Talk:Helen Skelton

Kayaking the Amazon
No claim is made that Helen has set any Guinness World Records only that she may have done so subject to ratification by GWR. The only reference currently to GWR is a quote from a MP congratulating her on her feat. Inserting material debunking the validity of GWR is irrelevant to this article (it might be valid in the article on GWR but not here) as the criteria for what constitutes a world record as GWRs to set. NtheP (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out that her records are only "Guinness World Records" because the BBC paid for them, not the best that anybody has ever done is very relevant. Otherwise people might get the idea that she's achieved things nobody has before, when in fact her "records" are in all cases for less than half the speed or half the distance which has previously been achieved. Not mentioning the distinction between a GWR and the best ever is at best being economical with the truth. Is Wikipedia in the business of censorship of reality regarding celebrities' claims like this? Cpmcsweeny (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the lack of any evidence that the BBC paid GWR for the records being presented, the issue is not for this page about the validity of GWR. If you think GWR have a false reputation and are assumed to the best when actually they aren't then go and make that case on the page about GWR, not on any one article about someone who holds or has held a GWR. NtheP (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the point about the costs of a GWR - the reason previous people who've gone further or faster than Helen don't hold the GWR is that they haven't jumped through the hoops required by GWR - hoops which require significant expenditure. You find me some other high profile world record claims which are so blatantly worse than what has been achieved by other people and I'll concede that this should be addressed on the page about GWR - in the absence of any such other claims, it seems it's only Helen and the BBC who are making claims for records which quite plainly aren't. Cpmcsweeny (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The criteria for Guiness recognition are spelt out in the record books themselves - it's a while since I looked at them but I don't recall any fees. In any case this discussion is veering off into OR: if you have no sources making the connection the criticism doesn't belong, no matter no egregious you feel the record claims may be. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC).


 * I've looked at GWR too and unless you want to fasttrack the claim there is no mention of fees. If the BBC/Helen Skelton make a claim for a record and it is agreed by GWR that's a matter about how GWR verify/certify records not how the person in question applies for them - which very much makes this a discussion about GWR not Helen Skelton.  If you have evidence that if paid GWR will award a record then put it with the evidence in a "Controversy section" on the page about GWR. NtheP (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I ask again - is there any other GWR claim which is so blatantly inferior to existing achievements - I gave a properly referenced example in my comment which was edited out (which I would argue was very relevant in order to appraise people reading this page of the reality of her records)? If so, then it becomes an issue about GWR. If not, then it's something specific to the records claimed by Helen Skelton, and is perfectly valid to be mentioned here. How about starting a "controversy" section on this page, given there has been significant amounts of controversy about her record claims - I could provide links to numerous articles? If I did that would it also be censored in the same way any other comment critical of her records is? I should point out that I have nothing at all against Helen, simply the claiming of such blatantly inferior performances as "World Records" - her achievements would stand on their own merits without such disingenuity. (BTW you're still missing the point about costs - did you even read my last comment about the costs being due to the expense of the validation required by GWR, rather than a direct payment?) Cpmcsweeny (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you still seem to be arguing the wrong forum. Your argument appears to me to be a) other people have managed the same feats better & b) other people cannot afford verification by GWR which gives Helen an unfair advantage because the BBC funded this activity (incidentally you haven't provided any reference to any payment to GWR or costs being incurred by the BBC being required for verification or otherwise).  Neither of those seem to be unique to Helen Skelton so raising them here looks like coatracking.
 * Blatently claiming World Records - isn't that a question for GWR as to why they accepted the claims and awarded them the status of world record? I know that both the kite skiing and kayaking records have been the subject of much discussion among those communities that much better performances exist and I don't doubt those claims but it comes down to who has the right to award a world record?  GWR is acknowledged, rightly or wrongly, to be the custodian of world records in those areas where there isn't a dominant world body e.g. athletics, soccer, cricket.  To me, the status of GWR as the authenticating body is the controversial point and to use Helen's records as an example of that in a controversy section on GWR would get no resistance from me; but you need good reliable sources - not forum gossip and to be careful that you don't make a synthesis between payment and the awarding of world record status.
