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

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

Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation

Hatting 34 printed pages of discussion. Requester agrees that questions regarding use of this source will have to go so some other Dispute Resolution forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.[1][2][3][4][5] 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) Guy - could you please provide a reference for '50% of cyclist deaths in London are due to crushing by goods vehicles at junctions, cause of death being abdominal trauma', according to http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx About 75% of cyclists killed have major head injuries. Chest and abdomen injuries occur much less frequently (5%), but are often serious. When they do occur they are often accompanied by head injuries. A study by the Transport Research Laboratory found that over 70% of the cyclist fatalities in London had moderate or serious head injuries, and over 80% of cyclists killed in collisions on rural roads had moderate or serious head injuries. In claiming that helmets 'are probably good at preventing minor injuries', Guy (a member of the BHRF editorial board) appears to have overlooked the studies by Carr (1995), Attewell (2001), Elvik (2011/2012) and Bambach (2013). The Carr and Bambach studies showed that helmets are good at preventing serious and severe cyclist head/brain injuries in collisions with motor vehicles. The Carr study is referenced by at least 5 articles on the BHRF site, but the none of the articles mention the 46% reduction in the proportion of serious and severe cyclist head/brain injuries in collisions with motor vehicles. The 2011 Elvik meta-analysis is listed on the BHRF 'Published evidence sceptical of helmet effectiveness or promotion' page (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html), with the comment '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'. The Attewell meta-analysis of (16) case-control studies reported ORs of 0.27 for fatal injury 0.42 for brain injury 0.40 for head injury The ORs reported for the fixed-effects model in Elvik's 2011 re-analysis of the studies in the Attewell meta-analysis were fatal injury 0.22, 0.23 after adjusting for publication bias brain injury 0.42 , before and after adjusting for publication bias head injury 0.42, 0.43 after adjusting for publication bias The link accompanying the study (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1251.html) states that 'the best estimate is for helmets to reduce injury to the head, face or neck by 15%', and does not mention the much bigger reductions for the more serious fatal, brain, and head injuries. There is no way that the average visitor to these BHRF pages would know that both the Attewell and Elvik meta-analyses actually found that helmets provide a lot more than 15% protection against fatal, brain, and head injuries, ie. for brain injury, the OR was the same in 2011 Elvik meta-analysis as it was in the Attewell meta-analysis, both analyses found that unhelemeted cyclists are 2.4 more likely than helmeted cyclists to sustain a brain injury for fatal injury, the protective effect was larger in the 2011 Elvik analysis than in the Attewell analysis, the 2011 Elvik analysis found that unhelmeted cyclists are 4.3 times more likely to sustain a fatal injury for head injury, the Attewell analysis found that unhelmeted cyclists are 2.5 times more likely to sustain a head injury, the 2011 Elvik analysis found that unhelmeted cyclists are 2.3 times more likely to sustain a head injury The ORs reported for the fixed-effects model in the 2012 Elvik corrigendum were fatal injury 0.23, 0.32 after adjusting for publication bias brain injury 0.40, before and adjusting for publication bias head injury 0.42, 0.43 after adjusting for publication bias Linda.m.ward (talk) 08:05, 1 April 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) Nigel -- I find your statement that "I would no more expect to see a paper from you that concluded helmet legislation was wrong..." offensive. I am a researcher who routinely weighs evidence for or against helmets or helmet legislation (among many other research topics in which I'm involved). Your comment speaks to the ignorance I've seen written about myself and colleagues on anti-helmet websites (including comments by those on the WP websites). I have no agenda nor do I get paid to work on this topic. I'm not in the back pocket of the government or the helmet manufacturers. I've tried pointing that out to authors of anti-helmet blogs, but that doesn't seem to fit the story they wish to tell. I only care about finding out the truth using the most objective and rigorous methodology possible. My main criticism of those with anti-helmet views is the lack of scientific rigor that pervades much of their arguments. I don't understand how pointing those things out and properly analyzing data labels me "pro-helmet". I do not understand your comment that I "cannot brand the BHSI et al as unreliable because you see them as non-neutral." I specifically pointed to BHSI and BHRF as websites with a clear agenda -- be it pro- or anti-helmet. In light of emotive responses to this topic, why should anyone trust such websites? If you want to cling to such websites (or which you and others commenting on here are members), then go ahead but the views expressed are not NPOV and should be listed as such on WP (possibly with the unreliable resource tag as suggested by someone). BTW, the BHSI is only referenced once and their research page is given as an external link. How many times has the BHRF been referenced? Getting rid of the BHSI references wouldn't appear to be the real issue here anyway. There is pretty universal agreement regarding helmets being overall beneficial among experts in that field (meta-analyses, Cochrane reviews, etc.). The criticisms primarily come from those outside. From what I've gathered from members of BHRF, none of them are actually researchers in this or related areas. Am I wrong? Have I missed someone? Therefore, with regards to you constantly pointing to the WP reliable resources policies which I feel I and others keep answering your question with a loud NO, the BHRF can be used to voice an opinion, but only if that individual has sufficient weight in this area. This cannot really be judged due to the anonymity of many of the articles and, judging by the lack of expertise in this area by BHRF members, I doubt that is possible. This has been pointed out many times before. I'm not sure why you keep asking the same question.JakeOlivier (talk) 03:59, 1 April 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. Nigel -- Perhaps you should actually read over all of my comments regarding the census data and cycling mode in Australia, in general. Briefly, I've pointed to the Paul Mees report which states "Cycling is of negligible