we should be consistent in deprecating partisan sources (including Media Matters, the Huffington Post, Truthout, etc), but the fact that we haven't achieved perfection in that regard is not an excuse to keep using this particular low-quality partisan source.

Equating the Daily Caller with reputable journalistic enterprises because they both "get it wrong on occasion" completely misses the mark in terms of what makes a source reliable. Reliability isn't defined by the publication of occasional errors. It's defined by a process of accountability in which errors, when identified, are promptly corrected. A reliable is one that shows some serious interest and accountability in whether or not the stuff it publishes actually turns out to be, like, true. That's why the New York Times is a reliable source, and the Daily Caller isn't. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced TDC is low quality as much as highly partisan. Tucker Carlson is a credible journalist. People leave outlets all the time for a lot of reasons. If the point is corrections, then we have a lot of otherwise reputable sources (like Washington Post, Reuters, Politifact) that get it wrong and don't correct it which are part of that blanket and should pass muster. In cases where we can avoid TDC, I agree that we should. In places where we can't (like Menendez, Journolist, etc), then we need to handle it on a case-by-case basis. It's not Newsmax. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What people should realize is the sources are the articles. We take into consideration the organization behind the articles, but at the end of the day every published piece of material, be it from the NYT or National Enquirer stands in its own merit. Yes, that National Enqurier has published a reliable story from time to time.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. National Enquirer articles only are shown to be not total lies (when they, rarely, do have a grain of truth in them) LONG, LONG after the fact, because other more reputable organizations have followed up the leads and allegations. Since we do not do WP:OR we can only evaluate the reliability of a source based on its reputation and history. The Daily Caller has a reputation for yellow journalism, and happens to also be a partisan source, so it is non-RS. If at some point TDC printed something that somehow happened to not be complete and utter horsepuckey, we would still not be able to use it until a RS repeated it, because until an RS vets it, it is still garbage. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• As a sad but telling footnote, this "story" has collapsed into allegations that the Daily Caller actually paid the prostitutes in question to lie and frame Menendez (Washington Post, Newark Star-Ledger, The Hill, Politico, etc). While these new allegations are no more substantiated than the original accusations (which the Daily Caller heavily promoted), we're left with a situation where in the best case, this website promoted transparently false and defamatory smears against a political opponent; in a worst-case scenario, the website actually paid to have a U.S. Senator framed. Even assuming the best-case scenario, this episode is worth keeping in mind next time someone pushes to use this source for contentious material about living people. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just read that TDC wrote up something on Michelle Bachmann, guess that's not admissible either from the TDC source, oh well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic complaints about the liberal mainstream media
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see non-right leaning Main Stream Media sources have seen that the waters have been chummed and the subject is a conservative American politician, and look at all those other sources! Guess those left-leaning sources are germane?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Please review WP:SOAP. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC) The previous question is not about making a stance about the non-neutrality of sources, but a question about sources. Guess those left-leaning sources are germane? I have already said that the political lean of a source has no relevance on whether a source is reliable or not, but that doesn't mean that it can't be pointed out. Furthermore, others have wanted to label certain sources with their political lean in the article space, but do not view that the political lean of others sources should be mentioned.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC) As an aside, if the left-leaning nature of the MSM is in question, there is already a section about it on Wikipedia. And a cursory search finds multiple reliable sources (including books, and scholarly sources) that give significant coverage regarding the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Again, please review WP:SOAP. You are editorializing, and this is not the appropriate place for it. Perhaps write an essay or something. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 02:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC) And what would UCL recommend the essay be about? And how would it contribute to the subject that is discussed in WP:IRL?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC) The essay is called User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias. Feel free to expand it. I've already tried deleting it. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation

Source: various pages from the website of the "Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation" (BHRF, also known by its URL cyclehelmets.org).

Article: Bicycle helmets in Australia (and by extension to Bicycle helmet, but discussion below relates specifically to Bicycle helmets in Australia)

Content: Material form this organisation's web site is referenced some 13 times (as at 16 March 2013). All these references have been edited (by me) to clearly identify the source, and thus a search the article or article source for "Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation" will show the references.

The question I am seeking opinions on is whether the pages on this organisation's web site can be considered a reliable and appropriate source for the article in question?

The organisation appears to be a company registered in Anglesey, Wales, UK, to a Dr Richard Keatinge, who is the sole director listed.

The BHRF policy statement says "cyclehelmets.org is administered by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF), an incorporated body with an international membership, to undertake, encourage, and spread the scientific study of the use of bicycle helmets.The purpose of cyclehelmets.org is to provide a resource of best-available factual information to assist the understanding of a complex subject, and one where some of the reasoning may conflict with received opinion. In particular we seek to provide access to a wider range of information than is commonly made available by some governments and other bodies that take a strong helmet promotion stance. It is hoped that this will assist informed judgements about the pros and cons of cycle helmets."

The BHRF site claims that its material is peer-reviewed but no details are given on the process. The organisation does list its patrons and Editorial Board. Of concern is that three of the members of the Editorial Board, which it says is responsible for the content of the web site, themselves operate or are associated with organisations and/or web sites which appear to be actively lobbying against mandatory cycle helmet laws, or promote such lobbying. This is potentially problematic because a great deal of the contention in the Bicycle helmets in Australia article is about mandatory helmets laws.

• Guy Chapman appears to operate this web site: http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/about-nohelmetlaw
• Bill Curnow appears to be President of the lobby organisation Cyclists Rights Action Group (CRAG).
• Chris Gillham appears to operate the web site Mandatory bicycle helmet law in Western Australia

In addition, I have been unable to find any statements, comments or publications attributable to any of the other members of the BHRF Editorial Board which are not critical of bicycle helmet laws (and in some cases, of bicycle helmets themselves). If the BHRF promoted a balanced view of bicycle helmets and helmet laws, I would have expected at least some members of its Editorial Board to have publicly voiced opinions favourable to bicycle helmets or bicycle helmet promotion campaigns and laws. Of course, my search was necessarily not exhaustive, and I may have overlooked such material somewhere on the Internet.

Opinions of the suitability of the BHRF web site as a source of authority for material in the article Bicycle helmets in Australia would be appreciated. Tim C (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, complete removal of the references to the BHRF web site is not proposed, although some pruning of some of those references (and the assertions in the article that they are used to support) may be reasonable, given the heavy reliance on that web site (13 references to it in the article at last count). However, flagging of the references to the BHRF website as a potentially unreliable source may be justified and in accord with WP policies. Tim C (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The front page of the website alone makes it pretty clear that this is an advocacy website: all the stories are about how bike helmets are a bad thing. As such, this doesn't seem to be a reliable source given that it's only presenting one side of the debate (a genuinely disinterested academic or research-type organisation wouldn't structure their website in such a way). Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D. The other thing worth pointing out is that the vast majority of the pages on the BHRF site seem to be anonymously authored - I can't find any attribution to any named individuals except for a few pages (out of many on the site) attributed to Dorothy Robinson. Their Editorial Board page states that "The Editorial Board is responsible for the content of cyclehelmets.org" but that's not the same as putting by-lines on pages. I have never seen a peer-reviewed publication (as they claim to be) that doesn't attribute articles to the individuals who authored them. Tim C (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The peer review process involves circulation to and comments from the editorial board (which as you'll see from my talk page includes me), with vigorous discussion as required. It's probably a rather more searching process than the usual approach.

Anonymity has nothing to do with peer review status anyway, but career/economic threat is the reason for the anonymity. We generally don't attribute articles if the author(s) don't want it done, and some of us have professional reasons for that. It's not personally relevant to me any more, because I plan to remain where I am until I retire and could do so tomorrow. I have had "helpful" remarks in the past from people in a position to influence my career, to the effect that in my own interests I'd be wise to drop the whole subject. Nobody was actually making me an offer I couldn't refuse, but there was a distinct hint of consequences I wouldn't like. Others in other professional fields have had more direct remarks and have more and ongoing reason to worry.

One sided? If we reject any sources emphasizing one side of an argument we'll be very short of any sources at all. The arguments over cycle helmets are longstanding and the tone is often sour. You may note that almost all cyclehelmets.org pages are rather well-referenced and their tone is mild. There is a widespread assumption that cycling is dangerous, helmets must be useful - my own long-ago helmet purchase followed from that attitude and the site is certainly designed to challenge it. But unreliable? I at least don't think so.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is possible that the content can be included as verified opinion if properly attributed, but the question is, if it were to be used in that manner, is whether the originator of the opinion notable enough to have weight that their opinion would contribute to the balance/neutrality of the article, and thus improve its quality?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A good question. Modesty forbids me to give a direct answer, but from alexa.com I find: Site Information for cyclehelmets.org ... Alexa Traffic Rank: 1,774,468 No regional data link-icon Sites Linking In: 404 ... cyclehelmets.org cyclehelmets.org is not in the top 100,000 sites Rank:1,774,468 Category: Sports > Cycling Keywords: cycle helmets, bicycle helmet, bike helmet 2 years, ski helmet, bike helmet

For a site entirely about a subject quite peripheral to the concerns of most people that seems a fairly high ranking. Opinions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the nub of the problem: the BHRF site is about a single subject. The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation would have a lot more credibility if it were an organisation concerned with all aspects of cycling safety, or an organisation interested in the biomechanical and engineering aspects of all types of helmets. But it is only about bicycle helmets, and furthermore, it seems to be exclusively concerned with what it holds to be the negative aspects of bicycle helmets. Yes, the site does have a page titled "Published evidence supportive of helmet effectiveness or promotion", but nearly every study listed on that page links to a sub-page on cyclehelmets.org which presents a critique of the study which concludes that the study is invalid or fatally flawed. All studies have flaws, but the critiques appear to be relentlessly negative. There's also a page titled "Published evidence sceptical of helmet effectiveness or promotion", but the links on that page don't lead to critiques of these papers, they mostly point to full-text copies of these papers or to their PubMed records.

Of even greater concern is that some of the critiques on the BHRF cyclehelmets.org site appear to attack and impugn the professional integrity of researchers. For example, the site has this to say about one particular study: "Despite attempts to manipulate the results, one of the largest reviews of the evidence has not been able to find any reliable evidence that helmets have benefited cyclists". Further accusations of dishonest and unethical behaviour are made against the authors of that study on this page (see the section labelled "Ethics"). Those are not the sort of words one expects to find in a balanced, unbiased and professional publication. Tim C (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Anonymity of the articles on the BHRF site is one of the main problems I have with it being considered a reliable source. No other peer-reviewed publication that I am aware of permits anonymous articles. The issue is one of potential undue weight. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals by Bill Curnow and Dorothy Robinson, are already cited 4 and 22 times respectively in the WP article in question. Both Bill Curnow and Dorothy Robinson are listed as members of the BHRF editorial board. BHRF web pages are referenced 13 times in the article - 3 references to a BHRF page attributed to Dorothy Robinson, and 10 references to anonymously-authored BHRF pages. It is important for WP readers to be able to know who is responsible for those anonymous web pages, which are used as authorities for statements in the article - particularly when three members of the BHRF editorial board, including Curnow, appear to be running lobby organisations and/or campaigns opposing mandatory bicycle helmet laws, as noted above. Tim C (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

With respect to Richard and his colleagues, I don't think that an "editorial board" for a website which clearly exists to promote one point of view meets Wikipedia's standards for establishing this website as a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It exists to promote a scientific point of view. On the whole, I think it does that quite well. As has been pointed out, we also link to papers that present other points of view, so as to avoid any hint that we're misrepresenting them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example of the problems posed by the anonymous and undated (and unversioned) nature of most of the articles/pages on the BHRF web site: two graphs of Australian Census data were added some time ago to the Bicycle usage section of the article by a pseudonymous WP editor who has contributed a great deal of material and made many edits to the article. Although the graphs are based on Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data, they combine and present that data in a particular manner and are thus a synthesis, or possibly original research, and as such they are required to be referenced to an external source. The source files for these graphs are in WikiMedia Commons and are listed there as that pseudonymous editor's own work. I added citation needed tags to these graphs, and the editor was asked via the Talk page for the article to supply suitable external references for the graphs. This was done: the references given are to an anonymous and undated BHRF web page, where copies of these graphs now appear. Thus it would appear that there is some connection between the pseudonymous user in question and the BHRF organisation. This is potentially problematic given that most of the BHRF web pages are anonymously authored, including the one given as the external reference for these two graphs. Tim C (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Readers of Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia will know that I personally used the census data (available on the BHRF website) on numbers cycling to work, and total numbers of people who travelled to work on census day by state, to calculate the percentage of single-mode journeys by bike for a) individual states, b) capital cities and regional areas according to whether there was an enforced helmet law at the time of the census. There was a consensus on the talk page that the current version of the page had developed problems, and that we should revert to a previous version, but include the graph of cycling to work in individual states. This was put into effect. At the time, there was no suggestion that drawing a graph of previously-published data was against Wiki rules.

Later, Tim objected to these graphs because I put vertical lines to indicate the separation between data points with and without enforced laws. To avoid any interpretation of the vertical lines as dates of legislation, I therefore replaced the vertical lines with dotted lines. Tim then objected because he considered drawing graphs from published data was 'original research', so I asked the BHRF to include them on their page of census data. The data cover censuses in 1976, 81, 86, 91, 96, 01, 06, and 11 in 8 different states & territories - Vic, NSW, Tas, SA, WA, ACT, Qld and the NT - so 64 individual documents or downloads were needed to compile the data. I downloaded them all and found only one discrepancy compared to the previously-published data on the BHRF website. I contacted the ABS and they confirmed it was their mistake - the scan for one state included a page on cycling to work for another state. The document on the ABS website has now been corrected.

Even peer-reviewed literature contains inaccuracies and silly mistakes. For example, one of the early papers [Cameron, MH; Vulcan AP; Finch CF; Newstead SV (June 1994). "Mandatory bicycle helmet use following a decade of helmet promotion in Victoria, Australia--an evaluation.". Accident Analysis & Prevention 6 (3): 325–337.] reports that Melbourne, with a population of 3 million, averaged about 60 million hours of cycling per week (see Fig 7) - an average of 20 hours per week for every many, woman and child in the city! As far as I can determine, the journal has never published a correction to this clearly ludicrous information. If Tim have ever seen equally incorrect information on the BHRF website, I expect he would have complained about it immediately.

Tim also objects to citing Sue Abbott's blog about her, and her family's, experiences, fighting helmet laws, as a result of which she had her driving licence cancelled, and her property confiscated. Despite being self-reported, there is no doubt about the accuracy - Sue has appeared on TV, and provided photos of her cancelled driving licence etc. Do Wiki editors believe that verifiable information "from the horse's mouth" is any less accurate than a newspaper report of the same event? Newspapers usually do nor more than interview the person in question, so are more likely to contain inaccuracies than first hand reports of the incident.

There is an interesting web page http://www.cbdbug.org.au/2011/06/helmet-research-paper-released/ that provides documents obtained under right to information legislation illustrating the process of government oversight into the commissioning of bicycle helmet research in Australia. Some questions remain about earlier research. For example, a study of the first 3 years of legislation in Victoria found that head injury rates were no different to pre-law trends. The following year, the researchers used a new model to show a decline in the number of head injuries, while admitting that this models cannot distinguish between reductions in head injury because of reduced cycling and reductions because of increased helmet wearing. Research reports provide details of numbers of both adult and child cyclists in 1990, 1991 and 1992 at the same 64 sites and observation periods used to estimate the change in children's cycle use. Indeed, for children, the changes in cycle use are pretty similar to the changes in numbers counted. Yet, instead of using the numbers of adults counted (or estimating cycle use from the highly correlated measure of numbers counted) the published paper by Cameron et al. (1994) claimed that "adults were not included in the 1990 surveys". This sort of inaccuracy can escape peer review - the original research reports were not readily available at the time - so the reviewers would have no reason to know that adults had, indeed, been counted in the 1990 surveys.

Tim is clearly in favour of helmet laws. He was co-author of a paper (partially funded by Government agencies including the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Motor Accidents Authority) that found a small reduction in the ratio of head to arm injuries, while noting that "the contribution of factors such as risk compensation and safety in numbers has not been incorporated in this study." Despite the lack of information on whether risk compensation or reduced safety in numbers increased injury rates per cycle-km, or any economic comparison of head injury losses (that might be prevented by helmets)compared with the lost health and environmental benefits of cycling, the paper nonetheless concluded '...repealing the law cannot be justified." Personally, I'm at a loss to understand some of his edits, for example he "Corrected reference to Hoye and Elvik (not Erke and Elvik as stated)" I clicked on the link to the reference, a pdf file which lists the authors as Alena Erke and Rune Elvik on the front page.

The above details have been provided as background to the debate about whether the BHRF is a reliable source for the Bicycle Helmets in Australia page.

Bicycle Helmets in Australia currently has 126 references, of which 6 cite BHRF pages.

Reference 30 is that "while in the NT since March 1994 there is an exemption for adults cycling along footpaths or on cycle path."

Reference 41 is an article by D L Robinson, author of several peer-reviewed journal articles on bicycle helmet laws.

References 42 and 44 are cited using the text: "Several précis of and commentaries on these surveys have appeared on websites and blogs.[42][43][44][45][46]"

Reference 81 is the article on census data with tables and graphs of Australian Bureau of Stats data.

Reference 101 is cited as evidence that "Nonetheless, this is still low by international standards at 0.4 trips per bike per day in July and 0.8 trips per bike per day in January,[102]" The BHRF webpage provides a convenient summary of information on usage rates.

I would suggest that the BHRF it is probably one of the most reliable authoritive sources for the information cited above. Their editorial board contains many prominent cyclists, e.g. John Franklin, author of 'Cyclecraft' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclecraft and many others with links to cyclists organisations such as the CTC and the ECF. The BHRF provides links to original papers and sources, where available on the web, so in order to maintain its reputation, has to be very careful about ensuring the information provides is as accurate as possible.

