Talk:National Vaccine Information Center

Needs Revision

This article seems very close in language to the org's About Us section on their Web site. There are absolutely no references at the time of this writing. This article is little more than a stub. --Dwcsite (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

External links

I've trimmed the list because there's nothing about the Simpsonwood conference or the other two links that makes them more relevant to our article on the NVIC than any of the other (scores of) articles on list of vaccine topics.

It slants our coverage to single those articles out as particularly relevant or important with respect to the NVIC when, frankly, they're not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

It seems odd to me that there is not a criticism section of this article, especially considering that some of this organization's major concerns (autism as a result of vaccines) have been debunked (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008131852.htm). I will be adding this section unless someone can show that there is no criticism of this organization or its views.OngoingCivilUnrest (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems an odd section - what does it mean? Midgley 23:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. It seems odd that the president would be criticising the org for its aims... and it is totally unreferenced...

"

Criticism

Critics contend that the organization represents industry interests rather than consumer interests. Most prominent among the critics are Harris Coulter, Ph.D., and Barbara Fisher, who coauthored DPT: A Shot in the Dark (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985; Warner, 1986; Avery, 1991). [1] " Midgley 08:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

http://health.consumercide.com/vacc-cameron.html (the reference above) has a bit of everything...

"Coulter's premise that overcoming childhood diseases constitutes important stages in the development of a robust, adult immune system and that bombarding an infant's immature immune system with live viruses actually can do more harm than good."

IE natural viruses like Measles are beneficial - an argument that embarasses even some antivaccinationists - but the attenuated, less virulent virus is harmful.

This seems intrinsically unlikely, on the one ground that it would be very improbable that if one virus is good and another similar one is bad we manage to always get the vaccine virus to be bad when the wild virus is good; and on the other that we are not offered any indication of who the poor unfortunates are who naturally failed to catch the disease and this progress in their development. The science fiction author Larry Niven posits in his novel Protector that there is a third stage to homo sapiens, but that this relies upon genetic material only found in a virus. It is a good story. While some viruses may be descended from us, and other be bound into our genome, and retro-viruses and Herpes can build themselves into our cells and persist, there is no indication that those who are not infected by them are missing out on anything. Midgley 09:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent POV edits to lead

I've reverted the changes to the lead that violated NPOV. I've extended their belief that they are not anti-vaccine and fact tagged the antivaccine description, although I do know they have been described as such in mainstream publications. "Vaccine safety" is too weaselish and self-serving for a description, as no one is against unsafe vaccines. "Antivaccination" may certainly be debatable, but I can't think of a better term that doesn't violate NPOV. Auntie E. (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Third-party descriptions from reliable sources are preferred; I've added one from the New York Times. My recollection is that other reliable sources - for example, Autism's False Prophets - draw a sharper connection to anti-vaccinationism, but I don't have that book in front of me so can't verify details at the moment. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Much better wording for now until that source can be found. Thanks. Auntie E. (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There still is a problem in the body with a good deal of unreferenced material that sounds a bit self-serving in toto. I tagged it, perhaps inline attribution would help: "according to their website" or something less ugly? Auntie E. (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm very interested in understanding why anybody would consider Paul Offit a reliable source for describing NVIC. He is, unquestionably, a leading expert on vaccines, immunology, and virology. But he also has an ax to grind and a case to make. In fact, Offit is terrified of highly-educated, affluent parents who think for themselves.

Mastcell, are you interested in explaining? Seems to me that Offit's views on NVIC belong in a section that describes the raging vaccine controversies. You might as well draw from Ken Starr's writings to describe Bill Clinton or vice versa. How can that possibly be NPOV? - Cdowney (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd also respectfully challenge every editor here, especially MastCell, to provide a clear and detailed definition of what is meant by anti-vaccine or anti-vaccination.

• Are parents who selectively (partially) vaccinate anti-vaccine?
• Are people who prefer to take no medicine anti-vaccine?
• What about popular doctors with best-selling books like Robert Sears who believe vaccines are important but have concerns about their safety and support alternative schedules?
• Are people who decide they aren't afraid of getting the flu and decline to get a flu shot even in pandemic years (more than 1/2 the population) anti-vaccine?
  

The very label "anti-vaccine" is so loaded that its more of a weapon than a concept. What specific criteria must be met in order to actually be anti-vaccine? Where are the facts about NVIC, not opinions in the mainstream press, to support your contention? - Cdowney (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I'm surprised, and disappointed, that nobody has addressed this yet. Why the reluctance to take on these questions? Some editors here have been using the term "anti-vaccine" and drawing from sources who believe NVIC to be "anti-vaccine" - the time is now to stand-up, define your terms and support your POV with facts (instead of just other people's opinions.) Thank you.

Contrary to Auntie E.'s view, the term vaccine safety is not at all "weaselish and self-serving". It is a complex and important subject that NVIC has focused on for almost 30 years. Indeed, the University of Michigan recently did a survey of parents and found that 90% cite vaccine and medication safety as their top health concern for children.