importance as a travel mode for work trips in all cities except Canberra." (http://mams.rmit.edu.au/ov14prh13lps1.pdf) I have pointed out several times that what is being reported as "trends" is misleading as the proportions over time are indistinguishable from a horizontal line. For example, SA's share is about 2.4%, 2.2% and 2.0% for 1981, 1986 and 1991 respectively, which has been synthesized as a "trend". However, no statistical analysis has been performed here and, as a statistician, I would never get excited about a pairwise difference of 2/1000. And, yes, there are issues with how the census data is presented. From the Mees report "Most importantly, until 1991 ABS reported the ‘main mode’ used to travel to work (e.g. a person who drove a car to the station then caught a train is counted as ‘train’), but subsequent censuses have reported multi-mode journeys separately." So, there was a change in how the census data was reported around the time most of Australia introduced helmet laws. Additionally, I've been informed over and over that the increase in adult helmet wearing from around 20% to 50% in Queensland is inconsequential. There appears to be a huge disconnect with statistical reality here. The current flat levels of cycling become exceptionally apparent when the long term trends in cycling mode are viewed from 1900 to the present. Cycling peaked around WWII with about a 9% share and has steadily declined since. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/mcu/urbanpolicy/files/ACTIVE_TRAVEL_DISCUSSION.pdf) Why are these reports being ignored on the WP website?JakeOlivier (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC) 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) This thread is becoming impossible to follow and its clear the wider issues need more drastic dispute resolution or arbitration. The comments of neutral parties are being lost in the morass of ideological interpretations. The last response directed at me was Quest for Knowledge, and while I welcome his comment - I would add the following Caveats to it he talks of several sources that have mentioned the BHRF - the problem I see with these is that most make minor mention of the BHRF and then go on to discuss the data as it has been presented in other areas, even worse it they often then tend to criticise the BHRF's reading of the underlying data which just as further doubts as to its reliability. I would advise editors involved to avoid some of the comments about each other (I see for instance a complaint about Tim's 60+ edits to an article, but the history of the article shows over 360+ edits by BHRF editorial members and 260+ by one of them.) and seek further dialogue in one of the above arenas. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC) This debate appears to have started because I drew a graph of publicly-available data from the Australian census on cycling to work by year a) for each individual state and also aggregated by by states with and without helmet laws. There are many graphs on Wikipedia that appear to be drawn by editors (to avoid copyright issues relating to the originals) and I personally find them very useful in helping me understand the subjects and issue. I was not aware of Tim's contention that drawing a graph from published data constitutes 'original research', and that all graphs used in Wiki must be published elsewhere in exactly the same format. Does that mean that all graphs redrawn from published data have to be removed? Tim also argues that if the graph appears in a publication that contains a commentary, it can't be used either, because anyone who goes to the source of the data might be tempted to read the commentary. Perhaps we could have some clarification of the above rules? Previously, Tim threatened to delete all references to self-reported cases of people who had gone to jail or suffered penalties because of refusals to comply with helmet laws. That dispute was settled by citing the WP rules that clearly state such reports are OK for this purpose. It may be that the rules are not as strict as the above interpretation, based on Tim's comments. Another editor divided one number by another - that was also deleted by Tim as 'original research'. Is simple arithmetic based on numbers already reported in a WP article allowed or is it 'original research' that has to be deleted from WP? Re the multiple edits, I raised the issue because of a comment on the the talk page (27 Feb) about the recent string of revisions happening too fast. Most editors make a few small changes to key points and then wait for a response by other users. That hasn't happened on the Bicycle Helmets page. Since Feb 23 - roughly the past 5 weeks, Tim has made 87% of the 71 edits to the page - that doesn't leave other editors a lot of time to respond or keep up. Dorre (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC) These points are outside the scope of this board, whose purpose is to determine the reliability of the BHRF as a source. There are other boards to discuss what is/isn't original research, including graphs and calculations (WP:ORN), or whether including quotes supporting one side of the debate but not equally including quotes supporting the other side of the debate is neutral(WP:NPOVN). But as I've said before these issues cover nearly every policy Wikipedia has and a central discussion with a neutral chairperson is better than taking these different issues to one or more different boards. As for multiple edits, there is no speed limits as far as I know on Wikipedia - the point appears to be that it didn't matter what speed you operated at before as the majority of edits were all made by aligned editors with only minor tweaks; yet now there are complaints that the editing is too fast because the edits are not aligned. The solution for this is exactly the same get someone from the dispute resolution project to oversee all the edits as a neutral. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC) It is long past time for this debate to move from RSN to some other dispute resolution forum. The purpose of this noticeboard is to get input from uninvolved, experienced editors on the reliability of sources. Instead, we have what is now over 17,000 words and 34 printed pages of back-and-forth argument and exposition over the course of two weeks, among involved editors, many with an admitted COI with respect to the source. That's not the function or purpose of RSN and hijacking this board to that end is an abuse of this board. It is time to shut this discussion down and take it elsewhere. Fladrif (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, I agree completely: time to close this debate. Many thanks to the several uninvolved, experienced WP editors who provided valuable input and advice. Time to get the dispute resolution project involved, if possible. Tim C (talk) 07:04, 2 April 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)