A NPOV cannot be achieved without presenting both sides of the argument. Deleting references to BHRF pages, would result in Bicycle Helmets in Australia being dominated by research funded and sponsored by Australian government agencies. The 6 citations to BHRF pages improve this article. I cannot see why anyone would want to argue against the use of graphs produced from data that can be downloaded and verified from the ABS website. Their removal would represent a considerable loss, given that census data on cycling to work is one of the most longest reliable and consistent data series that covers a 35 year period that can illustrate long-term trends before and after helmet laws were introduced. Dorre (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example of the selectivity of the information offered on the BHRF cyclehelmets.org site: there is a link titled "Cutting through the controversy about helmet effectiveness" at the very top of the cyclehelmets.org home page, leading to this page: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1249.html which is about the de Jong cost-benefit model of hypothetical all-age mandatory helmet laws. The reference for this study is: de Jong, Piet (May 2012). "The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws". Risk Analysis 32 (5): pp782–790. Fine, but there is no mention whatsoever of the response to the de Jong model by Newbold, which was published on the very next page of the same issue of the same journal (Newbold, Stephen C. (May 2012). "Examining the Health-Risk Tradeoffs of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws". Risk Analysis 32 (5): pp791–798.). Newbold critically examined the de Jong model, and far from dismissing it, he suggested various improvements to it and identified parameters in it which require further research in order to quantify accurately (such as exercise type substitution behaviour). Newbold used published US data in his refined version of the de Jong model and found that mandatory bicycle helmet laws would seem to have positive net public health benefits in the US, although he warned that results from both his model and that of de Jong needed to be treated as very provisional due to uncertainty around values of key parameters to them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any reference to Newbold's paper at all on the BHRF cyclehelmets.org web site. It is this sort of selectivity in the evidence presented that calls the reliability of the BHRF as a source for WP articles into question. Tim C (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Tim Churches has previously pointed out that the studies that appear on the BHRF web site as supportive of helmet effectiveness or promotion are accompanied by critiques claiming that the study is invalid or fatally flawed, but that the studies listed as being sceptical of helmet effectiveness of promotion are not accompanied by negative critiques. I too had noticed this lack of balance when I first stumbled on the site a couple of years ago, and have consequently not spent a lot of time on the site, but have encountered much evidence of inaccuracy or unreliability in the information presented.

The 'Published evidence sceptical of helmet effectiveness or promotion' page (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html), contains 2 articles that most certainly do NOT 'cast doubt on the effectiveness of cycle helmets in reducing head injuries (at least serious head injuries), or on the wisdom of helmet promotion or laws', and one article (critical of the helmet law) that was retracted more than a year ago.

With respect to an article by Elvik (Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2011;43(3):1245-1251. 2011), the page states that 'Attewell et al influenced by publication and time-trend biases. When controlled for, the protective effects of helmets are smaller. Adding new studies, no overall benefit of helmets found.' Elvik noted that 'the re-analysis shows smaller safety benefits associated with the use of bicycle helmets than the original study', and reported the following odds ratios for fatal, brain and head injuries - fatal injury 0.27 in Attewell's original study, 0.23 in Elvik's re-analysis - brain injury 0.42 in the original study, 0.47 in the re-analysis - head injury 0.40 in the original study, 0.58 in the re-analysis Re head injuries, Elvik wrote: 'Do bicycle helmets reduce the risk of injury to the head, face or neck? With respect to head injury, the answer is clearly yes, and the re-analysis of the meta-analysis reported by Attewell et al.(2001) in this paper has not changed this answer.'

As already noted by Tim Churches, an article by Voukelatos and Rissel (Australasian College of Road Safety, ACRS 2010;21(3):50-55. 2010.) that was retracted in early 2011 is still listed on the page. The page described the study that was retracted 2 years ago as showing that 'Helmets were not the main reason for the drop in head injuries in Australia since helmet laws were introduced. General improvement in road safety from random breath testing and other measures were probably the cause.'. Many studies published after the retraction have been added to the page (7 in 2012 alone), yet this study has still not been removed from the page.

In describing an AIHW article (Serious injury due to land transport accidents, Australia, 2003-04), the page states that 'Wearing a helmet seems to have no discernible impact on the risk of head injury'. The AIHW report does not even mention bicycle helmets.

I have scanned only a few other pages on the BHRF site, and would not consider any of them to be reliable . . .

'Changes in cycle use in Australia' (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html) cites an SA study as showing a reduction in cycling to school, notes that the study 'likely' under-estimated that actual decline, and fails to note that the decline in cycling to school in the SA study was very similar to the declines in cycling to school in NSW and Victoria. The article also fails to note that the SA study found that there was no (statistically significant) evidence of a reduction in adult cycling, that prior to the helmet law cycling to school comprised about 20% of cycling in that age group, and that after the helmet law there was an increase in cycling to/around other venues of similar magnitude to the drop in cycling to school.

'Helmet laws: Northern Territory' (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1114.html) claims that 'Helmet use is now low in the NT . . . Estimates in 2004 suggested that 15% - 20% of cyclists continue to wear helmets, mostly "serious" cyclists'. I live in Darwin and have been cycling almost every day (commuter and utility) for about 10 years. The helmet wearing rate is much higher than the 15-20% alleged, probably at least 80%, ie. it the number of cyclists NOT wearing helmets would be at most 15%-20%.

'Head Injuries and Helmet Laws in Australia and New Zealand' (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1241.html) contains numerous examples of 'overlooking' evidence that runs counter to the claim that the helmet law was/is a bad thing. With respect to the most obvious examples, the article

• Claims that the Melbourne surveys were done 'in similar weather'. The authors of the study in which the data was collected noted differences in weather conditions, and concluded that after taking those differences into account, there was no reduction in adult cycling as a result of the helmet law.
• Notes downward trends in injuries for all road users; that in Victoria, head injuries fell almost as much as non-head injuries; and suggests that the reductions were due to 'large reductions' in cycling. The article fails to note that the injury data in the Victorian study showed that pedestrian head injuries dropped by about 20%, cyclist non-head injuries dropped by about 25%, and serious and severe cyclist head/brain injuries dropped by 40%.
• Cites injury data from an SA study, yet fails to note that the SA study also found that there was no decrease in overall cycling as a result of the helmet law.
• Claims that there was 'no obvious effect' of the law in SA with respect to reduced cyclist head injuries, yet fails to note that the injury data in the study also showed that

• cyclist concussion admissions dropped by 54%, and that admissions for all other causes of concussion dropped by 27%
• preventable injuries other than concussion reduced by 41%

Linda.m.ward (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Both User:Richard Keatinge and [User:Dorre]] have defended the reliability of the BHRF web site cyclehelmets.org above. User:Dorre stated:

I would suggest that the BHRF it is probably one of the most reliable authoritive sources for the information cited above. Their editorial board contains many prominent cyclists, e.g. John Franklin, author of 'Cyclecraft' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclecraft and many others with links to cyclists organisations such as the CTC and the ECF. The BHRF provides links to original papers and sources, where available on the web, so in order to maintain its reputation, has to be very careful about ensuring the information provides is as accurate as possible.

Now, the relationship of User:Richard Keatinge to the BHRF is transparent (he is the sole listed director of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation company that publishes the cyclehelmets.org web site). Such transparency is to be applauded. User:Dorre noted (above) that "I [Dorre] asked the BHRF to include them [graphs of Census data by Dorre] on their page of census data". Without asking User:Dorre to in any way compromise his/her pseudonymity, would it be possible, in the interests of transparency, for User:Dorre to declare the nature of his/her association with the BHRF organisation? Such a declaration is required in order to weigh-up the opinions of WP editors given in response to this RfC. Tim C (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am also a member of the BHRF editorial board. But this argument is obviously about the use of census data, which is freely available on the ABS website as 64 different files, but which were compiled and made available on the BHRF website for everyone to see and verify its accuracy. You complain about transparency, but what could be more transparent that making the data available for everyone to inspect? The ABS website is not all that easy to navigate, especially for the point of enumeration data, and for the historical data. Removing or discrediting a convenient source of data represent a substantial loss of information to the average person interested in this topic.

The Bicycle helmets in Australia has a total of 126 references. You argue that there are 13 references to the BHRF website, but omit to say that 8 of those references are to census data, that you know perfectly well are 100% accurate. Two others are listed as 'opinions and blogs', which presumably don't need any comments about reliability. The remaining 3 citations are 1) a reference to the date of the partial repeal of the helmet law in the NT, an article with a named author (that apparently you are not arguing against) and a comparison of the public bike schemes in the Melbourne and Dublin. Based on the above, you ask if the BHRF it is a suitable authority for the relevant assertions which cite it in this article. I would hope other readers are asking if this is this a joke.

The BHRF's policy statement is: "The purpose of cyclehelmets.org is to provide a resource of best-available factual information to assist the understanding of a complex subject, and one where some of the reasoning may conflict with received opinion. In particular we seek to provide access to a wider range of information than is commonly made available by some governments and other bodies that take a strong helmet promotion stance. It is hoped that this will assist informed judgements about the pros and cons of cycle helmets." For a group of unfunded volunteers, most of whom have full-time jobs, it does pretty well, though you can't expect it to match the effort of a group like yours, which is funded by the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Motor Accidents Authority.

Let me repeat again, the graphs of the census data are pretty simple and transparent. What could be simpler than aggregating the data by capital cities and other areas according to whether the police were handing out tickets for not wearing a helmet? This treatment is so simple and so basic and so transparent that anyone who argues against it would appear to have an ulterior motive like wanting to suppress information that doesn't fit a pet theory. But it will be up to other Wiki editors to form their own opinions. Dorre (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I will ignore the speculation about ulterior motives. The problem with the Census data is that the following BHRF cyclehelmets.org web page titled "Changes in cycle use in Australia" is cited 8 times in the WP article in support of various statements (and graphs) about the Census data: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html So let's examine that anonymous, undated web page. Here is what it says at the very top of the page, in the introduction:

The enactment of helmet laws in Australia in the early 1990s had a major impact on cycle use. Whereas cycle use prior to the laws had been generally increasing, as soon as laws were passed and enforced cycle use fell sharply. There were early signs that helmet compulsion might cause some people to give up cycling, such as when many students at schools in Victoria chose to give up cycling when they were required to wear helmets pre-law (AHoR, 1985b). It would therefore have been sensible for governments to ensure that the effect of compulsory wearing on numbers of cyclists was monitored accurately. This was not done, but some measurements of numbers were made, most being incidental to surveys of helmet wearing.

In other words, a priori the author of the web page is presenting their conclusion that helmets laws had a major impact on cycling, before any data has even been presented. The page is supposed to be about changes in cycling levels in Australia, but the very first thing mentioned in the author's view of what is responsible for any downward changes, before the changes are even described. Such a web page cannot be regarded as an impartial or reliable source of information. Later in the page, the NSW helmet surveys are discussed, and results from the surveys for child cyclists are given. But there is no mention of the fact that the surveys also counted adult cyclists, and there is no presentation of the numbers for adults, which actually went up after the laws came into force. Not to mention these facts is an indication of the selectivity of the information presented on the BHRF web site. Of course, the BHRF is free to publish whatever it likes on its own web site, and it can be as selective as it wishes. The question here is whether such a web site can be regarded as a reliable source for the purpose of WP articles about bicycle helmets. Tim C (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, not a terribly strong argument, unless you expect every reliable author to leave comments out of the headline. A conclusion in the summary is often quite a good way to write an article and certainly doesn't indicate that the author made up their mind before examining the facts. Reliability is not limited to opinions which either of us happen to agree with or like and this page is not for discussion of such issues. The fact remains that cyclehelmets.org is peer-reviewed and reliable for our purposes. How and how far we use it is a matter to be decided based on any contribution it may make to a high quality encyclopedic article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard, your fellow BHRF/cyclehelmets.org Editorial Board member User:Dorre states (above) that "...this argument is obviously about the use of census data, which is freely available on the ABS website as 64 different files, but which were compiled and made available on the BHRF website for everyone to see and verify its accuracy. You complain about transparency, but what could be more transparent that making the data available for everyone to inspect?" My argument is that the BHRF/cyclehelmets.org compilation of the data comes with what I regard as distinctly biased commentary, as noted above. If it were just the collated ABS data, then I might be OK with it, but it is selected ABS data embedded in a mass of biased commentary, which starts, a priori, with the assertion that helmets had a major impact on cycling. Now the BHRF is at complete liberty to present such views on pages of their web site, but presentation of those views also rule out those pages as reliable sources for WP. Tim C (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Now let me see, a peer-reviewed MUARC paper reported that: "bicycle use among teenagers had decreased by 43% by 1991 and by 46% by 1992, relative to (the pre-law count in) 1990". Which is more biased, the BHRF for describing this as a "major impact on cycle use", or the person who singles this out as a biased commentary?

The BHRF commentary that it would "have been sensible for governments to ensure that the effect of compulsory wearing on numbers of cyclists was monitored accurately" is also singled out above by Tim a biased statement. Yet consider the consequences of not counting adult cyclists in NSW at the same time of year. Tim goes on to say above: "Later in the page, the NSW helmet surveys are discussed, and results from the surveys for child cyclists are given. But there is no mention of the fact that the surveys also counted adult cyclists, and there is no presentation of the numbers for adults, which actually went up after the laws came into force." Suppose the pre-law survey had been from midnight to 1 am and the post-law survey from 8 to 9 am. If the post-law survey, in peak hours, had counted more cyclists, would Tim still argue that cycling had increased? One of the most fundamental principles of designing good surveys of cycling to make sure they are conducted at the sites, observation times and time of year. Yet according to Tim, the BHRF is "biased" because 1) it points out the problems of not monitoring cycle use accurately and 2) does not try and make invalid comparisons from surveys at different times of year.

I can't help feeling that Tim's complaint about bias reveals more about the bias of the complainant than the BHRF web page that reports the census data. Dorre (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This site is used for a number of claims in the article. In general, it is not reliable for the topics that this article covers. For any medical claims and claims about cycle helmet safety, WP:MEDRS applies. For statements about prevalence of cycling, this is a poor or insufficient source (and that topic should be covered in Cycling in Australia, not this article). It is probably reliable for statements about the organisations involved in the debate. Bias is not the issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching this debate for a while but holding off commenting till the to and fro-ing died down.I agree with Itsmejudith above Medical Claims should be peer reviewed in medical journals, materials engineering/failure analysis claims should be peer reviewed in appropriate engineering journals. Peer review should be more than having an editorial board check over your work, but should be an opening up of the work to complete scrutiny by correctly disciplined experts. Although not the work of a single person, I see clear comparisons with our policy on Self Published Sources that this is essentially a groups presenting themselves as an expert organisation when that is by no means proven. The fact that a number of members of the BHRF are editing this article is worrying they should familiarise themselves with our conflict of interest policy particularly the section on self-citing, and as per the last statement consider discussing any future inclusion of a BHRF link or reference on the talkpage over boldly proceeding. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation seems to be a special interests web site. Wikipedia prefers third-party reliable sources. There does appear to be some evidence that their views are notable.[17][18][19][20][21] However, third-party sources are preferred. IOW, if the Guardian or Scientific American (for example), publish their opinion, there's a valid case for including it in Wikipedia. But if third-party sources don't publish their opinions, it's best left out of Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the editorial board as well, though not much active at the moment. BHRF's opinion is republished y others, including Which? and the Guardian. But let me ask you this: given that a fractured bicycle helmet has failed, and that polystyrene absorbs very little energy in brittle fracture, both well known facts, which other sites discuss this issue other than by trying to excuse the failures?

BHRF was set up as a place to publish a large amount of data gathered by the Cyclists' Touring Club and by expert John Franklin (author of Cyclecraft, the source text for the UK's national cycle training standards). It looks like an advocacy site mainly because it's not: virtually all other helmet information sites are actually promoting helmet use and usually also helmet laws. We believe the data show pretty clearly that helmet laws don't work. Er're also convinced that helmets are largely irrelevant as a road safety measure, compared with things like maintenance and roadcraft. From the discussions I've seen, Tim also has a dog in this fight, so I'd be wary of taking his word at face value. What can be sais with fair confidence is that BHRF has a very large library of source material, and most of its commentary on that source material is well referenced and reviewed by people who have a history of publishing in the literature on this subject (including Dorothy Robinson and Malcolm Wardlaw). You won't find what you would perceive as a neutral site on helmets, because there is a false neutrality in the debate. People seem to think that helmet wearing is a default or neutral position. It's not. The Netherlands is the safest country in the world for cycling and helmet use there is negligible (something which is routinely deplored in letters and papers, despite the manifest lack of any evidence of a problem needing to be solved). In my view the worst thing about "liddites" is that they talk up the danger of cycling in order to promote their "solution" to it. Cycling is pretty safe, and whatever makes it safer, it doesn't seem to be helmets. I know one of the BHRF board is a lot firmer than that but most seem to me to be of the same view as me on that. They are probably good at preventing minor injuries, which is clearly what they are specified for - the test is a drop from normal standing height - and yet they are portrayed as some kind of magic talisman. 50% of cyclist deaths in London are due to crushing by goods vehicles at junctions, cause of death being abdominal trauma. That is pretty much 100% fixable, and helmets have nothing to do with it. The obsessive focus on helmets is an impediment to any debate about cycle safety, RoSPA put it last on the list of p[otential safety interventions when they reviewed it in the 90s, and helmet laws are the reason Australian cycle hire schemes are failing while the schemes in London and Paris thrive.