 * I don't think your arguments are necessarily wrong just in the wrong place. NtheP (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK - so if such claiming of records for feats which are blatantly inferior to existing achievements is not unique to Helen (and the BBC), then presumably you can easily provide me with some other examples? Preferably ones as high profile as Helen's. If not, then I'd suggest that your claim of coatracking is rather unfair, and pointing out such issues is directly relevant to Helen. In any case even if such claims are not unique to Helen, failing to mention the real context of her records (and censoring any mention of the context which others add) still makes Wikipedia an incomplete record of the truth. Clearly Wikipedia is in the business of protecting the reputation of celebrities rather than promoting the truth, a rather sad state of affairs IMHO. I'll point out that very decent and reliable sources are available for previous achievements superior to Helen's - the superior kite ski record can be found on the GWR website! Cpmcsweeny (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW I was actually suggesting that a "Controversy" section would be appropriate for this page, but I shan't bother to add one given the editorial situation, as doubtless that would also be censored. Cpmcsweeny (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what version of the truth you would like to see but the article says Skelton achieving two world records (awaiting verification) from Guinness World Records: the longest solo journey by kayak, and the longest distance in a kayak in 24 hours by a woman. which is reliably referenced. If others have claimed the world record from GWR then Skelton's will fail verification and when that happens it can be reported. Not sure anything else you have said is really relevant to Skelton, other records outwith GWR are not relevant as she is only claiming a world record from GWR. If you have a problem with how world records are controlled it is nothing to do with this article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The truth is that she might have the world record according to GWR (though only one of those you mentioned - she's already lost the 24 hour one as others who had previously done better than that have now submitted claims for much greater distances than Helen achieved - here's a reference http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/3000/greatest-distance-by-canoe-(kayak)-24-hours-(flowing-water)-female - note that GWR mentions not only by how vast a margin Helen's record was beaten, but also provides evidence that Katherine was achieving feats like this well before Helen ever sat in a boat), but that gives the erroneous impression to the vast majority of people that she did something that nobody before her had done, as they trust GWR. Yes that's an issue for GWR, but it also results in a false impression of the truth being created by this article - all that I'm suggesting is that a more accurate reflection of the truth would include a comment that having a GWR does not mean what people think it does. It is undeniable that there has been a huge amount of controversy created by Helen's claims - references to this would include numerous newspaper articles, not just forum ramblings. Cpmcsweeny (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're going to add this note that GWR are not all people might think they are to every article on Wikipedia that mentions Guinness World Records? if not then that is coatracking because you are  trying to use this article to make a point about what GWR are or aren't.  Now there is a reference for the longest distance in 24 hours record being held by Pfefferkorn then I've amended the article to show that Skelton doesn't hold the record. NtheP (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No - just every article on Wikipedia that mentions a GWR claim for something which is blatantly inferior to a well documented existing feat. I think you'll agree that is reasonable given it's a point about GWR accepting claims in such circumstances, not about all GWRs, and thank you for your agreement that adding the comment to all such pages would be acceptable. Given your current failure to provide me with ANY other examples of such issues, it seems I don't have that much work to do. Cpmcsweeny (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot the scarcasm tag in my previous comment. Of course I don't agree such an action on any article, because I'll repeat what I've said throughout this discussion - it's a matter for the article on GWR and nowhere else.   I've reverted your last edit because other records have been beaten by large margins by the next record holder and I don't see why the size of the change is relevant to this article.  A claim was made but a subsequent attempt on the record was successful and the title of GWR holder transferred elsewhere - why does it need any more explanation than that? NtheP (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No surprise to see the censorship again. I'm curious what the issue with adding additional facts to the article is - do you only like implications when they're positive? Or is over 2 and a half times as much not sufficient to be described as "a large margin"? So we have another challenge for you along with finding other examples of record claims for blatantly worse than existing performances - how about another example of a record being beaten by a margin of more than 2 and a half times if that's so common and not worthy of note? I'm guessing your need to point out you were being sarcastic is because you weren't expecting me to find such an easy way to do what you were suggesting, and thought your suggestion was impossible. Cpmcsweeny (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile the point I keep making is that what you keep saying is disingenuous - it's not a matter for GWR when it only concerns Helen's record claims (I think given your lack of response to my challenge we can agree that it only applies to hers). Record claims which her advisers and trainers must have known were inferior to existing feats at the time the claims were made - I find it impossible to believe that those training her for the kayak challenge had not heard of somebody as well known within the kayaking community as Freya Hoffmeister (or Paul Caffyn) and known of her accomplishments, nor that the kite skiing community is large enough that those working with her on that hadn't heard of the existing records for that (I'd be somewhat surprised if her trainers for that hadn't had personal contact with the holders of the existing record). They knew her claims were not world bests, yet still they made them. Cpmcsweeny (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not for me to find any more examples of wrongful claims or records broken by large margins - you're the one claiming there are a number of recent claims of this type as per this edit but the only one you refer to is/are Helen's. The amount by which Katherine set a new record is a notable fact about Katherine's achievements not about Helen's and it is Helen and her achievements that are the subject of this article.