So in the end we still have a situation where different reliable sources can verify different casualty figures, and an editor who says that because a Associated Press article written by an unnamed individual(s) going under the byline "Wire Report", quoting/paraphrasing an unnamed individual, says that the the casualty figure is X, that it must be the only valid casualty figure, and all other casualty figures are invalid.

I have shown how the sources that I have provided to date are superior to the source presently used in the article that gives a casualty figure of 30.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:41, 31 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.

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)

My reply is a little late, but thanks for the information! Canadian Paul 21:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

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

At [6] 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 [7]. 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.[8] David Jelinek identifies California skeptic Dan Dugan (audio engineer) as a prominent critic of Steiner school pseudoscience.[9] Journalist Todd Oppenheimer agrees that Dugan calls Steiner's theories pseudoscience.[10] 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".[11] Yuko Kikuchi, PhD, describes Steiner and Blavatsky as the leaders of two different "pseudo-scientific occult movements".[12] British history scholar Janet Oppenheim wrote that Steiner manipulated and misused scientific language for spiritual purposes in a pseudoscientific manner.[13] 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)

Agreed. I would like to think that settled the point. Qexigator (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. The sources cited above are by and large from pseudoskeptics and debunkers. The sources are reliable as to their opinions but their opinions should not be used as the basis for WP declaring as a fact that Steiner (or anyone else) was or is a pseudoscientist, given the highly controversial and pejorative nature of that term. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No source has been shown that the statement "the mainstream academics regard Steiner (and clairvoyants in general) as pseudo-scientist(s)" would be controversial. Fact is that inside Wikipedia the category pseudoscience and pseudo-scientist has been applied to many other articles, and saying that it should not be applied to Steiner is special pleading. Seeing what has been argued above against the reliable sources, the proper action course would be to propose the whole category for deletion. In fact, failing to admit that the mainstream regards Steiner as being fringe is a lack of fair play, regardless on whether one considers true or false his views. Each person defines truth according to his/her own standards, therefore saying that humanity could agree upon what is true is illusion. That is what WP:VNT is about. I think a minimal sense of reality should compel anthroposophists to admit that they are regarded as fringe by the mainstream. They do debate the truthfulness of such label, considering themselves promoters of true science about the world and spirit, but they cannot deny that such label is applied to them by the mainstream. It's like Scientology would pretend that it is mainstream religion and would seek accreditation as psychotherapy. I understand that they see themselves as apostles of a new world-view, but until they get mainstream acceptance they are considered fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ironical enough, the article Pseudoskepticism bears itself the category pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Besides, Stephen Barrett is both a debunker and largely seen as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Therefore there is no conflict between being a debunker and being trustworthy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 30 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)

Neither reference is a reliable source. The first is one of the many projects of fringe theory promoter Ruggero Santilli The second is blog by an otherwise unremarkable, unknown and unpublished conspiracy theorist. Deletion was the right course of action. Fladrif (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Attacking BLP's is bad enough, fellow editors is downright loathsome.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of medals

I want to use 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.

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 as ribbons.