Yes, several of us operate websites that discuss cycling advocacy and helmet use. Why would that be a surprise? You'll note that none of us are one-trick ponies, we all support much a wider cycle safety agenda. Helmet are only one facet of the issue, and one we increasingly see as occupying far more attention than they should. Tim Churches seems to have an agenda against Dorothy Robinson which he has brought here from outside, which is a bit naughty. In his talk about the balance of evidence, he also falls into the classic trap of counting. There are a lot of papers saying helmets save lives, based on observational studies, and all are identically subject to bias. Most of them, especially the earliest and most widely cited (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson) turn out to be policy-based evidence making. It's a bit like the homeopaths who conduct a never ending series of observational studies intending to prove homeopathy without ever addressing the core issue of mechanism. How does a relatively thin layer of rather brittle foam "save lives"? It's a rather extraordinary claim which, on inspection, seems to be based on comparing different groups of cyclists and attributing all the difference in injury patterns to one thing. As the Australian and New Zealand experience shows, forcing people to wear helmets does not turn them ito the sort of cyclists who wear helmets voluntarily. I would also point out that I wrote this: http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A694596 and I think you will agree that such a substantial change of opinion in response to evidence is not the mark of a zealot. I have yet to see any compulsionist modify their views in response to any form of evidence. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy suggests above that I have some form of conflict of interest with respect to the WP bicycle helmet articles. This is untrue. The relevant aspects of my background with respect to my current activity as a WP editor are clearly laid in full on my user page at User:Tim.churches. Guy also suggests that "..he seems to have an agenda against Dorothy Robinson which he has brought here from outside, which is a bit naughty." This is also untrue. I have no agenda against Dorothy Robinson (nor anyone else). I have never met her, spoken to her nor exchanged any email or other correspondence with her. As an epidemiologist with an interest in cycling injuries, I have certainly examined her articles published in the peer-reviewed literature with a critical eye (and the work of others on bicycle helmets) - such is the nature of the scientific process - but I completely understand that any discourse about her work and the work of others must occur in the scientific literature, not in WP. None of my WP edits or Talk page posts have attacked or impugned her in any way. I am concerned that her published work (and therefore her views, because several of her published papers are in fact commentaries or reviews rather than original research) are over-represented in the WP articles on bicycle helmets (a glance at the reference lists will confirm this), and I have taken pains to ensure that wherever appropriate, she is clearly identified as the source both in the text and in the reference, simply because her work is mentioned so many times in the articles, and readers need to be aware of that. Nor do I have any agenda against the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation - the organisation has a perfect right to exist and publish whatever it likes on its own web site. The only question I have, which I think is a reasonable one, is whether anonymously-authored and undated pages on the BHRF cyclehelmets.org web site are suitable authorities for statements and assertions made in WP articles. Tim C (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Like Stuart I have been watching this debate from the sidelines having been alerted to its existence. As I enter to make this comment I'm donning my flame retardant suit ;-) Let's get the disclaimer over with: I am an academic, but in an unrelated field, and am on the BHRF Editorial Board. I personally would argue that the weight of evidence and opinion worldwide shows that bicycle helmet laws are a massive political success and a failure in every other respect from basic rights and legal issues through to health and safety. Of course Wikipedia is not a place to make my argument, and I've no intention of doing so. But Wikipedia is a place for articles which report in a clear NPOV way, without editorial, the evidence, arguments and opinion made elsewhere.

Bicycle helmet legislation is a controversial topic leading to much debate. The people most knowledgable about the subject, and hence potentially good editors of a Wikipedia article, are most probably going to be from one of the factions. Both factions have respected figures in them, looking just at Australia there are at least two respected senior Professors from different major Australian universities in opposing factions. Richard and Dorre, mentioned here and both with edits on the article, are on one side, Tim and Jake, both involved in recent editing, on the other. All these folk are well known outside of Wikipedia and debate the issue elsewhere, see for example Putting a lid on the debate: mandatory helmet laws reduce head injuries.

The article has undergone significant changes recently, with much back and forth - one faction deletes, the other adds it back - and it is hard to see all this as NPOV. Indeed the history shows arguments over NPOV by one side and the apparent acceptance of the other side of the fact. I'm afraid the arguments put forward here by Tim do come across as attempting to shift the NPOV stance of the article, however unintended that is.

I'll throw in a quick defence of Richard Keatinge here as some of the above comes across as suggested criticism of him; I know Richard, though we've never met in the physical world, and that he had edited multiple pages on WP in multiple subjects, for which he has a barnstar. From my experience, when it comes to WP Richard is a stickler for NPOV, he is more than willing to correct folk whom he might personally agree with if they stray off NPOV.

I'm somewhat baffled by Tim's statement: I have been unable to find any statements, comments or publications attributable to any of the other members of the BHRF Editorial Board which are not critical of bicycle helmet laws (and in some cases, of bicycle helmets themselves). If the BHRF promoted a balanced view of bicycle helmets and helmet laws, I would have expected at least some members of its Editorial Board to have publicly voiced opinions favourable to bicycle helmets or bicycle helmet promotion campaigns and laws. Using myself as an example there are certainly many statements, comments and publications of mine which are not critical of bicycle helmet laws; after all I am an academic in an unconnected field; so he cannot be referring to any statement, just those related to bicycle helmet laws. Now why would I, as an academic who has studied bicycle helmet laws and concluded they are fundamentally flawed publish something supporting them? Tim has a number of publications in this area and they are all supportive of bicycle helmet laws; and it is not as though those publications have not been the subject of controversy, see the previously referenced The Conversation discussion for one example. I don't see that as a problem and call for the removal of all references to his work, to do so would be bizarre! (I do note Stuart mentioned WP self-citing rules and that the history page of the article contains an exchange where text by Tim was deleted on this basis and then re-added by Tim. Not having studied the rule I've no idea whether Tim has accidentally fallen afoul of it.)

Is BHRF a reliable source? In the publication Cycling & Health - What's The Evidence, Nick Cavill & Dr Adrian Davis, Cycling England, 2009 we find Finally, there has been much debate about the value of cycle helmets. ... This issue is not reviewed here but there are a number of reference sources available [for example see www.cyclehelmets.org]. It seems the UK Government's national cycling body finds the BHRF worthy of being the sole reference to discover material from both sides of the debate.

Tim also references the Wikipedia article Bicycle helmets in questioning whether the BHRF can be referenced as a reliable source. In that article one of the most quoted sources for pro-law information is referenced, the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (BHSI), and that is not marked as an unreliable source nor as Tim argued that it should be. The site itself appears to be driven by a single individual and claims to be the helmet advocacy program of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, yet a look at Bicyclists Oppose Mandatory Helmet Bill shows the Washington Area Bicyclist Association opposing helmet laws. Sauce for the goose? I'm personally of the opinion that BHSI is as unreliable as you can get, but in an article which strives to present to opposing POVs in a NPOV manner references to it are not out of place - it is a most reliable source for their very unreliable POV!

There is much comment on anonymity of some references from the BHRF. I am the co-author/editor of an annotated ISO International Standard published by Elsevier. Many of the annotations in the that book are anonymous for various reasons, but in all cases the editors can be held responsible for their content, and the three of us are certainly named (one wants ones royalties ;-)). Why should the content of the BHRF be seen differently? There are also comments on the nature of the reviewing by the editorial board. I've declared I'm an academic, it should come as little surprise I've peer-reviewed papers for journals and conferences. If the process used by the BHRF differs in any significant way for the norm then it may be in the level of debate that occurs between the reviewers; it is hard to see that as a negative.

I could go on, but time to conclude. The article in question presents two opposing POVs in a NPOV manner, as an encyclopaedia article should. It references sources for those POVs, as it should. The BHRF site contains references to material from both sides of the debate, discusses them, and argues its case; just as other referenced publications present information, argue their case, and come to opposing conclusions - including publications by Tim. The BHRF is an acknowledged source of information on this topic and used as a reliable source by others. What we have here is an accidental case of the pot calling the kettle black, when in fact neither is black. It would be wrong, editorialising, and throw off the NPOV of the article to brand the BHRF references as unreliable. Nigel Perry (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I disagree with much of what Nigel says above, I am not going to respond point-by-point: I've had my say here, as have several members of the BHRF Editorial Board, and the real purpose is elicit opinions form other WP editors (of which we have had several). However, I will say that I agree completely that references to pages on the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (BHSI) web site should be treated in identical manner to BHRF web pages. The BHSI is clearly a single-purpose organisation with a clear agenda, and therefore whether it can be considered a reliable source for the purposes of WP articles is immediately called into question. Tim C (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Tim, I think you miss the point. Can you point to the section of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources that supports the assertion that the BHSI being a single-purpose organisation with a clear agenda automatically calls into question whether it can be considered a reliable source for the purposes of WP articles? It seems to me that page actually states the opposite in many ways. For example the statement Sometimes 'non-neutral' sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. and the BHSI is certainly non-neutral (Mr Swart would probably be insulted if anyone suggested otherwise) and a good source for a viewpoint on bicycle helmet legislation. I see on the page Child poverty that Save The Children Fund is referenced. That charity is a single-purpose organisation with a clear agenda, and thousands of children are undoubtedly alive today because of that. Are they an unreliable source by the WP definition? Of course not. Nigel Perry (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that point-by-point argumentation is futile. It may help to remind ourselves of the Wikipedia policies that should guide us: WP:MEDRS, WP:IRS, and, though it may not all apply in its strictest sense to the central issue here, WP:SELFPUBLISH. Main points identifying a reliable source include:

"* It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

• It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
• It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
• It is a third-party or independent source.
• It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.

A self-published source can have all of these qualities except for the second one." Whether BHRF's editorial board meets these criteria is a matter for other editors to decide; I have already given my opinion that it clearly does.

WP:SELFPUBLISH is at least relevant because we have editors who have published strong points of view in various forms and have used their own blogs as sources. Per WP:SELFPUBLISH "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This suggests to me that Tim Churches and other editors who have indeed published in indisputably-reliable third party publications may legitimately - with suitable care and as advised by others - use their own self-published work as references. If cyclehelmets.org is taken (counterfactually I suggest) to be self-published, presumably the same would apply to its use.

I do not think that a good encyclopaedic article will ever include all the detailed argumentation that the article has now accumulated. I am mulling over a considerable abbreviation in which most of these references will appear somewhat as "X has been asserted.(multiple references including to self-published sources) This evidence has been disputed.(more multiple references) Not-X has also been asserted.(more multiple references) This evidence is disputed in turn.(more multiple references) I suggest that for such an approach, self-published sources certainly demonstrate the existence of disagreement and may be appropriately used.

Finally, it may be convenient to present major official data series in accessible graphical or tabular form (per SYNTH is not summary). An issue has been raised over whether the image details should refer these to the original sources (which may involve a very large number of pages), or whether a reference to a recension and presentation on cyclehelmets.org is sufficient.

I'd welcome comments on all the above, but I'd like to remind everyone on this page to stick to the issue of reliability of sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Dorre has commented that the BHRF editorial board 'contains many prominent cyclists, e.g. John Franklin, author of 'Cyclecraft' -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclecraft and many others with links to cyclists organisations such as the CTC and the ECF'.

The ECF is 'against mandatory helmet laws and shock-horror helmet promotions' (http://www.ecf.com/advocary/road-safety/helmets-and-reflective-vests/). The CTC 'has long campaigned against mandatory helmet use' (http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaign/no-mandatory-helmets).

Thirteen of the 14 members of the BHRF editorial board appear to oppose helmets and/or the helmet law and/or the promotion of helmets.

Articles by Burdett, Curnow, Gillham, Keatinge, Robinson, Walker, Ward and Wardlaw are listed on the under 'Published evidence sceptical of helmet effectiveness or promotion' on the BHRF site. Chapman appears to be critical of helmets (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/cycle_helmet/). The Chapmancentral site contains references to articles by Robinson and Curnow that are critical of helmets and the helmet law, but does not include any references to studies by Walter and Bambach which found helmets to be beneficial. Foran is anti-helmet: "the BHRF have released detailed rebuttals of the claims made by the NSC. ( http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mainframes.html#1092.html ) The claims for every one of the NSC's supporting documents have now been either discredited or rejected as irrelevant to the debate. The fact that most Irish people, whether children or adults, don't use helmets is actually something to be deeply proud of." (http://www.irishhealth.com/poll.html?pollid=202). Franklin is critical of helmets, claiming that there is 'no evidence that increased helmet wearing has reduced the actual risk of serious or fatal injury across cyclists as a whole' (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1126.html). Geary is critical of helmets: 'helmeted cyclists are still managing to get themselves killed at roughly similar rates to their formerly unhelmeted counterparts' (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1432177/). Perry is critical of the helmet law: 'mandatory cycle helmet introductions in New Zealand and Australia had no observable effect on cyclists head injuries when (in the case of Australia - a case conveniently ignored by helmet advocates)' (http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/recreation/cycling/conference/2001/HeadsandHardSurfacesPresentation_Perry.pdf).

Some days ago I documented numerous (about 10) examples of unreliability or inaccuracy, most were examples of 'overlooking' evidence that runs counter to the claim that the helmet law was/is a bad thing. Given the that 13 of the 14 BHRF editorial board members oppose helmets and/or the helmet law and/or the promotion of helmets, the apparently high prevalence of 'overlooking' evidence that runs counter to the claim that the helmet was/is a bad thing is not surprising.

Nick-D commented that 'The front page of the website alone makes it pretty clear that this is an advocacy website: all the stories are about how bike helmets are a bad thing. As such, this doesn't seem to be a reliable source given that it's only presenting one side of the debate (a genuinely disinterested academic or research-type organisation wouldn't structure their website in such a way)'

Itsmejudith commented that 'This site is used for a number of claims in the article. In general, it is not reliable for the topics that this article covers. For any medical claims and claims about cycle helmet safety, WP:MEDRS applies. For statements about prevalence of cycling, this is a poor or insufficient source (and that topic should be covered in Cycling in Australia, not this article)'. WP:MEDRS states that 'it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge . . . Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.'

Stuart.Jamieson commented that 'I agree with Itsmejudith above Medical Claims should be peer reviewed in medical journals, materials engineering/failure analysis claims should be peer reviewed in appropriate engineering journals. Peer review should be more than having an editorial board check over your work, but should be an opening up of the work to complete scrutiny by correctly disciplined experts. Although not the work of a single person, I see clear comparisons with our policy on Self Published Sources that this is essentially a groups presenting themselves as an expert organisation when that is by no means proven. The fact that a number of members of the BHRF are editing this article is worrying they should familiarise themselves with our conflict of interest policy particularly the section on self-citing, and as per the last statement consider discussing any future inclusion of a BHRF link or reference on the talkpage over boldly proceeding'.

It is quite acceptable for BHRF editorial board members to hold and express whatever views they choose. However, there is no way that the 'average consumer' would know that evidence contrary to the view that the helmet law was/is a bad thing has been omitted. Readers should be warned that the BHRF in not a reliable source.Linda.m.ward (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Linda, you actually found one of my very few papers in the field of this article! You did a good job of research there (seriously).

It is clear that your and my understanding of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources do not tally.

I see "reliable authors", "Context matters", etc. and believe it is appropriate for references to: BHSI, ECF, CTC, Save The Children Fund, Tim Churches' & co-authors primary research, the BHRF, etc.; in the appropriate context.

You appear to reject them all: BHSI/Save The Children Fund - single purpose/minded organisations, ECF/CTC - major cycle organisations who've expressed disagreement with helmet legislation, Tim Churches' & co-authors papers - primary research and the authors have expressed strong agreement with helmet legislation, BHRF - single purpose organisation with an editorial board containing many "reliable authors" (authors of peer-reviewed papers in recognised publications) unfortunately acting as a peer-review group so becoming unreliable.

However you don't appear to reference clauses of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to support your case, you just end with a personal opinion (which might well be right). It would be helpful, at least to my understanding, if you could identify the violated clauses.

I really do hope your interpretation is wrong; it would be pretty well damn any article on WP where there are opinions to report to being unreliable (in the general, not WP, sense) if they comply with WP guidelines. However I'm enough of a fatalist to accept you might well be correct. And if you are correct, c'est la vie, and at least both of the articles Bicycle helmet and Bicycle helmets in Australia should be deleted in total as they can't be written in an NPOV way within WP guidelines. Nigel Perry (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nigel - Linda.m.ward's point is completely valid here. The primary focus of these groups is advocacy which include anti- and pro-helmet views. The focus should be on actual evidence presented in peer-reviewed journals. There may some argument for a summary of peer-reviewed work, but even that is debatable. The BHSI and BHRF websites are probably the biggest for their respective camps, but can they really be trusted to give a neutral viewpoint? They both contain commentary for and against helmets, but should they be relied upon in lieu of peer-reviewed research? I find it very unfortunate that any of those websites sway the opinions of policy makers.

By the way, Linda apparently missed a reference to another BHRF editorial member who states "all our experience and the information collected by TfL , DfT and other agencies across the world shows that the risk of injury arising from every day cycling is very small and that widespread helmet wearing does not reduce these risks" (http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2010/10/cycling-campaigner-rebukes-politician-for-pro-cycle-helmet-stance.html, http://anmblog.typepad.com/files/charlie-lloyd-helmet-email.docx). I believe that makes 14/14 BHRF board members with clear anti-helmet views and therefore brings into question the neutrality of any commentary on that site. The same could probably be said for BHSI.

I find it much easier to trust well-established publishers/journals that abide by high scientific standards and oversight than a website with an "editorial board" with members with a clear viewpoint about a heavily debated topic. As insinuated by Linda.m.ward, a systematic review of the BHRF content would not hold up to scrutiny anyway. A question I have then is would any journal care enough to publish such a review? I don't think editors at reputable journals would care of the results one way or the other.JakeOlivier (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Jake, thank you for your opinion, but how does it mesh with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? You state "can they really be trusted to give a neutral viewpoint" and yet the guidelines clearly state "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" - so it would appear you cannot brand the BHSI et al as unreliable because you see them as non-neutral. The point surely is that the article must not editorialise and must be NPOV; it can, and I would argue in a field which is driven by opinion, probably must, refer to sources with a POV. The field in question is not a straight forward one with a simple answer - or there would be (at least majority among experts) consensus - there is not (despite the claims of some, which just reinforces the point!). I would no more expect to see a paper from you that concluded helmet legislation was wrong than I would expect to see papers from some other authors conclude that it was right. This is because different experts approach the issue very differently, they weigh different aspects differently, it is an area where viewpoints play a major role. It may be that the articles in question, Bicycle helmet and Bicycle helmets in Australia, fail to distinguish properly between primary, secondary, POV, etc. sources; if so that should be fixed. But that does not, according to the guidelines, make any of those primary, secondary, POV, etc. sources unreliable.

Frankly if the "Wiki gods", if they exist, took a look at the history of edits to these two articles I would not be surprised if they concluded that two very POV groups are battling over it tooth and nail - one deletes a reference to refereed paper, the other puts it back, etc.; this thread took on the BHRF but omitted the BHSI, etc. - and that an NPOV article in these circumstances is impossible. This battle is a disservice to readers and damaging to WP. If I were them I'd delete them both right now, or replace them with the simple (non-editable!) statement "This is a much debated issue with no consensus, for WP to attempt to summarise would risk doing the arguments of one side or other a disservice, and thus the reader a disservice. Interested readers should research the issue themselves.". I say that because of the nature of WP, it is freely editable so on any debated subject folk with strong POVs will keep editing articles and fighting over them. A non-collaborative encyclopaedia could appoint a neutral party and have them summarise the arguments of both sides.

