Talk:Christopher Rissel

Conflict of Interest
This page simply describes a senior health promotion expert in Australia. The references and links are being checked. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrissel (talk • contribs) 13:10, 21 September 2010
 * You need more than lists of papers that you have written: the notability requirement is to show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See WP:Notability (academics) for the relevant standard. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason this article has been posted is that Prof Rissel has become a significant player in a major debate about cycling policy in Australia with significant treatment in the main media. We are currently improving the references and will reference to the major debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloghmatt (talk • contribs) 22:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC) This article clearly meets the notability requirements, there are a handful of references to the main newspaper and other media sources in Australia just in the last few weeks. What more could you require? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.16.40 (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Whilst you may have an argument on the notability front (if just appearing in a newspaper is enough for notability?) the Conflict of interest should definitely stay. [[User:Carl

Sixsmith|Carl Sixsmith]] (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What conflict of interest? This is an article about public health research. I am not involved in this at all - I do know Prof Rissel, but then again, who would write any articles if they didn't know the subject matter? Clearly one would have to know of something to write about it. Knowledge and connection is NOT a conflict of interest - a conflict of interest is where someone is to GAIN or has conflicting benefits. There is definately no conflict of interest at all, and if know the subject were to be a conflict of interest, nothing would be written in Wikipedia at all. Please be reasonable and allow the article. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.16.40 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 22 September 2010
 * If you would care to read the guild lines provided in the conflict of interest template given you would see where the conflict of interest arises. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You, 60.242.16.40, may be independent, but the article has been and is still being edited by . Writing about oneself is strongly discouraged, for reasons explained here: it is not itself reason for deletion, but it means that claims of notability will be looked at very hard, because Wikipedia is extremely sensitive to the danger of being used for self-promotion. JohnCD (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Being a Chief Investigator of the first large scale national sexual health survey in Australia (who initially attracted the funding) is a notable contribution to science. A substantial body of health promotion research is clearly verifiable, and listing in Wikipedia assists access to this research. My recent contribution to the bicycle helmet legislation debate is (by many accounts) of international interest, but is one component of a much larger body of work related to the promotion of cycling and physical activity/health. By all means check independently for my notable contribution to health promotion research. The article is still being edited, to ensure consistency and completeness of the references and links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrissel (talk • contribs) 13:30, 22 September 2010
 * Chris Rissel is one of the most senior and experienced health promotion experts in Australia. As well as being Director of the largest Health Promotion Service in Australis he has one of the most prolific Australian health promotion researchers. He is part of the team that won the Hugo G. Beigel Award 2006, granted for ‘Richters J, de Visser R, Rissel C, Smith A. Sexual practices at last heterosexual encounter and occurrence of orgasm in a national survey. The Journal of Sex Research 2006: 43(3): 217-226’. [It is granted annually to the author(s) of outstanding research reports on sexuality published in Journal of Sex Research. It is named for the first editor on the Journal of Sex Research, promotes and rewards research excellence in sexual science.] He won the 2005 Cycling Achievement Award of the Year – Professional Category – From the Cycling Promotion Fund for contributions in advancing cycling in the health sector. The Australian Study of Health and Relationships was highly commended for excellence in public health research, Victorian Public Health Awards 2003, and won the Award for excellence in health promotion research, Victorian Health Promotion Awards 2003. Chris Rissel accepted on behalf of the Tobacco Action team the Medibank Private / J Ashburton Thompson Public Health Award, 1998, Public Health Association of Australia - awarded to the Tobacco Action Team, CSAHS. He won the Lester Breslow Award for Academic Excellence in Health Promotion, 1994, at the School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, USA. NancyHard (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think notability is the issue anymore, the conflict of interest still stands though Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Allegations of Misleading Edits and Conflict of Interest
Chris Rissel ( Chrisrissel ) alleges in the Edit Summary for the edit timestamped 2011-01-20T18:15:18 which he made to the BLP page about himself that I ( Tim.churches ) misleadingly rewrote a section of the article and that I have a conflict of interest.

Both of these allegations are completely false.

Perusal of the edit history will reveal that all of the edits I have made to this BLP article relate to a paragraph about a research study by Alex Voukelatos and Chris Rissel published in the August 2010 issue of the Australasian Journal of Road Safety. The initial edit which I made was to note that the Voukelatos and Rissel paper contained serious errors, as revealed in a peer-reviewed letter written by me and published by the editors of the same Journal in the subsequent (Nov 2010) issue. Given the reference to and discussion of this study in this BLP article, I felt that it was important that Wikipedia readers be aware that the study contained errors which had been verified by peer-reviewers and acknowledged by the study authors, including Chris Rissel. Chris Rissel (who is the subject of the BLP article) then added a sentence in support of the conclusions in the erroneous study. I added a further sentence to provide a more balanced point of view. Subsequently, I removed both sentences because I felt that it was inappropriate that the highly contentious epidemiology of bicycle helmet efficacy and effectiveness be discussed in a BLP article. My final edit was to add a sentence noting that the subject of the BLP article had argued in media reports at the time that the study in question was published for a trial removal of Australian cycling helmet laws. That assertion is verifiably correct - four references to articles in the mainstream Australian media were provided, and perusal of those media reports about the study in question reveal that Chris Rissel did indeed suggest a trial lifting of cycling helmet laws in them. Thus, none of the edits which I have made to this BLP article have been in any way misleading, all have been factual and/or intended to provide balance, and all have been supported by references to reliable secondary sources, including a peer-reviewed letter to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and reports in mainstream print, online and radio media outlets.

At the time of writing of this Talk section, Chris Rissel has removed the entire paragraph about the erroneous cycling helmet study from the BLP article about himself. I support this removal - discussion of the scientific evidence for and against cycling helmets and cycling helmet laws has no place in a BLP article, particularly when the only contribution of the subject of the BLP article to the peer-reviewed scientific literature on cycling helmets has been a study which was later shown to be wrong (it should be noted that Chris Rissel has contributed extensively to the scientific literature about the benefits of cycling in general, and on promotion of cycling, but has only made one, regrettably incorrect, contribution to the epidemiology of cycling helmets).

Chris Rissel also makes an unsupported allegation of conflict of interest against me (Tim.churches) in his Edit Summary note. I can think of no possible basis for this allegation, neither in the commonly-used sense of "conflict of interest" nor the Wikipedia definition of Conflict of Interest. Chris Rissel must either document this allegation, or withdraw it. Tim C (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)