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)

This looks like a reliable source for the photos, but I see a couple of problems: First, the six articles with pictures don't identify the medals. If the plan is to compare the medals with some other source and list them in the Wikipedia article, it's just your own original research. You need a reliable secondary source, like the Centereville newspaper article, if you want to identify them all. Also, if the plan is to use the photos in the article, you have a copyright issue. Other than that, you're goldenFladrif (talk) 02:51, 1 April 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)

It's an anonymous, self-published website. I see no record that the person to whom the website is registered is a recognized expert in the field, or has been previously published by an independent, third party, legitimate publisher. It is definitely not reliable source. If it is being used in any BLP, it should be immediately removed. Fladrif (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the material is well done, if it is made in an anonymous way we would not normally use it. The only justification might be if the website is widely cited by experts in more traditional publications. That could at least make it notable, and if the citations were positive enough, there could even be discussion about whether it has a reputation for accuracy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Fladrif, Andrew Lancaster: Thanks for the feedback! Location (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yer welcome. Two more observations. First, the site might not be a reliable source by itself, but if, as Andrew Lancaster suggests, other reliable sources are using it as a reference, you may look to those sources instead. Second, it looks like the site contains a lot of links to other sources, and so even if it isn't a reliable source by itself, you may be able to use it as a research tool to find the original sources. Fladrif (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism

Hi,

In this article there is a section titled Nikah mut‘ah (a form of temporary marriage) saying it is legalizing prostitution. Some of the references mentioned there are quoting Sunni sources. (check for example, the Washington post article) I am planning to include a sentence in that section that says similar marriage types exist in other sects of Islam and this is not specific to twelver Shi'as. I am planning to use the following sources and I am wondering if you find them reliable enough:

• "Mut'a is legalized fornication. Then there is Misyar marriage, sanctioned by Sunni Muslims. Misyar reduces marriage to a purely sexual relationship"

The Islamic Shield: Arab Resistance to Democratic and Religious Reforms By Elie Elhadj, p. 51

• "Although mutʿa is prohibited by Sunni schools of law, several types of nonpermanent marriage exist, including misyar (ambulant) marriage, which has gained official state sanction in Saudi Arabia, and ʿurfi (customary) marriage, which is becoming increasingly popular in Egypt."

Mut'a, by Karen Ruffle (Professor of religion in Toronto University), Oxford Bibliographies

• "The sole object of the Misyar and Muta marriages is for sexual gratification in a licit manner. Like most practices in Islamic society, this is also skewed in favour of the male."

Islam and the West: The Clash Between Islamism and Secularism, By Mushtaq K Lod, p. 59

Thank You.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Just to say that kazemita has decided that he will try and alleviate the criticusm of twelvers by trying to show that sunnis supposedly also practice something like mutah. He has his agenda 1st then he has decided to find any refs to support that agenda no matter how ridiculously false. His 1 target is misyar. But misyar is permanent marriage yet he quotes a ref that says misyar is nonpermanent. Clear falsehood and example of any source to fit agenda. He also quotes ref that says misyar like mutah is purely for sexual pleasure. But misyar is permanent marriage so how is that possible and what makes it different to any other permanent marriage. Is western marriage also comparable to mutah then. Another clear falsohood and example of using any ref no matter how uneducated and wrong it is to suit an agenda. I hope you can see that he is abusing the wiki system for a sectarian agenda. Also if you check the article talk pg you will see that misyar was previously rejected for inclusion in the section by neutral editord.Suenahrme (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The first source is published by Universal Publishing. It's not exactly a vanity press, but a publish-on-demand press. It doesn't look like it is a pay-to-publish model, and it specializes in academic publishing, so I'm not going to dismiss it, but I'd prefer a better source.

The second source, at Oxford Bibliographies, looks like it would be OK. It looks like a legitimate source and the author is a recognized expert in the field, previously published by respected academic press.

The third source is published by Strategic Book Publishing, which is a vanity press. I see no indication that the author is a recognized expert or that he has been previously published by independent, third party, legitimate publishers. That one is out.

Not commenting on whether the sources support the proposed text - not the job of RSN. Fladrif (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fladrif except that I would add a firmer caveat about "Universal-Publishers" (the first source listed above). I don't see any sign of peer review there, so, if citing that book, you'd want to show that the author is accepted by peers (in reviews or via other peer-reviewed publications) as expert in the field.

Oxford Bibliographies, which I hadn't heard of before, is an arm of Oxford University Press, so our presumption would be that it's fully RS. Andrew Dalby 08:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have pit forward why misyar cannot nor ever be equated with muta yet nobody seems to want to discyss this or cares. Let me put my point to you in different way. If albert einstein said that 1+1=3 and then oxford press published this do we then add it into wikipedia vecause a repurable source published it? But this example isnt even as bad as the misyar example because the editor seeks to add misyar in an article called criticism of TWELVER SHIA. So why is this article being turned upside diwn into criticism of sunni no natter how inaccurate that mat be? If you want to add misyar or any other then you must note the PERMANENT nature of these compared to temporary muta. Otherwise the comparison is being grossly misrepresebted in favour of a twelver defence.Suenahrme (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a reliable source?