I have referenced Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources a number of times. I again ask those who disagree with my understanding of these rules, and I of course may be wrong, to argue with reference to them why I am wrong. I also ask those arguing that the BHSI, CTC, ECF, BHRF etc., etc. are unreliable to do so with reference to those rules, as it is by those rules that a decision must be made. Nigel Perry (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

According to my counts, since Feb 23, Tim has made 62 edits to Bicycle helmet and his co-author Jake, 1 edit. Other users have made a total of 8 edits. Perhaps this is an illustration of Tim's passion for the views he holds - not that being passionate about something is necessarily a bad thing.

So let's argue about the rules, which state: "a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper". This would appear to contradict Tim's co-author, Jake, who argues that "The focus should be on actual evidence presented in peer-reviewed journals. There may some argument for a summary of peer-reviewed work, but even that is debatable."

The Wiki rules also state: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." The main citations to the BHRF website are for census data. Tim cannot argue about the unreliability of the census data presented, so instead argues that somehow it is affected by a commentary pointing out the reduction in cycling. The Wiki rules do not appear to support Tim's POV - reliable data can be cited. The normal peer review process for journal papers also follows this convention. I know of no cases where a peer-reviewer would consider this a problem as long there is sound evidence that the information being cited is correct.

Curiously, the most recent reference to the BHRF website was added by Tim Churches at 10:55, 26 March 2013. Tim claims he doesn't the BHRF is reliable, but has no qualms about citing it himself. Dorre (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again I will ignore the gratuitous comments by User:Dorre about my WP editing activities and his/her speculations (which happen to be incorrect) about my reasons for contributing to WP. However, I actually agree that whether a source can be considered reliable for WP purposes is context-specific, and in some contexts, BHRF web pages can be considered reliable. The instance given by User:Dorre of me adding a reference to a BHRF web pages on 26 March 2013 was as follows: I changed the text "Curnow 2008 concluded: 'Compulsion to wear a bicycle helmet is detrimental to public health in Australia...'" to "A 2008 review by Bill Curnow (president of the Cyclists Rights Action Group which opposes compulsory helmets) concluded: 'Compulsion to wear a bicycle helmet is detrimental to public health in Australia...'" Given that Bill Curnow is a member of the Editorial Board of BHRF, I thought the BHRF could be considered a reliable source for this important detail about Mr Curnow (given the nature of his assertion that was being quoted in the article). However, in other contexts, I do not think BHRF can be considered reliable for WP purposes. The circumstances that motivated my raising the issue of BHRF reliability on this noticeboard are set out above, which I'll repeat here for the sake of readability:

Here is another example of the problems posed by the anonymous and undated (and unversioned) nature of most of the articles/pages on the BHRF web site: two graphs of Australian Census data were added some time ago to the Bicycle usage section of the article by a pseudonymous WP editor (User:Dorre)who has contributed a great deal of material and made many edits to the article. Although the graphs are based on Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data, they combine and present that data in a particular manner and are thus a synthesis, or possibly original research, and as such they are required to be referenced to an external source. The source files for these graphs are in WikiMedia Commons and are listed there as that pseudonymous editor's own work. I added citation needed tags to these graphs, and the editor was asked via the Talk page for the article to supply suitable external references for the graphs. This was done: the references given are to an anonymous and undated BHRF web page, where copies of these graphs now appear. Thus it would appear that there is some connection between the pseudonymous user in question and the BHRF organisation (User:Dorre has subsequently declared him/herself to be a member of the BHRF Editoial Board). This is potentially problematic given that most of the BHRF web pages are anonymously authored, including the one given as the external reference for these two graphs.

The problem with the Census data is that the following BHRF cyclehelmets.org web page titled "Changes in cycle use in Australia" is cited 8 times in the WP article in support of various statements (and graphs) about the Census data: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html So let's examine that anonymous, undated web page. Here is what it says at the very top of the page, in the introduction:

The enactment of helmet laws in Australia in the early 1990s had a major impact on cycle use. Whereas cycle use prior to the laws had been generally increasing, as soon as laws were passed and enforced cycle use fell sharply. There were early signs that helmet compulsion might cause some people to give up cycling, such as when many students at schools in Victoria chose to give up cycling when they were required to wear helmets pre-law (AHoR, 1985b). It would therefore have been sensible for governments to ensure that the effect of compulsory wearing on numbers of cyclists was monitored accurately. This was not done, but some measurements of numbers were made, most being incidental to surveys of helmet wearing.

In other words, a priori the author of the web page is presenting their conclusion that helmets laws had a major impact on cycling, before any data has even been presented. The page is supposed to be about changes in cycling levels in Australia, but the very first thing mentioned in the author's view of what is responsible for any downward changes, before the changes are even described. Such a web page cannot be regarded as an impartial or reliable source of information. Later in the page, the NSW helmet surveys are discussed, and results from the surveys for child cyclists are given. But there is no mention of the fact that the surveys also counted adult cyclists, and there is no presentation of the numbers for adults, which actually went up after the laws came into force. Not to mention these facts is an indication of the selectivity of the information presented on the BHRF web site. Of course, the BHRF is free to publish whatever it likes on its own web site, and it can be as selective as it wishes. The question here is whether such a web site can be regarded as a reliable source for the purpose of WP articles about bicycle helmets.

I'll also re-iterate what I said near the beginning of this now very long discussion: "Just to make it clear, complete removal of the references to the BHRF web site is not proposed, although some pruning of some of those references (and the assertions in the article that they are used to support) may be reasonable, given the heavy reliance on that web site (13 references to it in the article at last count). However, flagging of the references to the BHRF website as a potentially unreliable source may be justified and in accord with WP policies." Tim C (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've previously suggested that a look at the editing history of the two articles in question does not reflect well on WP, sadly I think this thread is trying hard to join them.

I quickly pulled up two papers (co)authored by Tim to see if his papers differ from the norm. In the first I read in the first paragraph:

This additional benefit was attributed to compulsory helmet legislation. Despite numerous data limitations, we identified evidence of a positive effect of compulsory cycle helmet legislation on cyclist head injuries at a population level such that repealing the law cannot be justified.

In the second I read in the second paragraph and an introductory one containing no data:

The paper [] as published contains serious arithmetic and data plotting errors.

In other words:

a priori the author is presenting their conclusion, before any data has even been presented.

It is common practice for documents to contain abstracts, summaries, introductions etc. at the start which reflect the content of what is to come. This is not a fault, an indicator of bias, or proof of unreliability!

And so we look at the page Tim is critiquing, and sure enough his extract comes from the Introduction.

Next I check the talk page for Bicycle helmets in Australia and see that Jake, Tim's co-author on a number of papers, previously removed the census data from the article; and above Dorre has explained the origin of the page on the BHRF website, that it contains the full data in a convenient form, and that an error in the ABS transcription of data was uncovered and corrected.

Tim & Jake, however well motivated you are, you are coming across as trying to prevent the presentation of census data on this page. You removed the data, participated in talk about that, and have now moved the issue to this forum to have the references to it mark as unreliable. It is hard to see the census data as anything other than NPOV - if the data shows an increase or decrease in cycling then that is presumably what happened. Maybe you know Australian census data is general highly suspect, if so you need to show that by citing reliable sources.

Tim above you detail concerns over the presentation of Piet de Jong's work on the BHRF site. Let's take a look at that. You remark:

Fine, but there is no mention whatsoever of the response to the de Jong model by Newbold, which was published on the very next page of the same issue of the same journal (Newbold, Stephen C. (May 2012).

As an aside, as one of curious mind I must admit I first wonder how a research paper commenting on previously published research was actually published so fast it appeared at the same time as the latter. Could be quite innocent, or maybe the author has a time machine, I just wonder... Anyway let's continue.

Let's now look at the history of edits to Bicycle helmets in Australia, in chronological order we see:

1. You delete reference to de Jong's work on the basis it does not apply to Australia. Sounds reasonable until...

2. Reference to de Jong's work is put back as apparently the paper's author applied their results to "jurisdictions", and it seems Australia is indeed a jurisdiction. The research was also carried out by an Australian academic, in Australia, and does reference Australian data. None of this apparently concerned the peer reviewers for the reputable journal it appear in, but is does concern you...

3. You then edit the description of de Jong's work to emphasise details you've extracted from the body of the paper on the source of data, which clearly comes across, intentionally or otherwise, as editorial/original research aimed at contradicting the "jurisdictions" of the author's conclusions. You also add in reference to Newbold's work, despite that being clearly labelled as applicable to the US only having earlier tried to removed de Jong's as it didn't apply to Australia...

4. Finally, after someone else makes some changes, you delete the whole section again and replace it with a reference to text in Bicycle helmet written by yourself - which does appear, especially in the light of the above, to somewhat editorialise on the content of the de Jong paper...

I guess Tim achieved his goal in the end. But did the process reflect well on WP, does it come across as earnestly striving for an NPOV approach? Sadly I think not.

Reading all of this I despair. If a subsequent posting claims the all Australian census data must be classed as unreliable as by Dorre's report above an "error" in it has been "corrected", and Dorre is clearly someone who has a POV, and so the census data is now tainted - I'll be totally unsurprised.

Tim you have a strongly held POV, which is apparent from your publications (you've been critical of at least de Jong, Rissel, Elvik - all papers where research has not supported helmet legislation; I've seen no commentary from you on Macpherson whose pro-law results have been bought into question [and incidentally a case where the BHRF is credited]) and comments on forums such as The Conversation. You are absolutely entitled to your POV, and such a strongly held opinion does not exclude you from editing WP.

However, consider what you are now writing - you've just made a claim that a statement in an introduction is an indication of bias/pre-determination! Take a deep breath, that is clearly nonsense and NOT something somebody like you would normally write. And that claim comes at the end of a thread which appears as ever more desperate attempts to get a website, which just happens not to support your POV, marked as unreliable. Take a deep breath, go for a bike ride or whatever relaxes you.

The arguments made to mark the BHRF have descended from possibly plausible, but answered and unproven, to the absurd. The editing history of the two articles shows they have descended into near farce. Time to put this to bed before the reputation of WP is irrevocably harmed. Nigel Perry (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify the issue of the ABS Census data - the mistake was on the ABS website. Once it had been drawn to their attention, the ABS checked and fixed the problem within a couple of days. I did not "correct" any census data - the data on the BHRF website were already correct and agree 100% with the data now available on the ABS website. Dorre (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I am loathe to respond to the remarks by User:Nigel Perry above, because the intent of posting the question on this noticeboard was to seek opinion from experienced but disinterested WP editors, not to enter into a debate with members of the Editorial Board of BHRF/cyclehelmets.org. But I feel that I must set a few things straight.

The first paragraphs in the papers to which you (User:Nigel Perry) refer to above are called "abstracts", and they contain a brief description of the rationale for, methods, results and conclusions of a scientific study. That's why you were able to find conclusions in those paragraphs. Also, I am pretty sure that the second and third papers which you mention are not cited in either the main Bicycle helmet article nor the Bicycle helmets in Australia article. They appear on my WP profile page, which is not part of the encyclopaedia. They were listed there for the purpose of transparency, so that anyone looking at the edits I have made can readily see what I have written on the subject of bicycle helmet research.

Regarding the Census data, I agree that, of itself, it is a totally reliable and NPOV source. However, I don't agree that the graphs of the Census data drawn by User:Dorre which were contributed to Wikimedia Commons but then appeared on the BHRF web site represent a NPOV - they are a particular synthesis of the Census data, done in a way to make a particular point: the colour coding and dotting of lines of each time series in the first graph and the grouping of States and Territories in the second graph are clearly intended to convey the impression that mandatory helmet laws had a major impact on cycle commuting (as opposed to weather on Census day, changes in motor vehicle traffic levels, public transport changes, longer commuting distances due to suburban sprawl etc). These are graphs with an agenda. Furthermore, the authority for these graphs was then given as an anonymously-authored and undated BHRF/cyclehelmets.org web page: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html Yes, that page does contain selected Census data, but as already discussed, the same page also contains a great deal of non-Census data, and a great deal of discussion, all of which appears to be directed at convincing the reader that helmet laws caused a collapse in cycling participation in Australia. Now, it is perfectly OK for the BHRF to draw such conclusions and to try to convince others of their validity, via that BHRF web page, but it is not OK to use that same web page as a source and authority for User: Dorre's graphs of Census data in WP. But that is the current state of affairs - hence my question on this Noticeboard.

Neither I nor any of my colleagues are in any way trying to suppress the Census data on cycle commuting. In fact, we are keen that the data are more readily available for scrutiny in the context of changes in all modes of travel to work. Unfortunately it costs over $2000 to obtain a complete historical set of Mode of Travel to Work Census data - the alternative is several days copying data from microfiche records in teh ABS library in Canberra. There are also issues to do with the changes in the way the mode of Travel to Work data was collected before and after 1991. We are working with ABS to try to understand these issues, and hopefully collate the data in a way that maximises the comparability of the data between Censuses. Unfortunately, we don't know whether User:Dorre took these issues into account in her Census graphs, nor whether BHRF took them into account when compiling the Census data on its web page which is used as the reference for Dorre's graphs. That's the problem.

Regarding the de Jong paper, references to it and the Newbold paper were removed from the Australian bicycle helmets page at the suggestion of another WP editor responding to my question on the article Talk page about whether they belonged in the Australian article. And I am afraid that just because de Jong works at an Australian university does not mean that his paper applies to Australia. Yes, he proposes a model to evaluate the health-benefit of mandatory helmet laws for particular jurisdictions, but Australia is not one of them. Austria is included, but not Australia. It is absurd to claim that the de Jong results apply to Australia as well just because Australia is also a jurisdiction. As for my summaries of the de Jong and Newbold papers, I regard them as accurate and of NPOV. If you disagree, please state why on the Talk page of the article and/or edit the text as you see fit. But do please read both papers thoroughly first. Finally, and once again, I will not be responding to the inappropriate personal commentary about me, nor the gratuitous advice. Tim C (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation wants to be seen as a reliable, scientific, objective source it should stop using such a deceptive name. I would suggest the Anti-Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Tim, sorry User:Tim C, in response to (emphasis added):

It is common practice for documents to contain abstracts, summaries, introductions etc. at the start which reflect the content of what is to come. This is not a fault, an indicator of bias, or proof of unreliability!

You respond with:

The first paragraphs in the papers to which you (User:Nigel Perry) refer to above are called "abstracts", and they contain a brief description of the rationale for, methods, results and conclusions of a scientific study.

Your original claim was without foundation, and I stated was not something I would expect from somebody of your standing. You respond with an attempted play on one word, with what seems like an air of condescension? For some reason I find myself humming - I think I need to take a deep breath ;-) But maybe what follows reveals what is really going on. You also seem to have missed (emphasis added):

however well motivated you are, you are coming across as trying to prevent the presentation of census data on this page

It is about the impression you are giving. Though it does now appear you do have concerns with the use of census data and are "working with the ABS" to "hopefully collate the data in a way that maximises the comparability of the data between Censuses"...

Is this the nub of the issue here?

You have now clearly stated that you are concerned that other qualified researchers may not be able to understand census data correctly as you know something they might not. However you haven't yet published this and its not available for scrutiny. Maybe you can revisit the issue here when that work is published as a reliable source?

There is certainly no grounds to mark a source as unreliable because Tim has an unpublished theory that other researchers may not be able to understand census data.

You invite me to read de Jong:

7. CONCLUSIONS

Using elementary mathematical modeling and parameter estimates from previous studies, leads to reasonable bounds for the net health impact of a mandatory bicycle helmet law.

My version seems to be missing "except mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Australia". Are you pulling my leg, is there a revised version, or are you editorialising?

Yes I admit I'm getting a little light hearted here. Apologies if needed, no offence intended. Sometimes humour helps and makes us take a fresh look. Have a nice day. Nigel Perry (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Single reference or Multiple references

A lengthy discussion is occurring regarding a disagreement of the casualty figures used in the lead section and in the infobox.

Another editor, prefers to use a single a reference from the Austin Statesman:

• "Lawmakers' briefing leads to confusion; 30 wounded". Austin Statesman. Associated Press. 6 November 2009. Retrieved 7 March 2013. Two congressmen and a senator said they had been told the number of wounded had risen to 38, or eight more than had been publicly reported by the military. But a fourth lawmaker, who had been among those briefed, said the 38 figure included some that had been hospitalized for stress, and had not been shot.

This reference is used to verify this content:

In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and a total of 30 people were wounded in the incident.

This content replaced this content which was verified by the sources below:

In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and a total of 32 people were wounded in the incident.