 * What you find "impossible to believe" is supposition on your part and completely unverifiable, as it stands this article is verified - HS paddled the Amazon (verified), claims for two world records were made (verified), only one still stands (again verified) - if indeed the second was ever accepted by GWR. Same with the kitesurfing - no one else had made a claim for the 100km record (GWR quote in this Telegraph article) so they awarded the record pending verification. Again it's verifiable and while I freely admit I find it doesn't sit easily that records can appear to be awarded on the basis of 'no-one has asked for that one before' that is a matter for discussion about GWR as a whole and what constiutes a world best - not an individual who was awarded a record apparently under that basis. NtheP (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So I added a section to GWR as you suggested and you spotted. It got removed by the mods. Any chance you chaps could decide between yourselves where such a comment should go. Not having such information available at all on Wikipedia is DEFINITELY being economical with the truth. BTW I only commented that there were a number of claims of this type as I was assuming such a section would be deleted from there and expected you to champion it's inclusion there as you've argued for it here - I thought I should write words you agreed with as you seem to think record claims of that type aren't exclusive to Helen/the BBC (the issue is really with the latter, I'm sure Helen is a complete innocent in all this). I'm only aware of Helen's, I presumed you could fill the other ones in. If you really do have no evidence at all of any other records claimed in similar circumstances, then that rather shoots down a large part of your argument on here.
 * Oh, and the margin by which Katherine beat Helen's "record" is a notable fact about Helen's achievement, not Katherine's, given that there are numerous other women out there capable of a similar feat. Katherine is not a long way ahead of the other top women paddlers, Helen is a long way behind. Cpmcsweeny (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you have championed my controversy section on the GWR page - thanks! Cpmcsweeny (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

From what you say three paragraphs above i.e. HS is probably innocent all this, I'd say you've shot down your arguement about inclusion on this page as it's not her the disagreement is about, but about claims made in her name. But I know we're not going to agree on this so I don't intend to say any more about it. If I recall recorrectly, in the edit deleted from GWR you said there were a number of claims made of which HS claims were highest profile (apologies if I'm paraphrasing wrongly) - that suggests to me that you are aware of others - if so then you should state them. I really don't understand why you think I need to find other supposedly outlandish claims to support my stance. I'll re-iterate that stance one final time. Claims for GWR were made for Helen's achievements, not all of which were accepted (that last point I freely agree). You (and others beforehand) assert that these records are bogus because other people have bettered them either before or since and therefore this article should mention that a GWR is not a world record/world best. I disagree as that debate is not about Helen Skelton but about what constitutes a world record/world best and that the correct forum for such a debate is the article on GWR as you are attempting to show that GWR are not what is popularly accepted. You may or may not be right on this but this page is not the place to do it. And yes there is a degree of Voltaire's principle in this - I may or may not agree with what you have to say but I support your right to say it. NtheP (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the GWR edit, I probably should have only mentioned controversy about Helen's claims, and not suggested there were others - I'm not aware of any others with a similar issue. Was trying to avoid accusations of "coatracking" there (personally I still think the appropriate place for the comment is here, not there, as it does only relate to Helen's claims - but such comments really should exist somewhere on Wikipedia).
 * I don't see why Helen's innocence makes any difference to the facts of the matter. Clearly we aren't going to agree - I also acknowledge your argument, and understand your point, but disagree that such information on the validity of such high profile world records should not be available anywhere on Wikipedia. That really is being economical with the truth. Clearly the reaction over at the GWR page is that such comments do not belong there, so where exactly do they go? You have more power here, you win (I could I suppose just re-edit the points, but you'd keep deleting, then lock the page). Cpmcsweeny (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have any more power than you, I'm not an admin and don't have any ability to lock the page. NtheP (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)