User:SafwanZabalawi just reverted my addition of academic sources on the grounds that Wikipedia is more reliable:

(Undid revision 548079374 by Shii (talk) Reference to WP is enough+Quarterly is RS)

He also claims that an internal religious publication (Quarterly) is reliable enough to deserve a long quotation in the article about the religious group's own history.

I realize posting this here is almost specious but I would like someone else to confirm my interpretation of WP guidelines rather than just edit warring with SafwanZabalawi again. Shii (tock) 03:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No, citing Wikipedia itself, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, would not be a reliable source. However, using the reference provided in the article in question would be fine, assuming it is reliable. TBrandley 04:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

In general, I have been trying to supply this article with peer-reviewed academic sources and SafwanZabalawi argues that these sources are biased and that we must rely on the religion's own publications. See Talk:Soka_Gakkai#Improving_the_History_Section. Shii (tock) 04:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the citation of WP itself, which is obviously not appropriate, citation of self-published materials can be useful for showing what a person or organization says about themselves. The normal warning we give is to avoid allowing this to become simple self promotion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, such citations are only for self-description, not for historical analysis, right? Shii (tock) 16:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The source called the Quarterly, it would fall under WP:PRIMARY. It can be used to verify what the organization itself says (opinion), but not to verify any facts outside of that.

Wikipedia itself is a WP:SPS, and itself is not reliable. The source that verifies the content which is on Wikipedia is what should be used, and not the text on Wikipedia itself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clarification. It may sound contradictive that WP source is not recognised by WP itself as a Reliable Source! However, for the current question asked by the concerned editor - I respect your presented views.

Thank you also for clarifying the position of citing from the "Quarterly". I appreciate that the Quarterly can be referred to but only to clarify a matter from the point of view of its publisher. I will use this guidance in the future for citation (from Quarterly or other related sources) as a referrence for clarification of whatever matter at hand. But now, to avoid complexity and raising emotions, I am satisfied by deleting that part related to the Quarterly.

The editor who raised the current matter to you - should have abided by your mentioned above statements.

However, the editor in concern used the view of this Board to conduct an editing further and incorrectly deleted other quotes from Reliable Sources. Not only the Quarterly quote was deleted - but other quotes from RS were deleted). It is not fair to report to you on one quote and then to delete other quotes (based on RS).SafwanZabalawi (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The guideline "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" has been stated and agreed from the very beginning of the encyclopedia.

You perhaps would like to read about reliable sources and try to agree with other editors on points at issue. If there are real problems over how to apply the guidelines, you can bring other specific questions to this board. Andrew Dalby 08:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Attribution/plagiarism - turn the other cheek

I'm new to the process, having usually been a single point editor on various topics for either minor spelling/grammar errors, or correcting information I personally have first hand knowledge of or can site correct sources for. However, I found this and it struck me as "off" and upon further investigation I realized I had to look into how to fix this.

The article in question is about "turning the other cheek" - Christianity Portal.
There are several things in this article that draw one's attention, and it's obvious from the Citation tag in content point one that someone else has already noted attribution issues. However, the article (specifically the header "interpretations") contains several wordings that make the article difficult or confusing to read.

The first sentence under the header Interpretations contains the phrase "subjected to both literal and figurative interpretations." However the following sub-headers are "Straightforward interpretation," "Righteous personal conduct interpretation" and "Literal interpretation" none of which can be reconciled (IMHO) with the word "figurative" (although since the WP post is about a cliche phrase, the phrase can be considered figurative itself, but any interpretation of it included in the article does not fit this criteria.)

Under the "Literal" sub-header, the text is taken *word-for-word* (including spelling errors) from a user comment following a beliefnet.com article. (Said article is listed under the "external links" footnotes.) However the BN article itself does not directly address the topic of turning the other cheek, but rather seems to be vaguely about the general topic of nonviolence. The "view history" tab seems to indicate several revisions where uncredited material or opinions were edited or deleted completely, specifically one time stamped 15:04, 28 June 2011‎.

The user comment on the beliefnet.com site was created by Jbrown77, timestamped by their site 09/12/2010 05:28:37 PM. This precedes the time stamp of June 2011, leading me to the conclusion the user comment came before the inclusion/edit on WP. Specific wording include:

• UC-BN: "That is also why He says, "you have heard it said" instead of, "for it is written" during the sermon. He was teaching against teachers not scripture."
• WP text:"Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture."
  

• UC-BN: "At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."
• WP text: "At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[3] If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.[4] The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."
  
• UC-BN:"Just like the teaching about being compelled to walk a mile, under roman law you had to be a courrier if the military commanded you too but it was illegal for them to make you walk more than a mile, so by walking two miles you were making them testify against themselves in order for them to keep from breaking the law."
• WP text:The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions."