These are the sources which the Austin Statesman reference removed:

• Ned Berkowitz (14 February 2013). "Congressman Reintroduces Bill to Help Ft. Hood Shooting Victims". ABC News. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others wounded in the Nov. 5, 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, at the Army base in Killeen, Texas.
• Jim Forsyth (28 February 2013). "Accused Fort Hood shooter seeks to move trial venue". Reuters. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Hasan has been in custody since the attack, in which 32 people were wounded.
• Debra J. Saunders (12 February 2013). "Fort Hood heroes are victims twice over". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Tonight ABC News will be airing a story on victims of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that left 13 victims dead and 32 wounded.
• Clifford Krauss (12 October 2010). "Defendant in Court for Hearing at Ft. Hood". New York Times. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan returned Tuesday to Fort Hood in a wheelchair and combat fatigues for a pretrial hearing 11 months after he opened fire in a base processing center, killing 13 people and wounding 32 more.
  Colonel Pohl has said that he will call all of the 32 wounded victims, who will be asked to describe what they saw of the shooting.
• David Tarrant (1 November 2010). "Fort Hood shooting sent wounded warrior, his fiance on odyssey of despair, hope". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 14 March 2013. In fact, Patrick, now 29, was one of the most seriously wounded in the slaughter at Fort Hood where 12 soldiers and one civilian died and 32 others were wounded.
• Jessica Stanton (22 October 2012). "Ft. Hood survivors: 'Attack was not workplace violence'". Daily caller. Retrieved 14 March 2013. The shooting rampage, waged by fellow soldier Major Nidal Hasan, left 13 people dead and 32 others wounded.
• Megan McCloskey (13 October 2010). "Another delay in Fort Hood shooting case?". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 14 March 2013. The Article 32 for the Army psychiatrist accused of murdering 13 people and wounding 32 others here last year has been postponed twice.
• Gregg Zoroya (4 February 2011). "Report faults FBI, Army in Fort Hood shootings". USA Today. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Thirteen people died in the shooting at Forth Hood and 32 others were wounded.
• Donna Miles (5 November 2010). "Fort Hood lessons promote better force protection". American Forces Press Service. United States Army. Retrieved 14 March 2013. One year after a tragic shooting spree left 13 people dead and 32 more injured at Fort Hood, Texas, the military is working at every level to apply lessons learned to protect the force against an increasingly complex threat, an Army force-protection official told American Forces Press Service.
• Chris Rovzar (5 November 2009). "Seven Twelve Killed and Twelve Twenty Wounded in Shooting at Fort Hood, Texas". New York Magazine. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Update 4: Military officials report that the total number of injured victims is now 32.
• "Nov 5, 2009: Army major kills 13 people in Fort Hood shooting spree". History.com. A&E Television Networks, LLC. Retrieved 14 March 2013. On this day in 2009, 13 people are killed and 32 others are wounded when a U.S. Army officer goes on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in central Texas.
• Dennis, Alicia (2010). "Fort Hood Massacre: One Year Later: A Survivor's Story". People. 74 (18). Time Inc. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Instead, the Army Reserve combat medic was shot in the deadliest rampage to date on a U.S. Army post-the Nov. 5 Fort Hood, Texas, massacre that left 12 soldiers and 1 civilian dead and 32 others wounded.
• Lieberman, Joseph I. (2011). Ticking Time Bomb: Counter-Terrorism Lessons from the U. S. Government's Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack. Diane Publishing. p. 15. ISBN 9781437981223. Retrieved 14 March 2013. On November 5, 2009, 13 Americans - 12 servicemembers and one civilian employee of DoD - were killed and 32 were wounded in an attack at the military base at Fort Hood, Texas. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

My question is, does the Austin Statesman article at the top of this question a superior reference to be used to verify the casualty figure in the Fort Hood Shooting article over the other references that I have listed? If yes, why? If not, why? If not, what source, or sources should be used?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it's extremely disingenuous of this editor to act like there is only ONE source that uses the 30 figure, while going on to list numerous sources that use the 32 figure. In reality, there are TONS of reliable sources using the 30 figure, and it has actually been used more widely than the 32 figure and will give you more results in a Google search. It should also be pointed out that an RFC concluded this editor's proposed changes should be scrapped. The Austin Statesman source is by far the most detailed article on this subject, and it cites Fort Hood as its source. Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A pair of military briefings to members of Congress about the Fort Hood rampage resulted in confusion and conflicting information late Friday on the number of wounded.

Two congressmen and a senator said they had been told the number of wounded had risen to 38, or eight more than had been publicly reported by the military. But a fourth lawmaker, who had been among those briefed, said the 38 figure included some that had been hospitalized for stress, and had not been shot.

In addition to the 30 wounded in the shootings, lawmakers were told that eight additional people were taken to the hospital to be treated for stress and trauma in the hours immediately following the event, said Lindsey Mask, a spokeswoman for Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif.

...

Fort Hood reiterated that 30 people were wounded.

This was all explained in detail on the Talk:Fort Hood shooting page, but it's pretty simple:

• • The 29 number (wounded) comes from excluding the shooter from the total.
  • The 30 number (wounded) comes from including the shooter.
  • The 32 number (wounded) comes from the number of attempted murder charges against the shooter (32).
  • The 38 number (wounded) comes from including 8 extra people who were not shot and simply suffered stress.

Understandably, lots of news sources were confused by that, but we don't need to repeat their mistakes in the Fort Hood shooting article. ROG5728 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Austin Statesman source which is quoted above is dated 6 November 2009, and yes as I stated at the talk page of the article in question, there are multiple reliable sources that verify the 29, 30, 32, and 38 figure. However, the summary just above this comment is WP:OR, as best as I can tell. Where are the references that verify what ROG5728 said above in attempting to explain the differing wounded figures? Moreover, one of the references completely contradicts, and IMHO supercedes, the Austin Statesman source by updating and saying that wounded figure increased to 32.

The reason why I list one source for the 30 figure, and the multitude of other sources for the 32 figure, is that they are the references removed by ROG5728.

This is not a mischaracterization, this is fact. There are diffs to prove it.

Since all those references were replaced by a single reference, this is the reason why I am asking other editors at RfC whether one single reference is superior than the other references I have provided.

Again, here is the question:

Does the Austin Statesman article at the top of this question a superior reference to be used to verify the casualty figure in the Fort Hood Shooting article over the other references that I have listed? If yes, why? If not, why? If not, what source, or sources should be used?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is a multitude of references using the 30 figure, not just that one. However, in Wikipedia articles (especially in the lead) it's not customary to cite every single source that agrees with a given bit of text; that's not how we do things. ROG5728 (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, so where are they? And why are those sources better quality than the sources above? Why are the sources to be given more weight in deciding the wounded figure in the lead of the article, than the sources above? I have provided a multitude of sources, one being a republishing of a report from the United States Senate.

Also, please see WP:CITELEAD:

The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.

As the wounded figure is challenged, verification to a reliable source(s) is required. The 30 and 32 figures can both be verified (as can other figures); this is part of the reason why we have reached this point (if we want to get down to the bare bones of the matter).

In the past I have even provided sources for the 30 figure, but I am of the opinion (presently) that the quality and weight of the sources that verify the 32 figure are stronger than those that verify the 30 figure. I have not seen this done by other editors (at least to the extent and depth which I have done).

That being said, I think we can agree that there are a multitude of reliable sources that also verify the 29, and 38 figure as well, without agreeing that those figures have the quality of reliable sources that the 32 (in my opinion) or the 30 (in ROG5728's opinion) figures have.

The reason for bringing a discussion of reliable sources to this noticeboard is his noticeboard is frequented by editors who regularly look at sources and determine if they meet reliable source qualifications or not; those editors are also likely to be able to give an informed opinion on the quality of sources as well. It is my belief that ROG5728 and myself had made our opinions very clear up to this point here, and on the talk page of the Fort Hood Shooting article. I look forward to other individual editors opinions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No additional comments have yet been received. There are presently only two opposing editors involved in this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Still awaiting additional editors to comment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Because we are supposed to use reliable sources that have a reputation for accuracy, only one source should normally be provided. In my experience, a large number of sources for one fact indicates that there is a question of its accuracy. It can be irritating too to be presented with more than one source, because if one disputes a fact, then one must read each and every source. When reliable sources conflict, then the correct approach is to determine which one is accurate. Sometimes that means looking at the primary sources upon which the secondary sources rely. For example, in this case we can check where the sources claim to have received their information then look at that source to see if they are correct. TFD (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a question regarding accuracy.

Multiple different reliable sources give different figures. It is my contention that the AP source whose author is "Wire Report" and reported by the Austin Statesman is not the most accurate of the available sources. It is the position of the other editor of this discussion that the Austin Statesman source is more accurate than the multiple references that I have provided above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

RCLC, your position has been dismantled time and again at Talk:Fort Hood shooting, and that's why everyone sided against you in the RFC there. Again, there are actually a multitude of sources that support the Austin Statesman source, so no one is pitting "one reference against multiple references" as you keep disingenuously claiming. ROG5728 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The RfC was about using a single number or a range, I have stated in the discussion of the RfC how I believe it is best to implement the !votes of the RfC. Also, here is the diff of the removing the multiple sources I have provided with the single source being quoted by ROG5728. The question of this discussion is whether the single source is a better quality source than the multiple references that were removed. I have stated in the article's talk page that yes, there are multiple reliable sources that verify different casualty figures, however I am not the editor who have rejected that in the past.

I have shown how the publisher, Austin Statesman, in later articles produced have not been consistent with the Associated Press article they published that has the byline/author "Wire Report". Therefore, using past arguments made by ROG5728 to counter some reliable sources that verify the 38 figure, because the Austin Statesman has not consistently only stated the 30 figure in articles they have published they should not be considered a reliable source in the context of the casualty figure.

Also, if we look at the sources I have provided in this discussion, the reliable sources state who said that there were 32 casualties. This is more reliable than some unnamed Fort Hood official, whom the "Wire Report" author does not specify.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Again I can use reliable sources to verify a range of casualty figures, however the weight of the reliable sources have, upon my further study of available reliable sources, more consistently used the 32 casualty figure than the other figures that can be verified.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a simple Google search will show that the '30 wounded' figure is more widely used than any of the other figures. It's also used by higher quality sources, including Fort Hood itself (while CNN and the like have demonstrated extremely poor accuracy on this subject). ROG5728 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet we can see even based on the references I have provided the United States Senate and a commissioned officer of the United States Army who is working on the case regarding MAJ Hasan both have stated specifically that the number of those who are casualties is 32.

Who is it that spoke on behalf of the entirety of Fort Hood in the Associated Press article authored by "Wire Report" which is quoted above by ROG5728? As far as I can tell it is an unnamed individual, therefore the quality of that source is very poor.

The sources that I have provided, I can at least point to specific journalists who wrote the article, or specific individuals who made the statements, or individuals who wrote the content (such as Joe Lieberman in one source).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Andrzej Michalek "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne"

Map in question. Previous version had the name "Stralsund" in it for the sake of double naming convention but this was removed as the name didn't exist yet in 1121.

Over at the Lutici page, a user is removing a map based on the argument that it is based on a "bad source" (whatever that's suppose to be - sounds like "a source I don't like") [22].

The source is a book, "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne" ("Western Slavs. Early feudal monarchies") by Andrzej Michałek, according to Polish Wikipedia and the book itself, a historian with specialty in military history. The publisher is Bellona Publishing House, a publisher which specializes in books in military history. It collaborates and has published works by famous and respected historians such as Henryk Samsonowicz and Lech Wyszczelski. It also published a well established historical journal Mówią Wieki. Additionally, according to Polish wikipedia [23] it is one of the largest publishers in Poland and awards a prestigious annual prize "Nagroda Klio" (apparently called "The Nobel of History", though I'm pretty sure that's just within Poland).

The objection to the source is that... well, I'm not exactly clear, based on talk page discussion [24] - either something to do with the fact that the editor thinks that a particular name of the place didn't exist at the time, or that no place existed at the time, or that... I dunno. Not sure how these arguments are actually relevant to the issue either.

Is this source reliable or not? Volunteer Marek 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue I have with this book is not whether it meets WP:RS in general, but if it is reliable for specific pieces of information drawn from it. The contested claims referenced to this book are:

• A campaign against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 ([25][26][27][28][29]; link to discussion). The claim that this place existed already in 1121 is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim as no history of Stralsund sees its origins that early. Thus, I expect that if the claim is to be introduced here that Stralsund already existed by 1121 that there are additional references added, best from prints dedicated to the history of Stralsund, which would support that claim. No such references were presented until now, and the most probable reason for this is that these refs just do not exist. The book has made an error here that must not be included.
• A joint Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen in 1130 leading to the defeat of the local tribe who swore allegiance to the Polish duke ([30][31][32]; link to discussion). Here, the book mistook the island of Rügen for a neighboring Pomeranian island, Wollin, against which a successful Danish-Polish campaign in 1130 with a subsequent acceptance of allegiance by the local prince is established by primary as well as secondary sources. The primary source for this is Saxo Grammaticus XIV (relevant excerpt quoted here in German, also quoted is the acceptance of this by the long-time chief archaeologist of Wolin, Filipowiak), another recent secondary source specialized on Rügen and surroundings is Bengt Büttner: Die Pfarreien der Insel Rügen. Von der Christianisierung bis zur Reformation, p. 27, who also details the Danish-Polish campaign of 1130 and has it directed at Wollin, not on Rügen; same is true for the Pomeranian history by Oskar Eggert: Geschichte Pommerns vol. 1, p. 54, just to name a few specialists for the history of that region. Obviously, the book referenced by VM is in error here.
  

That the book is only reliable as a general overview, and rather not when it comes to details, is also evident from its intended nature as an overview work.

• The book does not reveal its references for the claims
• The book is a general overview over the West Slavs
• The author had within a very short period of time not only published this West Slavs book, but also an East Slavs and a South Slavs book ([33]). His main publications are about crusades.
  So this is not a scholar publishing the results of his work, and he seems to have made a few errors by summarizing the work of others. Obviously, the intend of an overview is not to publish unreferenced novel theses about details of local histories, and some confusion of placenames just happens in those books from time to time. These obvious errors need not be transferred to wikipedia and treated as facts, per the policies WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE. They are not even WP:NOTABLE enough to pretend there actually is a scholary discussion about that or that these errors represent a minority view - these are just errors. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)(diffs added Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC))

No, these are just pretexts you've invented to remove a source you don't like. There are neither exceptional claims here, nor errors.Volunteer Marek 17:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If the claims were not exceptional, how come you are unable to produce additional references confirming these claims despite being asked to do so multiple times? Secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Stralsund/Stralow/whatever in 1121? Secondary sources that Stralsund even existed in 1121? Secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Rügen in 1130 resulting in an oath of allegiance by the local Rani tribe? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And Skapperod - with regard to the map (one thing at a time please) - can you at least be clear and precise as to what exactly this "exceptional claim" is supposed to be? Initially I thought you were objecting to the name "Stralsund" being included. And indeed, in 1121 this name did not exist since the area was inhabited by Slavs. German colonists did not get there till several decades later and that's when the name "Stralsund" came about. But I've removed the name of the map and you are still making objections about "exceptional claims". Very vague, ill-defined objections. What exactly is it that you object to?Volunteer Marek 18:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Just re-read my posts, especially the one right above, and if you have any references to secondary sources supporting the claims made by Michalek do present them, or, if you agree that Michalek confused something there and there are no such references, do say so. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have already read your posts, including the one right above, and I still don't understand what this 'exceptional claim' is supposed to be. Can you please explain it directly, succinctly and clearly.Volunteer Marek 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, one last try. The following claims you added to articles and referenced to Michalek seem to be factually wrong, since there are no secondary sources supporting them. Thus, they fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. In particular, I (still) want you to present here secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Stralsund/Stralow/whatever in 1121, secondary sources that Stralsund even existed in 1121, secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Rügen in 1130 resulting in an oath of allegiance by the local Rani tribe. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether "Stralsund" existed or not is irrelevant and a total red herring. This "exceptional claim" is not being made.

The source for Boleslaw's campaign west of the Oder and to Rugen is the very source we're discussing. For these to be "exceptional claims" you would need to actually show a source which directly contradicts the claim, which you haven't done, or show sources which indicate the impossibility of the claim (which you haven't done).

Let me clarify a few things here. Are you really questioning whether Boleslaw campaigned west of the Oder in 1121? Your comments on the talk page seem to suggest it. If so, then THAT is an exception claim. If not, which part of the campaign EXACTLY are you claiming to be an exceptional claim? Volunteer Marek 23:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether Stralsund/Stralow/whatever you call it existed in 1121 is pretty relevant if you claim that a campaign in 1121 was directed at that place. Are you able to present any secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Stralsund/Stralow/whatever in 1121, any secondary sources that Stralsund even existed in 1121, any secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Rügen in 1130 resulting in an oath of allegiance by the local Rani tribe to back up these claims you made and referenced to Michalek? Skäpperöd (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I - or the reliable source - make no claim that the campaign was "directed" at "that place". Are you questioning whether Boleslaw campaigned west of the Oder in 1121? Or just that part of the campaign? Volunteer Marek 00:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That there was a campaign by Boleslaw in 1121 into the Müritz area is undisputed, I added that material myself and can provide more references for that if necessary.

You added Stralsund/Stralow as a target of that campaign [34][35][36][37][38] and that is part of the dispute. Your unability to produce any secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Stralsund/Stralow/whatever in 1121, any secondary sources that Stralsund even existed in 1121, any secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Rügen in 1130 resulting in an oath of allegiance by the local Rani tribe (as you claim with reference to Michalek's overview book) is evident by now, underlining my point.

I am thinking about forwarding this discussion to DRN, as this is probably not the appropriate forum. It would be great if you meanwhile revert your contestet additions per WP:BRD. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That there was a campaign by Boleslaw in 1121 into the Müritz area is undisputed - ok good. So let me get this straight: you don't have the problem with most of the map, but just that little blue arrow pointing up from Dymin to Strzalow, is that right? This is supposed to be this "exceptional claim"?

And again - Michalek IS a reliable secondary source. You just don't like it. If you want other sources which talk about Boleslaw's campaign here is one which mentions that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of today's Straslund/Strzalow explicitly [39].

And one more time, for this to be an "exceptional claim" you have to provide reliable sources which directly contradict it, or sources which show the impossibility of it being the case (that's also actually showing that there's an "error" here, rather than just having some anonymous Wikipedia editor called Skapperod claiming that a reliable source made an error). You haven'd done either.Volunteer Marek 15:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Under the premise that the pdf linked above is a decent source, where exactly (which sentences on which page) does it say "Boleslaw campaigned in the area of today's Straslund/Strzalow explicitly" ? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's reliable. If you search it for the name "Stralsund" it's easy to find. Now, do you have any sources which directly contradict this claim or show that the claim is impossible? Volunteer Marek 19:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Your summary that the the pdf linked above (a reprint of a 1939 book) "mentions that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of today's Straslund/Strzalow explicitly" is misleading. The sentence reads: "Ekspansja polska i niemiecka zetknęłyby się w taki sposób ze sobą na przestrzeni górnego biegu Piany od Jeziora Morzyckiego ewentualnie po okolice dzisiejszego Stralsundu."

Your translation "area of today's Stralsund" is correct, which does however not support your claim of a capture of Stralsund and does not even suggest that Stralsund existed back then, but you left out the important qualifier probably (ewentualnie) identifying even that as speculative and not as explicit as you claim.

So the quoted statement does not support any of the contested claims made by you with reference to Michalek, which means that there is still not one secondary source backing those claims (Michalek himself is a tertiary source per WP:PSTS). Skäpperöd (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Where in the world have I, or the source, made a claim "of a capture of Stralsund"??? Nowhere, you made that up. That's a pure Strawman fallacy. And there is a qualifier "probably" but so what? You have not presented a single source to contradict this particular source, just your own speculation and opinion. Sorry, when it comes down to "anonymous user Skapperod on Wikipedia vs. published reliable source", reliable source is what we go with.

And this tertiary source business - now that it looks like your original objection holds no water, you're simply moving on to inventing a new pretext.