Based on this information, I felt that *someone* should look into this, as I do not know if some disciplinary action is necessary, nor for whom. If the original poster of the user comment on beliefnet is *not* the contributor of the text on WP (which based on slight changes and context I doubt) this could result in issues of plagiarism. While I am willing to do some research to find better sourcing and help, I do not know enough about the WP procedures to go about this correctly.

1)http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2000/01/The-Limits-Of-Turn-The-Other-Cheek.aspx
2) Turning_the_other_cheek

Ladyisarma (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

ezhava / Thiyya difference

SOURCE BOOK : Social Mobility In Kerala (Modernity and Identity in Conflict) Fillippo Osella and Caroline Osella Publisher : Pluto Books, LONDON ISBN : 07453 1694 8 (Hardback) ISBN 07453 1693 x (Paperback)

Thiyya is completely distinct caste, SNDP (is an organisation) merged Thiyya to Ezhava… THIS IS THE PROOF.

Page number 189 Last Paragraph.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rMRw0gTZSJwC&pg=PA265&dq=Dowry+tiyyas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AnZXUeD2CNCSiAec8ID4Bg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tiyyas&f=false

Tiyya caste unified with Ezhavas during formation of SNDP. Formation of the SNDP created conditions for unification within a state wide caste of hitherto endogamous regional groups such as Izhavas, Chovans and Thiyyas., but also for the articulation and projection of an essentialised collective identity, albeit moulded in the image and aspirations of the izhava elite.

This is the evidence that SNDP was behind uniting Ezhava and Thiyya for political gain and it is clear that these castes were distinct.

Also on Page 95

The SNDP has been by and large successful in unifying formerly endogamous regional groups (Tiyyas, Chovans and Izhavas) into a state wide caste. While marriages between Travancore Izhavas and Malabar TIyyas are rare, they do occasionally take place, as love marriages needing little rehabilitation or as sought for alliances between wealthy elite families.

ARTICLE Ezhava

CONTENT

The Ezhavas are a community with origins in the region of India presently known as Kerala. They are also known as Ilhava, Irava, Izhava and Erava in the south of the region; as Chovas, Chokons and Chogons in Central Travancore; and as Tiyyas, Thiyyas and Theeyas in Malabar.[1][2] The Malabar Tiyya group have claimed a higher ranking in the Hindu caste system than do the others, although from the perspective of the colonial and subsequent administrations they were treated as being of similar rank.[1][3]

Above mentioned section is a copy paste from Ezhava article it is completely wrong, It has been cited from a book published by a political biased (communist) writer and the author cited SNDP in the book. SNDP is an organisation who merged Thiyya and Ezhava in 1903. But Thiyya and Ezhava Castes, culture and rituals are separate.

The book i have provided above is reliable. A group of contributors declined to accept these book as a WP:RS just wanted to know wikipedians opinion on this. Some wikipedia contributors just declining it just because the content of the book doesnt come inline with their views and I think it is against WP:RS

irajeevwiki talk 11:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Osella book is being used in the article already. The item that the initiator of this thread is interested in certainly appears in the book but those involved in the extensive talk page discussions have yet to evaluate the context and the extent to which it might give rise to a fork of the article. The issue is complicated because of the numerous reliable sources - such as those of Thomas Nossiter and David Mandelbaum in the refs of the copy/pasted excerp tmentioned above - which say the opposite.

This is not a matter for WP:RSN. It is a content dispute and is basically a group of new SPAs vs a group of experienced contributors. It can and should be worked out at Talk:Ezhava, where it has been explained on umpteen occasions that if different reliable sources say different things then we show those various opinions. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I said some contributors not ready to accept it is reliable source. Please go to this link [[14]] a user called Qwyrxian disagrees to accept the book as wp:rs. I request wikipedians to look the page talk link I mentioned above. Sitush says it is reliable but Qwyrxian says not reliable. On the other hand Sitush says he will only accept if Qwyrxian accepts it.

I am bit confused here, especially when experience contributors say different opinion on wp:rs. I have submitted some 6 reliable source books already, they all rejected by these senior contributors and saying just NOT RELIABLE. this time I need to get other wikipedians help here, please. irajeevwiki talk 19:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Your confusion is because you are not reading the responses as intended. You are in WP:IDHT mode and tempers are beginning to fray elsewhere as people try to cope with that. All but two of your sources have been rejected as unreliable. One of the remaining two is the Osella source that you have raised here. As I have said, that is currently in use in the article for various points: it is prima facie reliable and the issue regarding the specific item that you want to take from it is that the thing does not appear to say what you think it says - that is a content dispute. Qwyrxian is not the only person who has raised the issue of your abilities to comprehend both sources and other Wikipedians but, regardless, this is not an issue for RSN. At a push, it might be an issue for WP:DRN but I really would advise you to hang off going down that road. Right now, you are giving the appearance of forum shopping, even raising this general stuff in a sockpuppet investigation. Everyone knows that you are well-intentioned and that is probably the only reason why they are still tolerating your unwillingness or inability to accept how things work here. There are plenty of administrators involved in or watching that discussion, and there are other experienced contributors there: the chances of every one of them being wrong are pretty slim but every one of them has bent over backwards in an attempt to explain things. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• The Osella book is a reliable source. Pluto is an established, respected academic publisher. The authors are recognized experts in the relevant field, and have been extensively published. Content disputes, or how to resolve differences between two different RS sources, however, are not something that RSN can address. Fladrif (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Singapore Infopedia

Hi, is the Singapore Infopedia considered a reliable source? See They Do Return...But Gently Lead Them Back, for an example where it is used (as the single source for that article). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

From the information on its webpage, Singapore Infopedia appears to be a project of the national library. It is not user-generated. It states that there is an editing process on any articles that are published. I'd say this is a reasonably reliable Tertiary Source that can be used within the limits of WP:TERTIARY. It should not be relied upon as the sole source for an article. Fladrif (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

British Film Institute

Hi there. I have concerns about the use of the British Film Institute's database. Some of it has been used in some Wikipedia articles, but is it considered reliable by Wikipedia standards? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples of your concerns? The BFI is a tertiary source but not a User generated one so its better than imdb, but that's not to say it doesn't have mistakes. As usual secondary sources are better but there's nothing (generally) unreliable about the BFI that I can see. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but there's an RfC going on at Wikipedia_talk:FILM#Final_Fantasy_VII:_Advent_Children:_Science_fiction_or_Science_fantasy.3F, in which a user has expressed concern about using BFI as a source. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

In general, I can see no reason the BFI's site should not be considered reliable for information about a film. However, in this specific case - genre - things are always a bit fuzzy or arbitrary, and there is rarely one authoritative or definitive answer to be given by anyone about what genre something lies in - disagreeing with it on an interpretative point doesn't make it unreliable, it can just mean you're both right (or both wrong). Andrew Gray (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The RFC concerns the genre disputes on FFVIIAC. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If that's the only issue in dispute, I don't think this is a case that can be answered meaningfully with "reliable" or "not reliable" here. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew there is no reliability issue here - though I can see from the GA and RFC why the GA reviewer has led you to believe otherwise. I think there may be a problem with the GA review and perhaps requesting a more experienced reviewer to look over the review may be more beneficial than spreading the debate across multiple venues. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

BFI is supplied as a source that a film is "science fantasy" while some editors consider it "science fiction". Secondary sources are preferable. It could be that the two terms are synonyms, or one is subtype of another or that one classification is controversial. A secondary source would resolve this. TFD (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

ChessGames.com

Do ChessGames.com is a Reliable source? -- Armanjafari (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but I can't see any use for it.--Launchballer 10:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This source used in Chess. -- Armanjafari (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see a couple of reasons why not. The founders/publishers and the site appears to have a level of acceptance in the chess community based on interviews, articles etc. But there are some red flags as well. Per its webpage a fair amount of the content is user-generated. One of the pages used as a ref on the Wikipedia Chess article, the bio of a player, is a mirror of the Wikipedia article on that player. It says that the choice of famous games and matches are user-chosen, not editor chosen. So, I'd want to look reference-by-reference as to how it is actually being used. Stuff like images of positions in games to illustrate the text are probably fine. I'd be cautious about anything else. Fladrif (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

But this source has been used in 4 texts. According to this that chess is a featured article, can I use this source in featured articles? -- Armanjafari (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a persuasive argument. There are a multitude of sources that have been extensively discussed at RSN, that are clearly not reliable, and yet have been used in thousands of Wikipedia articles, including many that managed to pass GA review. It looks to me that chessgames.com has been cited in 1070 articles at Wikipedia. That probably puts it squarely in the middle of cleanup nightmares. It could be worse: findagrave is cited over 11,000 times; thepeerage.com nearly 6,500. Just because Wikipedia editors have used a source that they shouldn't have ten times, or a hundred times, or a thousand times, or ten thousand times doesn't make it right. In my experience editors use these sources because they are more convenient than going to a brick and mortar library for sources that would pass RS, and also because 5 or 6 years ago Wikipedia was a lot more lax about use of convenient, but unreliable sources. There isn't a single thing at chessgames.com that couldn't be sourced to a reliable source if the editors would be bothered to do the work. Fladrif (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Eurasisches Magazin

• Is Eurasisches Magazin RS?
• What about this article by Hans Wagner?