To sum up: we have two sources which support each other. Both are reliable. You have claimed that some "exceptional claim" is being made. This is not the case. You have not provided a single source or other shred of evidence or support (other than your own opinion) which contradicts either of these two reliable sources. Can we finish this discussion regarding the map now? There's still the whole Rugia thing to talk about.Volunteer Marek 21:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Re "Where in the world have I, or the source, made a claim "of a capture of Stralsund"??? Nowhere, you made that up."

You made that claim e.g. here, here, and here. You have also drawn a map with a large arrow pointing at an encircled dot named Stralsund/Stralow, claiming that happened in 1121. If you do not remember even making these claims that led to part of the dispute, is there a chance that it was somehow done in haste and you do not have an interest in upholding them, so we can strike at least these points and concentrate on the contested 1130 campaign? Skäpperöd (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, though it really would've saved a lot of time had you been explicit that what you object to is the phrasing "captured Stralsund". We can change that to "probably campaigned in the area of Strzalow (future Stralsund)" . And why where you removing Demmin then? Anyway, I assume that you don't have any objections to the map so yes, we can move on to the Rugia/Rugen business.Volunteer Marek 22:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that there is at least some progress here, but "Strzalow (future Stralsund)" still implies that place existed in 1121. What exactly does Michalek say, can you quote the respective sentence(s) here? Skäpperöd (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I can see that this will degenerate into a discussion of whether the pre-Stralsund "settlement" at the site was a city, when it dated from and if Stralsund can be said to be a successor to Strzalow. So I'll just change it to "future Stralsund (Strzalow)".Volunteer Marek 22:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please nevertheless quote the respective sentence(s) in Michalek, regarding Demmin and Stralsund? You said above M. is not talking about a capture, so what exactly does he say then? Skäpperöd (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at a snippet preview of Michalek p. 102 available on books.google and it seems that Michalek did not write anything related to Demmin and Stralsund in 1121. Rather, there is a small unreferenced map [40] looking exactly like your map [41]. Apart from WP:COPYRIGHT, I don't think that any information from this illustration as well as your copy of it should be included unless there are secondary sources confirming them.

It is sufficient to mention that Boleslaw did campaign from the Oder river towards Lake Müritz and back in 1121 (undisputed, multiple prim. & sec. sources available), because by doing that he had to cross Vorpommern anyway. We could replace the capture/Demmin/Stralsund bit (no secondary sources supporting it) by sth. undisputed like "crossing Western Pomerania." Skäpperöd (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Forwarded to DRN as the more appropriate venue for the dispute. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a volunteer at DRN and have closed that request without action, due to this unresolved discussion here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(break)

To sum up what we have got here so far:

• The book in question [42] is an overview work about West Slavs not citing references for the claims of interest here. The author of the book has within a few years published similar overviews about East and South Slavs and else published about crusades [43]. The book is used as the sole reference for claims and a map added by VM.
• The reference for VM's claims of a capture of Stralsund and Demmin by Boleslaw in 1121 [44][45][46][47] as well as for the map drawn by VM [48] is an identical map on p. 102 [49]. The book does not elaborate on the contested details in its text.
• No secondary sources can be found to substantiate the contested details.
• Efforts to find such sources only resulted in finding one reprint of a 1939 book [50][51] that says that German and Polish campaigns in 1121 met in the Müritz and upper Peene areas (undisputed) and probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund [52] which does not back up the claims made by VM.
• The reference for VM's claim of a joint Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen in 1130 leading to the defeat of the local tribe who swore allegiance to the Polish duke [53][54][55] has not yet been made clear in terms of a page nr. and a quote from the book. I ask for the exact quote.
• No secondary sources can be found to substantiate that claim.
• There are a primary and several secondary sources for an 1130 Danish-Polish campaign targeting the neighboring Pomeranian island, Wollin, which resulted in the subsequent renewal of Polish suzerainity over the Pomeranian prince. A confusion of placenames by Michalek is thus very likely.

I thus maintain that

• the book is a tertiary source not preferred as the sole source for details per WP:PSTS;
• VM's claims linked above referencing the book are WP:EXCEPTIONAL as they can not be supported by secondary sources, WP:FRINGE also applies;
• the author did not intend to introduce novel theses as he is not using references, and novel theses about local details are not expected in an overview about a broad area and timeframe;
• these claims should thus not remain in wikipedia articles/maps.

Skäpperöd (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The questions I at this point ask VM to answer are

• (1) Do you continue to maintain that Michalek is sufficient as the sole reference for your claims?
• (2) Will you re-revert a revert of your introduction of said claims into said articles?
• (3) Will you make sure at some appropriate board that your map [56] does not violate WP:COPYRIGHT?
• (4) Can you agree on the following:
  • (4a) replace the capture/Demmin/Stralsund part (1121 campaign) by some undisputed term like "through Western Pomerania"?
  • (4b) remove the claim about an 1130 campaign against Rügen, I will instead add the 1130 campaign against Wollin based on the secondary sources above and others?
  • (4c) remove the map [57] until it is altered in a way that it unambiguously only illustrates events supported by multiple secondary sources?

Skäpperöd (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, the "summary" by Skapperod above is incorrect; it's POV falsehood and spin. I thought we were done with the map issue and it was solved. Apparently not.

Rather what we got here is:

• A reliable source which was written by a professional historian with a specialization in military history
• It was published by a very well respected publishing house which specialized in history books
• It is simply not true that the book does not have references - it has an extensive bibliography.

That really should be the end of story right there. But just to satisfy Skapperod's IDONTLIKEIT objections I've also provided another reliable source (though a bit old, republished in 1975) which directly backs up the information in the map. So it is simply not true that there are "no secondary sources" to support the claims made. This part is just blatantly incorrect.

At the same time Skapperod has not provided A SINGLE source which would contradict the information contained the map. This is because the map is correct so no such sources exist. I've already provided reliable sources so it is really now up to Skapperod to provide sources which contradict the map or drop the matter per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

As to the other questions

• We can replace "captured Stralsund" with "campaigned in the area of Stralsund". Oh wait, I already did that.
• The second source I provided explicitly states Na zachodzie podbój polski objął znowuż zapewne miejscowości Kocków i Dymin (in the west the Polish conquest also most likely covered the towns of Kockow (Guztkow) and Dymin (Demmin)". So the wording for Demmin is fine and in fact Gutzkow should be added.
• We should NOT replace the names of the specific locales with "Western Pomerania" as the latter term is extremely vague. In many applications "Western Pomerania" means just Szczecin and Wolin, pretty far away from Demin and Murtiz lake. That would (purposely perhaps?) mislead the reader.
• With respect to the Rugia campaign we need to discuss this further. I object to removal of this info, since it is mentioned in a number of sources, although I'm open to changing the date of when this happened.
• The idea that Michalek confused the invasion of Rugia with an attack on Wolin is Skapperod's own original research. None of the sources he provided suggest this or even mention Rugia in this context. Indeed Michalek explicitly states that before sailing to Rugia, the Danish fleet arrived at Pomeranian towns and then picked up the Polish forces. So there's not even a contradiction here about the timing (which, btw, with respect to Wolin, I've seen as given for 1129 in other sources not 1130). So this stays until we work out the best phrasing which captures the chronological ambiguity in the sources.

So no, map stays. It is based on reliable sources and that really is the end of story. This board is suppose to help us decide whether these sources are reliable but so far no one else has chimed in, unfortunately. However it seems clear to me that the requirements for reliability and verifiability have been satisfied.

We can tweak the wording with respect to Dymin and Kockow but there is no reason to remove them and replace it with ambiguously worded text.

We can keep the discussion on the Rugia question open.Volunteer Marek 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

And oh yeah. If you really think the map is a copyvio... because it resembles one in the book (it is not identical by any means), in other words, it faithfully reflects information found in a reliable source - then we can ask someone with expertise in copyright question about this, for example User:Moonriddengirl. I would be happy to make a scan of the map in the book itself so that she can compare it to the map I made myself and let us know about this issue.Volunteer Marek 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Stralsund & Demmin 1121:

• The 1939 book does neither support the wording you introduced first, i.e. "as well as capturing Demmin (Dymin) and Stralsund (Strzałów)" [58] and "Capture Demmin, Stralow (Stralsund)" [59], nor does it support the changed wording "Bolesław took control of Gützkow (Kocków) and Demmin (Dymin), and campaigned in the area of Stralow (Stralsund)" [60].
• The 1939 book actually says "the Polish conquest also most likely covered the towns of Kockow (Güztkow) and Dymin (Demmin)" [61] and "probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund" [62] (emphasis added). That is far away from stating a capture like you do, and it is also far away from claiming that Stralsund existed in 1121.
• Leaving aside for a moment all the problems a 1939 (!) Polish source might have had with regard to Germany, and presuming the book is reliable for the information referenced, and leaving aside all UNDUE concerns, at least one must follow what it actually says and not turn something that is clearly marked as speculative into a statement of fact!
• So just to move forward, I would settle for a sentence that reflects these concerns:

"Bolesław launched a campaign from the Oder towards the Müritz area, probably also covering Gützkow, Demmin and the area of today's Stralsund."

Re Rügen 1130: Please at least quote what Michalek claims about a Rügen campaign in 1130 and on which page he does so. That does not settle the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of this claim and the absence of support by any secondary sources, but it helps focus the discussion.

Skäpperöd (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"Bolesław launched a campaign from the Oder towards the Müritz area, probably also covering Gützkow, Demmin and the area of today's Stralsund." - that's almost there. One important aspect is that the campaign was successful (the word "conquest" conveys that). If you just put the word "successful" in there before the word "campaign" I'll be satisfied. I assume this means you're dropping your objections to the map? Volunteer Marek 19:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I object to the addition of "successful," as it could be construed as the campaign resulting in a conquest, as in your present wording. A change from "launched" to "completed" would be a compromise here.

Apart from this compromise about the 1121 campaign, I uphold all objections made above, including the objections to the map. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

So we haven't really made any progress? You're basically trying to push us back to square one and restart the whole thing? The map is reliably sourced. That's really all that there is to it.Volunteer Marek 20:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

And the campaign was successful. And there was conquest. Again, I don't understand why you are objecting here, after pretty much agreeing with this.Volunteer Marek 20:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

A campaign does not automatically result in a conquest. I strongly recommend not getting into new disputes here at this point when there is a chance to settle at least part of the ongoing dispute with above compromise. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course not, you're perfectly right about that. But this particular campaign DID result in conquest, or at least the relevant Lutici tribes/princes swearing oaths of fealty to Boleslaw. At the very least that's called "successful", hence I don't understand your objection to my proposed compromise. Also the source(s) I provided discuss the Polish-German boundary at the time running on the line Muritz Lake-Demmin-Straslund/Rugia (i.e. coast). So it does in fact make sense to talk of conquest here. Now, granted, that conquest was somewhat short lived and the control had to be sort of "split" between Boleslaw and the Emperor in 1135 but it was none the less real. We both know this. So I don't understand why you are trying to argue about it. Again.

I also was working under the assumption that we have managed to resolve at least part of the question, and was quite pleasantly surprised by it. But then you went and tried to restart the whole dispute from square one, by saying you object to the map again, AFTER you've pretty much indicated that you didn't disagree with anything in it.Volunteer Marek 05:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly contest "the relevant Lutici tribes/princes swearing oaths of fealty to Boleslaw" and a "Polish-German boundary" as a result of that campaign and again recommend not opening another box as long as plenty issues are unresolved here already. But that does not prevent implementing a compromise sentence here with regard to the course of the campaign. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You can strongly contest if you want, but then please provide at least SOME sources to support your view (I already have provided sources). And the problem with the compromise sentence is that seems to be stuck on the word "conquest" and/or "successful". And honestly "completed" sounds silly. I also am a bit bothered that you are going back on what I thought was agreement with respect to the map. Can you explain why you're doing that? Volunteer Marek 05:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, before we discuss anything else (e.g. the outcome of the 1121 campaign), can we please focus here on the disputed issues at hand. My offer to introduce above compromise about the course of the 1121 campaign still stands, to resolve at least part of the dispute. Then we can move on to the map and to the 1130 campaign. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The map IS the disputed issue at hand. Which I thought we resolved, until you, for some reason, restarted the whole argument. As to the wording, as I pointed out above the compromise apparently stalled on the words "conquest" and "control". Again, "complete" is a weasel word - if I mount a failed campaigned I will still have "completed it", just "unsuccessfully". Hence "successful" is the minimum in terms of terminology here - THAT is a compromise.Volunteer Marek 06:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And honestly, how many times am I going to have to ask you to actually provide some sources to support your objections? Unless you are willing and/or capable of doing that this conversation is not going to go anywhere, I'm afraid.Volunteer Marek 06:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It is very much possible to separate the course and the outcome of a campaign if there is agreement over the first and disagreement over the latter. Do you agree that the campaign was "probably also covering Gützkow, Demmin and the area of today's Stralsund" so we at least have the wording settled for the course of the campaign. It contradicts the 1939 book right now. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(break 2)

It is extremely difficult to continue to assume good faith in the face of edits such as these [63]. You've added a "failed verification" tag on top off the disputed tag and then restored it after I removed it. This is NOT "failed verification", except in your own personal opinion. The info is in the source. What is disputed is the wording. But there is already a tag for that - and honestly, even that should be removed. It appears that you've decided to escalate the dispute, on top of restarting and erasing the compromises that at one point we've achieved. Like I said, these kinds of actions are hard to interpret as being done in good faith. Volunteer Marek 07:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Side issue, but well:

• The 1939 book does neither support the wording you introduced first, i.e. "as well as capturing Demmin (Dymin) and Stralsund (Strzałów)" [64] and "Capture Demmin, Stralow (Stralsund)" [65], nor does it support the changed wording "Bolesław took control of Gützkow (Kocków) and Demmin (Dymin), and campaigned in the area of Stralow (Stralsund)" [66] and "took control of Gützkow (Kocków) and Demmin (Dymin) and probably campaigned in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund)." [67][68]
• The 1939 book actually says "most likely covered the towns of Kockow (Güztkow) and Dymin (Demmin)" [69] and "probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund" [70] (emphasis added). That is far away from stating a capture like you do, and it is also far away from claiming that Stralsund existed in 1121.

This contradiction could be solved by introducing "campaign from the Oder towards the Müritz area, probably also covering Gützkow, Demmin and the area of today's Stralsund." Skäpperöd (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I already said:

1. You have not provided any sources which would contradict the statements which I *have* provided sources for.

2. You seem to have resorted to the tactic of escalating the dispute by restarting the dispute anew, *after* it looked like we had come to an agreement on some issues.

3. You seem to have resorted to the tactic of escalating the dispute even further by adding unwarranted "failed verification" tags on top of existing "disputed" tags.

As a sign of good faith, to show that you really are interested in resolving this disagreement and working out a compromise, rather than just spinning it out into infinity, I ask that you remove the "failed verification" tag. There ALREADY IS a "disputed" tag there. That is more than enough.

Thanks. Volunteer Marek 07:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Btw, the above source states Na zachodzie podbój polski objął znowuż zapewne miejscowości Kocków i Dymin. "podbój" = "conquest". "Zapewne" is most likely so I don't have a problem with that. But "conquest" needs to be in there. Volunteer Marek 07:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The basic problem here is that you introduced and reverted back in information that is solely based on your reading of a map in a tertiary source with no secondary sources at all supporting it. Also, it is unambiguous from the quotes presented right above that the 1939 book you used to reference one of those sentences does in fact not support it, thus a failed verification as outlined in the e/s and above. At least this part of the dispute could be solved by introducing "campaign from the Oder towards the Müritz area, probably also covering Gützkow, Demmin and the area of today's Stralsund." That is a wording supported by the 1939 book. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside your incorrect analysis of the "problem" here (rather I think it is your inability to produce any sources to support your case and relying solely on expressing your opinion over and over and over again with a seeming intent to tire the opponent out - i.e. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) - the sentence needs to have the word "successful" or the word "conquered" or "took control" in there. That's in the source and the campaign was a success, although from a longer term perspective, an elusive one. I don't see how you can deny that (especially without sources).Volunteer Marek 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish to note that further sources can be provided, both for the map and the fact that Boleslaw "took control" (rather than just "campaigned in") of Demmin and area around Murtiz lake. Here are two:

1. [71] which has a map which shows Polish control of Demmin and Gutzkow between 1122 and 1127.

2. [72]. The relevant excerpt can be seen here [73]. Quote: He (Boleslaw) recaptured the whole area up to and well beyond the Oder, as far as the Island of Rugen.".

Both of these are reliable sources.Volunteer Marek 18:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Kraus

The history of the Kraus is all messed up on this site. The timelines are not accurate at all. You need to access the ship's deck logs for her locations and time periods. See National Archives.

Encyclopedia of European Peoples

• Source to check: Carl Waldman, Catherine Maso. Encyclopedia of European Peoples. Infobase Publishing, 2006. xii.
• Being used at Germanic peoples in the lead.
• More precisely: It is being used to claim that there are still nations (such as specifically, Sudeten Germans, Alemannic Swiss, and Afrikaners, who are today referred to as Germanic peoples). See diff.
• Note that the articles more conventional sources are all about the more well known concept of Germanic peoples in classical and early medieval times, when Germanic languages were spreading. The talk page shows further discussion on the matter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(I swear: I'm not stalking you, Andrew. This came up on my watchlist, and I've cited this source before, so I thought I'd contribute.) The authors are mysterious to me. The book is recommended in the 2007 Libraries Unlimited Recommended reference books. The book has a recommendation here from a librarian at SUNY. Gale (publisher) hosts Facts on File content. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL No problem. Thanks for your comment. I really do not have a position on it, and I think it needs feedback. The article above has suffered from sloppy mixing of subjects and this source has come up within that context. In my opinion it is a case that will come good if more editors help and refer to "the basics" such as sourcing. More comments from others would also be helpful I think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That seems a somewhat dubious claim (though I'm mildly clueless about this kind of thing), and we generally try to minimize the use of tertiary sources per WP:TERTIARY. What do secondary sources (and especially academic and/or other expert sources) say? Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I found no review of this source on JSTOR, and only one on Highbeam Research's site. That review, from Reference & Research Book News, is short, but more or less positive. One comment it makes is "The Manx can best be described as Hiberno-Norse, thanks to both the Celts and the Vikings," which indicates that this source might perhaps lean toward engaging in what might be called really specific classifications. I'm guessing the source probably meets RS standards, but it's apparent inclination to use perhaps older terminology, like "Norse" in describing the Manx, seems to itself at times maybe indicate that its positions or definitions might be non-standard. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we specifically need comments about whether this source shows significant enough notability for quite a big point for this article. Is this a strong enough source for having a paragraph in an article about mostly Roman period tribes, which suddenly announces that for example modern Afrikaaners are also Germanic peoples, in the same way that say, the Goths were. If it is strong enough then probably we need to create a whole new article, so effectively we are almost needing to say is this source strong enough to base a whole article off of it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, no. Personally, I think it would be very much in the best interests of the editors who come to this noticeboard if we did have separate articles on pretty much all the reference works out there, and particularly noting where those reference sources are thought to be very good and not so good. Based on what I have seen, this source, while a good one, does seem to reflect an unusual view, and while its conclusions that these races are known as "Germanic peoples" is more or less proven by the source itself, if it refers to them as such, this source's view regarding the usage and definition of that term seems to be, at least based on the material I've seen, possibly a definitely minority view. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups (2000), published by Greenwood Publishing Group, the author James Minahan describes various current groups as "Germanic peoples", including the Dutch and Frisians. This seems to be of similar academic standing as the Waldman & Mason. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A better source: DeWulf, Jeroen, "Flemish" in Cole, Jeffrey E., Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia (ABC-CLIO, 2011), p. 136: The Flemish (Dutch: Vlamingen), also called Flemings, are a Germanic people living in Belgium", and p. 110, saying similarly for the Dutch.

At UC Berkeley, DeWulf is "director of the Dutch Studies Program (Queen Beatrix Chair). He graduated in Dutch and German Studies at the University of Ghent, in Belgium, and holds a Ph.D. in German Literature from the University of Bern, in Switzerland. In his research, he focuses primarily on Dutch literature and cultural identity, Postcolonial Studies, and German-Swiss literature" [74]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, we can now see that there are sources to show that a small number of authors have indeed written of modern peoples as "Germanic peoples", but in the mean time I see no one denying that most sources do not. So keeping the context in mind can we really say this is a common usage based on a minority of "reasonable" sources like this? And if so, then what happens to our article? Is it destined to be about a mixture of what most people would consider two different meanings? (Bracketing modern Afrikaaners and ancient Goths into one single ethnic grouping to be handled in one WP article seems "pop culture" to me, and pop culture of an unhappy kind.) The article talk page could do with some discussion. There has, I note, been an edit war on-going while I have posted here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only contribute the over-all observation that the term is almost universally avoided in modern (post-1945) folkloristics and ethnology (inasmuch as the latter deals with Europe at all). It will be relatively easy to find a small number of counter-examples, but in general it seems to be considered anachronistic usage for modern groups. The only commonly accepted definition of a modern-day Germanic group is purely linguistic ("speakers of G. languages"), which means it does no longer reflect the ethnic scope of our article. The reason why this seems to be so for the Germanic peoples and not e.g. for the Slavic ones might be that the scholarly community has been loath to use the term due to its unsavoury connotations after WWII ("Germanentümelei"), but this is pure speculation on my part. Trigaranus (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Btw I know I might be thrashing something remotely reminiscent of a horse carcass here, but just do a quick search for "Germanic peoples" on GoogleBooks to gauge how restricted the usage of the term is. I know that is cheesy, but it does at least illustrate my and Andrew's point here. Trigaranus (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Updates:

• User:GraemeLeggett gives a summary of what is in the actual source on the artilce talk page [75].
• Someone has tried to create an article for modern Germanic peoples. It is already proposed for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic peoples (modern).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Les Gens Du Cinema

Hi, I'm just curious as to whether the website Les Gens Du Cinema is sufficiently reliable to verify someone's death. A death date for Rosine Delamare was added, first referenced by a blog (not a reliable source), then by an obituary that may or not be her (it offers no details and overstates her age by a year), and finally Les Gens Du Cinema. I have no idea whether or not it is reliable (thus I haven't reverted), but I was curious to know if it was sufficient in this context. Canadian Paul 18:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That site looks entirely self-published with no editorial oversight. It also doesn't look like it's affiliated with a majorly notable person, or entity, so I'd wagger that it isn't acceptable, but that's just my interpretation.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The second source, www.avis-de-deces.net, is a service that accepts information via funeral directors (like the deaths column in a newspaper). There is (as you say) the question of whether it's the right person. But the age error is probably faulty communication and not an indication of total unreliability (in her 102nd year or aged 102? that would make all the difference).

OK, so: Les gens du cinéma. Yes, I would say it is reliable in our terms. It's an online continuation of a published (not self-published) encyclopedia, and the author can be found fairly widely described as an expert in this area. Here's a page about the book; here's a site showing that the publisher exists and is a member of the Belgian publishers' association.

I would accept the information from Les gens du cinéma, backed up by www.avis-de-deces.net. Andrew Dalby 15:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist?

At [76] I have presented several reliable sources that Rudolf Steiner did pseudoscience. Among these source are Quackwatch (in respect to Steiner's contribution to medicine called anthroposophical medicine) and books by Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer. Some editors have challenged the appropriateness of these sources for calling Steiner a pseudo-scientist. Please note that I did not add the category pseudo-scientist to Rudolf Steiner, somebody else did that, and I support such category being applied to Steiner. Another user has also expressed support for it, but some editors who support Steiner have challenged the category. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I have also used quotes from Anthony Storr's book Feet of Clay to support my view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Another author who called Steiner a pseudo-scientist has his own article at de:Martin Mahner. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The quotes from Storr are available at [77]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that an encyclopedia of the broad field of pseudoscience, whose articles are listed at User:John Carter/Pseudoscience articles, includes a separate article relating to Rudolf Steiner. I don't remember the specific content of that article at this point, but I think it would be very useful to see if someone can check it for what it says about Steiner. I could myself in a few days, but the book isn't one I generally have immediate access to, so I would probably want to get a note on my talk page asking me to check it first. Having said that, I would be myself rather hesitant to use a phrase like "Steiner practices pseudoscience" or "Steiner was a pseudoscientist" because it strikes me as being potentially overbroad. Detailing what specific work he did which is counted as pseudoscience would probably be more neutral and encyclopedic. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch is reliable as far as it is edited or supervised by Stephen Barrett, M.D., and its committee of advisers, and with respect to the reliability of the author of the particular page in question. The Shermer book and the Regal book are good sources for describing certain beliefs of Steiner to be pseudoscientific. The British Humanist Association calls Steiner's school system a school of pseudoscience in an op-ed piece in the Guardian.[78] David Jelinek identifies California skeptic Dan Dugan (audio engineer) as a prominent critic of Steiner school pseudoscience.[79] Journalist Todd Oppenheimer agrees that Dugan calls Steiner's theories pseudoscience.[80] In early 1914, Steiner himself responded to accusations that his beliefs were pseudoscientific: he gave a rebuttal speech called "The Pseudo-Science of the Present Time".[81] Yuko Kikuchi, PhD, describes Steiner and Blavatsky as the leaders of two different "pseudo-scientific occult movements".[82] British history scholar Janet Oppenheim wrote that Steiner manipulated and misused scientific language for spiritual purposes in a pseudoscientific manner.[83] Biologist Lee M. Silver devotes six pages (225–231) of his Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality to a discussion of Steiner's pseudoscientific beliefs. The French Association Française pour l’Information Scientifique characterizes Steiner's beliefs as pseudoscience: Skeptical Inquirer, November–December 2007, Jean Günther: "Le Monde et les pseudo-sciences" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure whether the last of these count as reliable sources. The AFIS articles are clearly not peer-reviewed. hgilbert (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Categorization

For clarity's sake: the editors on the Rudolf Steiner page are agreed that there are a number of reliable sources on this theme that can be quoted within the article: Gardner, Oppenheim, Silver for example. The only question that has arisen is whether Steiner can be put in the Pseudoscientists Wikipedia category purely on the basis of these skeptics' evaluations. Categories are supposed to be from a "neutral point of view" and "uncontroversial...A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc." But biographies of Steiner from standard biographical sources do not usually characterize him as a pseudoscientist (or the equivalent). For example:

1. Britannica's article on Steiner characterizes him as a "spiritualist, lecturer, and founder of anthroposophy, a movement based on the notion that there is a spiritual world comprehensible to pure thought but accessible only to the highest faculties of mental knowledge".
2. The Encyclopedia of World Biography" : "Austrian philosopher and educational reformer Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) remains perhaps best known for the educational methods he pioneered in his Waldorf schools, which have spread slowly but steadily around the world since his death. The philosophy underlying those schools grew out of a lifetime of innovative thinking that encompassed fields as diverse as traditional philosophy, spiritualism, color theory, art, agriculture, medicine, music, and architecture. A trained philosopher and at the same time a mystic, Steiner believed that spiritual insights could be gained through systematic thought."
3. New Catholic Encyclopedia describes him simply as a philosopher.
4. Merriam Webster's Biographical Dictionary: social philosopher and "Founder of the spiritualistic and mystical doctrine known as anthroposophy."

None of these touch even remotely on a term justifying such a categorization. hgilbert (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

BP article

Would this source [84] be OK to use for the BP article updates on current court findings? For example:

Transocean agreed to admit guilty as well as to pay US$1.4bn in fines. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't get through to that website at all. Paywall? Also, it doesn't look good. For news use the mainstream news media, which are covering all the developments in this high profile story. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's looks like a WP:SPS by a lawyer who has a direct stake in lawsuits filed against BP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be soliciting clients and hence is an advertisement for a law firm and is not remotely acceptable for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Historical material for Cumbria location stubs & articles

Source: various pages from the website of the Cumbria County History Trust [85]

Article: numerous WP place articles, mainly stubs, such as Arlecdon in Cumbria, NW England.

Content: As a simple External Link using Cite web, for example:

• "Arlecdon". Cumbria County History Trust. Retrieved 21st March 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

A new editor recently added an external link to many stub articles of places in Cumbria, NW England. The link to Cumbria County History Trust provide some interesting historical background not previously referenced within the article. They are spam-free. The only obvious concern was that the editor was also adding a “History” section to some of the articles with a sentence saying “see CCHT in the external links below” or similar words to that effect. Potential RS and COI issues were then raised leading to the removal by the editor of the links, in my view to the detriment of the stub. I have therefore offered to present the material for RSN consideration.

The material is NOT biographic and contains no SPAM. An example is [86]. Each page carries a link to a page detailing the numerous historical sources used and includes a standard disclaimer about potential accuracy. Bearing in mind the ancient documents used in some cases the accuracy will always be open to challenge but I do not think the presence of this disclaimer weakens the objectivity of the material presented.

The Cumbria County History Trust is a volunteer membership organisation. It has provided digests on its website of the history of c344 Cumberland villages, towns and cities. Information on the CCHT website has been put together from local history archives & records by experienced amateurs (e.g. retired academics) compiled from a standard set of sources based on training and guidance from the University of Lancaster to be found here [87]. There is a future expansion of this information planned as part of the Victoria County History Project under the auspices of the University of London that will include the vetting of the facts given in the CCHT Digests to a an even more rigorous standard.

The editor hopes that the inclusion of this external link will encourage WP editors with an interest in the article to use the externally linked historical material to develop the stub articles. Whether or not this happens, I cannot see any negative aspect with using this material. It is non-BLP infringing, is at least secondary source in nature and organised under an academic scheme of control with no spam links. It is an improvement on the total absence of local historical information contained in the majority of these stubs and could be presented through citation as WP:RS without comment.

I would be grateful for the community's consideration on this material for External Link purposes. Leaky Caldron 12:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This is local history research of the highest quality. I can't see any problem with it being used as EL for any relevant article. The only problem with using it as a source for historical fact within articles is that it is research in progress rather than completed outputs. There is obviously an extensive fact-checking process in place, and we shouldn't imply that that process is complete when actually it isn't. For example, one of the researchers might unearth an excellent primary source indicating the dedication of a church, but then another researcher might find another source that contradicts it. Published sources take precedence. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Coaster Guy

I'm reviewing Superman: Escape from Krypton for GA, and questioned the use of multiple pages from The Coaster Guy (www.thecoasterguy.com) as a reliable source, on the basis that it looked to me like a self-published blog created by an enthusiastic amateur. The nominator replied that: "From my experience, I've never encountered anything to be wrong on his subject and I know he works with the park from time to time." I'm not convinced, but I'm outside my usual topic areas, so I thought I would bring it here for a second opinion. In particular, the site is used to source the following:

While in the planning stages, the ride was going to be named Velocetron and themed as The Man of Steel. Source

If the Velocetron name was chosen, the queue and station would have had ancient ruins and a giant laser. Source

After 10 months of testing and reengineering, the ride opened on March 15, 1997. Source

Superman: Escape from Krypton closed again on February 5, 2012 (almost a year after the refurbishment) to prepare for the new 2012 attraction Lex Luthor: Drop of Doom. Two drop towers, also built by Intamin, were integrated into the existing sides of Superman: Escape from Krypton's structure. The ride reopened when construction was finished on July 7, 2012. Source

The coaster closed again for a third time after Christmas in 2012 to enable the construction of the park's latest roller coaster, Full Throttle. Its supports were installed over the plaza where Superman's entrance is located. Superman: Escape from Krypton was originally scheduled to reopen when Full Throttle opens in Summer 2013, Source

Thanks for your help. Moswento ^talky 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Self published history site

In the article Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania an editor insists on using the "Eastern United States Research and Some Mid Atlantic" webpage as a source.[88]. Specifically, User:Carrite is trying to use a page the claims to be a news article from the Washingto Reporter (now the Observer-Reporter). [89]. This isn't a scan of a page or fiche, it's someone retyping it and claiming it is accurate. At this point, we have no evidence that the article ever ran or said what is claimed. This is a Geocities site run by two non-experts. I don't see any editorial oversight or any other reason to claim this is a reliable source. Initially I simply tagged the source as dubious and opened a discussion about it but Carrite insisted on removing the tag and declaring it bogus. So here we are. Previously, there was a discussion about a third party site (publicintelligence.com) hosting a PDF copy of a US Govt. document. [90] Many seems to question if that was allowable, even when it was obvious that the document existed and was reproduced by a scan, not someone retyping it as is the case here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is a case of an overwrought AfD nominator fighting to the last ditch to defend a dubious nomination Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_March_25#Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania. There is absolutely no reason in the world to believe that the transcription of the Oct. 30, 1905 newspaper article in question HERE is in any way incorrect. There is absolutely no requirement that a published source be linked in facsimile. The basic account of the newspaper article is further verified by THIS account of the same disaster from Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 80 (Nov. 4, 1905), pg. 834. The AfD nominator has removed line-by-line footnotes necessary for the durable documentation of facts asserted DIFF and has attached obviously inapplicable DUBIOUS tagging to the published newspaper article in question DIFF. I attempted to replace the line-by-line inline footnotes (a Wikipedia best practice), which have fortunately stayed. The nominator has also removed an External Link to a specific page of non-commercial historical website on the grounds that I have made use of another altogether different page of that same site in the body of the piece DIFF, seemingly another attempt to "win" a deletion nomination. I am a little stunned that an experienced editor such as the nominator would behave in such a combative manner, arguing that down is up and blue is green to rationalize the undermining of work to save an article at AfD. I'd like a firm ruling that both sources are appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, together with a gentle nudge to the AfD nominator (OP here) to knock it off. —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Overwrought? And yet you talk about AGF? (thanks for the laugh) Glad you finally decided to discuss something rather than just declare you're right. First off, wrong....this won't really change the AfD because the AfD is about a community by that name and your source is about mines by that name that were nearby. True, there is no requirement that a link be reproduced or linked in facsimilie. However, there is a requirement that the source be reliable and verifiable. In this case, we have a site with no editorial oversight. What evidence is there that they are accurate or reliable? None. It's just two women with a hobby. As for removing the external link, which has nothing to do with this discussion, the link is already being used in the article. there is no good reason to link it again as an external link. External links are supposed to be links not used as sources. Now do you want to discuss the actual issue of just keep making it a personality conflict? ETA: I haven't brought up the second source yet and a "firm ruling" (which isn't how Wikipedia works) would be pre-emptive. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In what way do you feel that the transcription of the published newspaper account(s) are inaccurate? In short, why are you making this complaint? What is factually erroneous, tendentious, or violative of Neutral Point of View about that transcription? Technically, there doesn't need to be a link to that transcription at all — a simple footnote to the publication and date would suffice. So where did they get it wrong? Carrite (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Your question illustrates the point.......I don't know where it's inaccurate because we can't see the original. All I can see is what they claim is the transcript. Sounds pretty WP:SPS. Since we're being asked to take something on faith, then it should at least be a source with editorial oversight, written by experts or at least a site with a reputation for reliability (you know, those pesky things in RS). this is two probably well intentioned people with a hobby. WP:V is a factor here. I don't really need to prove the lack of accuracy. You need to show this site is a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

All that is required is that the article was published by a reliable source, which in this case was the newspaper. The fact that a reliable source does not make it available online does not detract from its reliability. If you doubt it is an accurate transcription, then you may look at a copy of the original in a library or ask if other editors can check it. It is the same as if the editor using the source had a copy at home that you were unable to look at. TFD (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whay didn't that rationale apply in the other discussion I cited? Since we know (and we do know) that he doesn't have the original and is relying on the self-published site, that's just wiki-lawyering around the policy. Likewise, he can't properly cite the original because all the information isn't there. It still comes back to this site being the de facto source, not the newspaper that he (or any of us) have never seen. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The entire argument against inclusion appears to be tendentious. The likelihood of the article being a fabrication is extremely low. However, you may use this site, maintained by a published historian, as alternative source for the same material [91]. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Published historian? I'm sorry, I am having difficulty locating that fact. Can you link me to that please? As for it being tendentious, well, I'm not sure when it became ok to retype news articles and call it a reliable source but not accept a unretouched scan of government documents as reliable. Maybe you can understand the confusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure [92]. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• You do realize that most of those are self-published, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that after I posted. A local historian. Still, I'd tend to trust the site and, in any case, these events are covered in multiple newspapers (certainly more than 10).

• Then use the newspapers and not the self-published site of a self-published "expert". Why is this concept so difficult? You saw this after you posted it? So what you are really saying is that when his name came up in the search, you blindly posted that links without even givng them a cursory glance. Instead, you declared him a "published" historian and posited him as an expert. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've provided multiple newspaper sources for these events which you're quite free to use should you so choose.