Can I use Eurasisches Magazin's articles as reliable sources? And what about that article by Hans Wagner? Thanks. Zheek (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

To back what statement? The German Wikipedia seems to have an article on it http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasisches_Magazin - I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a reliable magazine; but it is a magazine, while that article seems to be on the history of the Scythians, which I'm sure there are piles of scholarly books on. What's the statement you're trying to use it for, and in what Wikipedia article? --GRuban (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

For Scythians article. For the lead section and the first sentence as a additional source (currently has 4 cited sources). Because I think it's a well-written article and has provided good info. I saw editors on German Wikipedia used that article as a citation for the Scythians article, but I didn't find anything about the reliability of Eurasisches Magazin/Hans Wagner on English Wikipedia. So I've asked about them on here. What's your opinion? Zheek (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The dispute is about whether Scythians should be called "Iranian" or "Iranian speaking" people. Two things tell me this is a POV issue: use of obscure tertiary soures and multiple cites. The correct approach is to find a secondary source discussing the usage of the two terms. TFD (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's a hair splitting issue. In that case, since it seems there are reliable sources on each side, we almost always give both sides of the story. "...were an Iranian[ref1][ref2][ref3] or Iranian-speaking[ref4][ref5][ref6] people..." BTW, I hope both sides here realize that there is a strong argument to be made that there is not much of a difference between "Iranian people" and "Iranian speaking people", since any definition of "Fooian people" is always a bit fuzzy (no single government, since that changed, no single region, since they moved, no single ethnicity, since people interbreed quite a bit), and "speak Fooian" is a very large part of that definition. --GRuban (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

GRuban, I agree with you. They are ethno-linguistic terms. Because of sources, maybe it's better to use both.

TFD, your suggestion is good. So you think citing multiple sources with similar views is unhelpful?

And what about the mentioned article (Wagner)? Beside your suggestions, my question is more focused on the reliability of magazine and that article:

• First: Eurasisches Magazin (RS or not).
• Second: Reliability of its published articles is based on authors? Zheek (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote from book "Raising Roses Among the Thorns" regarding Rabbi Elazar Shach

1. Source: Raising Roses Among the Thorns by Rabbi Noach Orlowek. Feldheim Pub (January 2003) - Page 345, footnote 1.

2. Article: Elazar Shach

3. Content:

Shach is also quoted as saying that although the yeshivas are the heart of the Jewish people, it is the ba'alei teshuvah who will be the one's to bring Mashiach

.

The original quote in the book is as follows:

Dr. Alan Weiss, a prominent cardiologist from St. Louis, who enjoyed a close relationship with Rav Elozor Shach , zt”l, quoted Rav Shach as having told him that although the yeshivos are the heart of the Jewish People, it is the ba’alei teshuvah who will be the ones to bring Mashiach.

.

I restored this quote to the page, but then it was later removed. See the discussion on the talk page there.

Would this quote fall under the same category as the quote from Mishpacha magazine discussed earlier or would this be considered more reliable?

Yonoson3 (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The supposed quote in question is, at best WP:HEARSAY and therefore fails WP:V. If it is accurate, there should be no difficulty providing a reliable source (perhaps from Shach's own extensively published writings) to support inclusion. Also relevant may be Alan Weiss' own WP:NOTABILITY or lack thereof...--Winchester2313 (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that analysis. Secondary sources are inevitably and by definition hearsay, so that is no objection to a reliable source. The fact that Orlowek is relating something that Shach said to Weiss (double hearsay, in fact) might be a good objection in court, but not on Wikipedia. Verifiability does not contemplate that editors are able to check the original source material for a statement in a source and verify it for themselves, but simply that it is possible for someone to check the reference to see that the text in Wikipedia is supported by the citation. That is clearly possible here, so verifiability is met. Weiss's notability or lack thereof is irrelevant, because this does not concern his opinion on anything, where we would be asking ourselves "Why should we take note what he thinks?"

As for the source itself, Feldheim Publishers is an established publisher, in business nearly 75 years. It's not a vanity press. Noach Orlowek is sufficiently prominent to have 4000+ hits on Google, nearly 1000 on Google Books and 25 on Google Scholar (the BLP on Orlowek is unsourced, so I'm not relying on that as any proof of notability, but that's something to be remedied by someone sourcing that article), and has published several books. This is different from the magazine discussed earlier, because it is not a self-published editorial. So, I think this is a reliable source for the purpose proposed, but I would inject one caveat. This book, like most of Orlowek's books is on the subject matter of raising children. The statement attributed to Shach is an aside. I think this source can be used, but I would think that a better source along the lines suggested by Winchester2313 would be preferable. A source doesn't need to be available on-line, if that is the problem. Until a stronger source is found, however, I see no problem with this source. Fladrif (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics

I believe Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics should be added as a reliable source. It is edited, in part, by Norman Geisler (a noted scholar). Other information here: http://www.isca-apologetics.org/jiscaYeoberry (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)