The Virtual Museum of Coal Mining in Western Pennsylvania appears to have been cited by seven publications [93], including one published by the National Academies Press [94]. The Indiana University of Pennsylvania also indicates that this website is a reliable digital repository of historical material, including newspaper accounts [[95] [96]].FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The response in this section is to the newspaper articles in question, not to another source. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Off topic, but looked at your previous RSN. You couldn't establish it was a published report. If it's an internal document I'd consider it archival and a primary source; you'd need a secondary source to use it (and interpret it for you), otherwise you're into OR territory. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, not really. The fact that I had never worked for the DoJ, yet had a copy mailed to me proved it wasn;t an internal document. The fact that I had it and that it was displayed on that site showed it had been published. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd come to that conclusion. The ability to secure a document does not indicate its formal published status. Is it catalogued as an official government publication? FiachraByrne (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• There is no requirement that a report that was available outside the agency be cataloged. None. The fact that it was put to paper and made available to hundreds/thousands of people outside of the parent organization makes it published and not internal. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Dissemination does not qualify it as an official governmental publication. Unlike this full text [97]. But you've already had this discussion and it is off-topic. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Facsimile of original available here [98] (subscription). FiachraByrne (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Huh? How is the Indiana Democrat the original of the Washington Reporter article being used? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Syndicated or wired article. Same text. Same reporters. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Same reporters? How do we know that? The link the started this thread, the self-pub site, doesn't name any reporters. The Washington Report is the name of the paper. Your mystery source behind the paywall might have names, but the original doesnt, which tends to show that the transcript isn't verbatim. So which is it? Were they sloopy in their transcript or did you fabricate the "same reporters" part? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

One could reasonably infer that where the text is the same or largely the same that the text is the work of the same authors - i.e. the original reporters of this incident. To demonstrate, here are some newspapers which replicated the Pittsburgh report of the incident they are all, largely, the same text: [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124]. You get the idea. Story is written by reporters close to source, a few versions of the local versions go out, these are reproduced in whole or in part by other papers who pick the story up. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why on earth would you type all that instead of just saying "I inferred it"? Inferred = made it up. Thanks for clearing that up. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad faith³. A reasonable inference is not a fabrication. Do you imagine that the above had different authors? FiachraByrne (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Another article (freely available) different text: "Six Dead in Burning Mine". Boston Evening Transcript. 30 October 1905.

Another: "Five Killed in Mine". Daily Tribune. 30 October 1905. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Etc: "Five Lives Go Out". Mansfield Daily Shield. 30 October 1905.

The 9 year old daughter of the mine's superintendent was killed (shot in the head) shortly thereafter: "Slain as she looks for Kris". The Philadelphia Record. 26 December 1905.

That place kept on blowing up: "Miners rescued from the fire". St. John Daily Sun. 22 May 1906.

And: "Fire menaces 300 miners". Philadelphia Record. 22 May 1906.

Also:"Fight to save Hazel Kirk Mine". The Pittsburgh Press. 22 May 1906.

There's probably enough there for you to get started on writing the article Niteshift36, but there's lots more coverage of Hazel Kirk beyond the 1905 mining disasters as well. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please,try to get this point: Nobody disputes there was a MINE that had a notable incident. There were 3 (or more) mines using that name. The article, however, is about a COMMUNITY. these sources keep covering the Hazel Kirk MINE, not the community. And all of this alleged notability revolves around a single event. Why is it so incredibly difficult to separate a mine and a community? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, given the RSN which you initiated I searched for sources covering this event - is that really surprising? Bear in mind, too, that this was a mining community for which, understandably, the mine would have been a central element. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, here's a little article on coal towns in the region [125] FiachraByrne (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There were 3 mines with that company name. We all accept that. Where is the significant coverage about the COMMUNITY of Hazel Kirk? That's the whole question.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you been through the regional press sources? Anyway, that's a question for AFD. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Regional sources? I've been to the community! And I can tell the difference between a community and a mine. I'm sorry you can't make that distinction. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hazel Kirkwas built in 1901 by the Kirk-Wood Co. of Cleveland to house miners for Hazel Kirk No. 1 mine, which began operations the same year.[126]

Sorry about the needle, which was unnecessary, but the posting of your previous unsuccessful attempt to have a source accepted as RSN - which is totally unlike this source - does not inspire confidence about this nomination or the motivation behind it. These and related events have been covered in multiple regional newspapers (and the shooting was covered in the NYT) which I've posted links to above. If you research commercial databases of regional newspapers you'll find mind more references (for this event and the town more generally). The transcribed text from the originally linked source is repeated in whole or in part in these regional newspapers (there appear to have been a limited number of original reports that were then reproduced or partially edited and reworded in the wider regional press). This indicates that these transcriptions are likely accurate and the two websites listed above can serve as reasonable links for these sources. Hosting an archival source is not the same as self-publishing as these sources have an existence and publication history independent of the websites. The second website I linked to above is, I think, reliable, and considered as such by the Indiana University of Pennsylvania [127] [128]. I don't think there's any plausible reason to doubt that the transcriptions are genuine. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Um, my last effort wasn't unsuccessful. That report, which was published, is used as an offline source. The issue was why we couldn't use the offline source as hosted by a third party, non-RS. When your "archival source" is based on the typing of a cuple of hobbyists with no editorial oversight and no reputation for reliability, then it is far different than a newspaper database. What you seem to be unable to grasp is that if you can cite the papers, there is no good reason to cite a self-pub site. Further, it is apparently beyond the grasp of some here to differentiate between a mine and a community of the same name. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no plausible reason to doubt the validity of the transcripts and it stretches credulity to consider them fabrications. The reporting of the events is not controversial and is reproduced, in whole or in part, in other newspaper accounts. Indeed, I've already provided multiple accounts from accessible newspapers facsimiles of this and other incidents should you choose to use them. One of the websites which hosts the material, The Virtual Museum of Coal Mining in Western Pennsylvania appears to have been cited in seven publications [129], including one published by the National Academies Press [130]. This is an indication of its reliability as a digital repository of historical material. As I've already pointed out, the Indiana University of Pennsylvania has also indicated that this website is a reliable digital repository of historical material, including newspaper accounts [131] [132]. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Could you miss the point more? If there are reliable sources available, why use this hobbyist website? Because someone wants to be lazy and use the easiest answer. Kind of ironic that you've spent so much time defending someone else's inability (or lack of motivation) to find a real source. Even funnier is that I never removed the source or the info from the article, I merely tagged it as a questionable source. You've done all this to avoid an inline tag. Good investment of time. Have the last word. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A concatenation of bile. Because this version of events is freely available and accessible without going through a paywall. Other than the repetition of the term hobbyist, you've also ignored the evidence that the website is considered reliable by a university and a variety of publications, including one published by the US National Academies. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

One cannot know that another editor is using a correct reference, since editors are not reliable sources. If you doubt the accuracy then you need to look at the original. BTW the link shows other papers as. TFD (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Quote on Bulfinch's Mythology

On Bulfinch's Mythology, MelanieN (talk · contribs) has repeatedly restored a quote from two non-Classicists making the claim that Bulfinch's Mythology is "the most popular and useful book on classical Greek mythology in English". Neither of the individuals who may be attributed to this claim (Claudia Durst Johnson and Vernon Johnson) are specialists in any particularly related area, and this book seems to have been compiled along with many others similar to it as a sort of "intro to literature" work. They cite nothing in support of their claim; no reference, no data. For those unaware, Bulfinch's Mythology is an early Victorian general audience introduction to (mainly) Classical mythology, complete with heavy bowlderization and without access to the numerous important discoveries in the field after. It has long been superseded by numerous other general audience works, such as Classicist Edith Hamilton's Mythology. I argue that Claudia Durst Johnson and Vernon Elso Johnson are not a reliable source for the claim they are attributed to. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As the article indicates, Bulfinch's Mythology is not a scholarly work and is intended for a general audience. For nearly 100 years it was THE popular reference on mythology in English, at least until Hamilton's Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes (not Mythologie) (striking this since Bloodofox has corrected it) came out, and it is still a best-seller. The fact that it is still a highly popular general-interest mythology book in English is the fact that is cited to these authors. Bloodofox claims that these authors are not reliable sources for the fact that it is still a highly popular general-interest book, because they are not classicists. However, both authors are PhDs (one in English, one in World Literature), and they write and lecture widely on general literature topics, as well as authoring student guides such as the one under discussion. I contend that they ARE reliable sources on the subject of what the general public is reading - and that the requirement for sources to be independent and reliable does not mean they must be scholarly experts in a particular field, particularly if the information they are cited for is not scholarly in nature. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I contend that Melanie has done a Google Books search and this is what she found and this is what she has dug in to defend. Again, the claim by these two is that this Victorian general audience work is "the most popular and useful book on classical Greek mythology in English". Even a Classicist making such a claim—which is extremely unlikely—would have to be met with suspicion. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• It indeed was been the standard popular reference work for a great many years, but a good source is needed. The most recent edition of Guid to /Reference Books I can find it in is the 1928 (p89: but it is also in Shores, Basic Reference sources, 1954 ed.p.349. (it is in several vols., the Greek & Roman material is published as Age of Fable. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC) .

There is no dispute that this was quite a popular general audience book about the topic in North America for a long while. The issue is the insistence of MelanieN of using the quote from the two authors above that states that it is not only currently "the most popular [...] book on classical Greek mythology in English" but also, totally unqualified, 'the most useful'. I guess "most useful" if you want your Greek and Norse myth dressed up in Victorian morality and devoid of near 150 years of scholarly innovation on the topic, including such pithy things as the decipherment of Linear B. Please note that the quote also directly contradicts the accurate source cited before it, which simply states that it was a popular general audience source for a long while before being superseded. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As to truth: Bulfinch may possibly still be the most popular, because it's PD and can therefore be reprinted very cheaply. It definitely isn't the most useful (one simple reason is that it uses Roman names of gods, not Greek ones, thus introducing a fundamental confusion; another reason is that it was written before any serious modern work on anthropology and comparative mythology, etc. etc. had been done). We could easily name some other sources that are far more useful.

As to the expertise of the Johnsons, no, they weren't expert on mythology, or on Greek literature, and didn't claim to be. Here's an obituary of Vernon Johnson; his wife, the lead author of this book, is still alive. He was a Shakespearean scholar; she is a speaker on general literature for a general audience. They were perhaps an odd choice to compile a casebook on Homer, but then, some very odd people have written about Homer :)

I suspect they chose to quote Bulfinch at length because the text is PD, and maybe this sentence was inserted to justify that choice. On the other hand, from the special point of view of a teacher of Shakespeare (which Vernon Johnson was) the Bulfinch book could have its uses, so he may really have believed this. Andrew Dalby 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said here. I don't suspect them of bad intentions, I just think that their observation is misleading and inappropriate for the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly it. Andrew Dalby 17:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

fwiw, I agree with Dalby's assessment. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

News rack: Is it a reliable source

Is a page obtained from news rack considered a reliable source? See this page which I would like to use to replace a dead link ("Nandigram violence can't be justified: intellectuals". Hindustan Times. India.) in Teesta Setalvad. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hindustan Times seems to be a reliable source for the type of information used here, although the actual text used in the article doesn't follow the source very faithfully. Sources don't need to be available online to be usable, but adding an archival link to the "News Rack" archive could be a good idea. Amending the article to follow what the source says would also be a good idea. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean we could replace [133] with [134]? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Random website on article Skookum

This website is used as a source in the Skookum article, and does not meet the editorial oversight or even remotely meet anything that would make it a reliable source. User:Skookum1 seems to think that their credentials (supposedly, I've not seen any proof other than claims) and their claim they know it's true trumps the necessity for having a reliable source to cite the information this company has on their website. My issues (some of which may be better handled elsewhere this is done):

1. This source is a company website FAQ, nothing near a scholarly journal. First of all, it barely pertains to the subject other than the one FAQ topic (which took me a few minutes to find) about Snookum.
2. User:Skookum1 claims that "YOu still don't get it that that was the first cite for this page when it began", and goes on to say that it is a valid cite for partly that reason. Have things changed to where it is now acceptable to claim "first cite on the page, therefore it must be reliable and must stay"?
3. The same user also is engaging in credential-mongering (if that's a right term) to try to claim it's true, and therefore the source is reliable.

If these topics could be addressed (if only for my benefit of knowing which interpretation is correct for the future), I'd really appreciate it. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a tack-on, it's not currently in the article, but I'm sure it'll be readded at some point pending this discussion. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The bias in this complaint by a person who knows nothing about the Chinook Jargon is evident to me, holding a hardline on RS when the fact is that the nature of the Chinook Jargon is that it is in use as a brand name (not just for Skookum Tools) and it happens that that site had definitions of "skookum" online and it is factual and is meant to serve a community service, it's not spam. The further bitch about me is that I had tried to "scare" qwickwire with my credentials as a more-or-less chinookologist (I'm the siteowner of http://www.cayoosh.net/hiyu/ and was part of the modern Chinook Jargon revival/research movement). To me it's notable that the term is in use as a brand name (also Skookum Dolls, cites for which tend to be sites selling them) and given that it's verifiable in terms of its content (easy enough to do), the claim that it's unreliable is spurious and not a bit hostile (as evinced by this complaint being brought here). I know there's a way to self-cite if one is an expert in a given field; I've never tried that and don't know the templates, but to me this complaint is ridiculous because the site's content is valid (sez me, yes, but I know what I'm talking about, qwickwire doesn't) and it's also an example of this term's usage in modern commerce/branding.....as I recall there was a long-ago disussion on the use of this citation when the page first began, and it was kept at the time, and not just by me.Skookum1 (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop claiming you're going to self cite, and stop this "I know it's in use as a brand name and we can use an unreliable source to say so". I know it's in use as a brand name too. But that site is not a reliable source. Reliable sources (as I tell people in the help IRC channel), are those with editorial oversight of some sort. That could mean newspapers, magazines, or academic journals. It's not some brand name's FAQ page on the internet. I'm not saying the content is valid, I'm saying the validity of the content does not make it a reliable source just because it is true. I never called it spam, and you also have tried to "Oh, I know it's true I'm a selfproclaimed chinookologist so back off" (not exact quote) to me. Just let someone from this noticeboard answer. gwickwire^talk_editing 13:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not RS, but don't lose it: put it under external links. If it's any help, the word occurs multiple times in DARE, according to the search function on the official website. Andrew Dalby 20:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not hard to find reliable sources about this. I don't have time right now, maybe later. For now, this book is a RS and has basic definition and etymology, plus related terms like skookumchuck and skookumhouse (ie, jail or fort), and the variant spelling skukum. Not much, but a start. I'm not sure about all the claims on the page, but I don't think it should be deleted. Pfly (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one who PRODed it, just the one who's fed up that Skookum1 thinks that website is a reliable source. Looks like here people are agreeing that it isn't a reliable source. Any other comments ya'll have would be appreciated :) gwickwire^talk_editing 00:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Crunchyroll

Crunchyroll is a professional website which legally host hordes of anime, and has a professional paid editing staff which does interviews. In the Arin Hanson article it list an interview he did on that website. [135] Would this be considered a reliable source? Dream Focus 05:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would consider it a primary source as it is a recording of the subject of the BLP article regarding Arin Hanson. The source appears to be a reliable source only for the opinions of the subject of Arin Hanson. Secondary sources are preferred, by primary sources are valid sources for matters of opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of how interviews related to proof of WP:NOTABILITY. This is no different than a major television station interviewing someone. Dream Focus 16:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would actually say that since, I consider the interview a primary source, that it should not be used by editors to consider whether the subject is notable or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the interview is a reliable (primary) source for his views. No, it's very weak evidence of his notability, because the aim of Crunchyroll is to sell anime. An interview with an anime artist can be seen as just a means to that end (like an author biography on a book jacket). Andrew Dalby 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

The following sources were recently added to Arthur Rubin

• "Anti-Semitism by Jews for Claims that Prof. Santilli is anti-Semitic". The International Committee on Scientific Ethics and ASccountability. October 5, 2012. Retrieved March 20, 2013.
• "Jewish mathematician caught editing Alex Jones Wikipedia page". September 26, 2010. Retrieved March 20, 2013. (twice)

The only statemet sourced by either of those is "Rubin was born to a Jewish family," and probably some of the categorization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Already removed, per comment on talk page. However, the former site needs to be watched for reinclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of medals

I want to use a pictures as a source for a military colonel. Before I state my reason as to why I believe it is perfectly reliable, I want to provide the external links to the pictures first.

• From article 1 by Armenian Reporter:
• picture of medals displayed with a caption of: Medals of Col. Juskalian
• From article 2 by Armenian Reporter:
• With a caption of: Col. Juskalian in January 2008. Armenian Reporter
• From article 3 by Armenian Mirror Spectator:
• With a caption of: The late Col. George Juskalian with his wife Lucine. Note: it is the same display box as the first picture listed above.

Now the reason why I firmly believe these pictures can be used a reliable sources:

1. It is published by reliable sources such as Armenian Reporter and Armenian Mirror Spectator
2. The pictures have captions that are compatible with what the pictures presents
3. The Mirror Spectator and Armenian Reporter have provided two different pictures of the same display case, thus signifying that it is indeed Juskalian's medals and confirming verifiability.
4. The medals (though not all) are also confirmed with other third party sources such as: here
5. The medals that me and other medal experts have examined clearly indicate that the medals all conform to the battles and wars which written sources have claimed.
6. The second picture of Juskalian confirms that the displayed medals are in fact the same one's he wears.

Now the reason why I bring this up is because I haven't found any written sources that indicate all his medals, only a handful. Turns out, he has dozens upon dozens in accordance to the pictures. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I request that the pictures should be accepted in good faith as an expendable source. The article I am creating is in my sandbox currently and I have plans of nominating it in FAC in the future. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

La Cosa Nostra Database (www.lacndb.com)

I do not have any specific challenges yet, but I was wondering if there are any general thoughts regarding La Cosa Nostra Database that is cited in various article pertaining to organized crime. It appears as though someone has put a lot of work into this website and the information appears to be accurate when verified from traditional reliable sources. Unfortunately, there is no "About" page to determine who is responsible for the compilation of this material. Thanks! Location (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)