I'd like to add a quote from Bernadine Healy, M.D., former director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and current health editor, U.S. News & World Report - that I think will add some weight to the importance of what I'm asking: "There are unanswered questions about vaccine safety. We need studies on vaccinated populations based on various schedules and doses as well as individual patient susceptibilities that we are continuing to learn about. No one should be threatened by the pursuit of this knowledge. Vaccine policy should be the subject of frank and open debate, with no tolerance for bullying. There are no sides—only people concerned for the well-being of our children." (This is from a book review for a book not yet released... I will update with a reference once its released on Amazon.) Cdowney (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We report what reliable, secondary sources say about the NVIC. The quote from Healy doesn't address the NVIC, so is irrelevant to this discussion. Yobol (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI

According to the last page of this document [2] on [3], User:Cdowney seems to be associated with the NVIC and is using the lede to advertise his institute. I have reverted to the previous lede to enable him to explain these changes. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mathsci, for pointing out the COI policy and creating this section for discussion. The next thing I'll do is to create a user page that shares my NVIC-related volunteer work and then get into explanations of my edits. - Cdowney (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In those circumstances, it is probably best that you do not edit the article directly, but suggest improvements here on the talk page. Seasons greetings, Mathsci (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that's moving a bit too fast with assuming that I actually have COI. An association with NVIC does not automatically mean one has COI. COI is defined as "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I worked very hard for NPOV and to meticulously cite reliable, third-party published sources - but more about that later. Furthermore, as soon as the COI policy was pointed out to me, I openly declared my association without hesitation or reservation. - Cdowney (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not wait to see what other editors like MastCell and Brangifer have to say? Both are involved in healthcare in different capacities. In addition MastCell is an experienced administrator. They can advise you far better than I can. Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm all ears. Interesting, but not surprising, that they are involved in healthcare. Have they shared in what capacities? - Cdowney (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that's relevant. Mathsci (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. But if it's not relevant, then why did you bring it up? Cdowney (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Cdowney, have you read the WP:COI information? I suggest you do so and just follow it. This is a somewhat related essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of.

As an NVIC insider you can no doubt provide us with valuable information, some of which might deserve inclusion in articles here. To avoid COI problems, just make concrete suggestions on the relevant talk pages and let other editors decide what to do with them. As an aside (no problems yet), note that I address you by your username, not by your real name, since outing is strongly forbidden here, even when a person's real name is readily available. I have no problem with you editing here as long as you are collaborative, follow our policies, and learn from the advice of other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I'm working my way through. Also bought a useful book (Wikipedia: The Missing Manual) that explains these issues in a way that I can grok faster. Excellent book, BTW. - Cdowney (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've updated User:Cdowney in way that I think addresses WP:COI, especially this: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested." I am requesting that interested editors please review.

BullRangifer, important to note that I am not an NVIC insider; I am a volunteer. I cannot provide any information that is not already public. - Cdowney (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks. --Brangifer (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Loe Fisher page redirect

This edit is a good example of why I believe a redirect is not the best way to go and shows how the actions of a public person as a private citizen are being merged with the organization with which she is associated. In other words, it gives the wrong impression. NVIC did not sue Paul Offit; Barbara Loe Fisher, as private citizen, sued Paul Offit. I am requesting that interested editors please comment. - Cdowney (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you'd like to preserve a separate article for Barbara Loe Fisher, but in this case the edit you mention above was only made to document her alternate name and it doesn't imply that NVIC sued Offit. BTW, what's the story behind that name? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the story. - Cdowney (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to make other arguments to support your case for a separate article for her. I suspect you can do that, possibly in a convincing manner. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of a separate article, but am opposed to edit warring over the redirect. That's not the proper way. This is the best place to discuss the matter because far more editors watchlist this talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll give this some thought and present a case soon. - Cdowney (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not absolutely opposed to a separate article on Fisher, but neither have I been able to find material to support a well-rounded article. Whenever I have tried in the past, all I get is restatement of this article + resume + incidental personal details; as far as the encyclopedia is concerned, I think that at present we are better off with one good article here. I could certainly be convinced otherwise, but as BullRangifer says, edit warring over the page is pretty much the worst way forward. I would also like to leave a pointer to the Biographies of living persons policy, which details the enhanced sourcing standards for articles on living persons. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to Biographies of living persons policy. Very helpful. This isn't as simple and as clear-cut as I originally thought. I'm thinking that it makes the most sense for me to go-with-the-flow of the more experienced editors here and stick with the redirect. Maybe I'll revisit it in the future with intelligent questions and suggestions, once I understand the dynamics and policies better. Cdowney (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

NVIC's Mission

I respectfully propose to put NVIC's mission, as documented on their Form 909 and submitted to the IRS, in the NVIC page non-profit infobox, which has a field for a non-profit's mission. Their mission, as reported to the IRS, is: promote and encourage the health and welfare of American children and adults through research and education-oriented programs to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths and to assist individuals (both children and adults) who have been vaccine injured.

I am requesting that interested editors provide comments. Thank you. - Cdowney (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections. It should be in quotes. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just added it, in quotes. Cdowney (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

NVIC lead section (vaccine injury/death and founders)

I'm proposing a change to the lead section that will replace "at some point" with specific details. What follows is, IMHO, a more accurate and documented lead that builds from the existing lead. I respectfully request that interested editors provide comments. Thank you. Cdowney (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a private non-profit 501(c)(3) advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines. The group was founded in 1982 by parents of children who died or became ill after undergoing routine vaccinations. Jeffrey Schwartz, a lawyer and founder of NVIC, testified before the Maryland legislature in 1983 about the grand mal seizures his daughter, Julie Middlehurst-Schwartz, began having on July 1, 1981 within hours of receiving her third DPT vaccine. At three years of age, Julie died in status epilepticus March 1984. Michael Specter has described NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children."
Cdowney (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Summary of changes: adds sources Burke (2004) and Allen (2008); removes at some point after who died or became ill; removes which they blamed for their child's sickness after after undergoing routine vaccinations; adds sentence starting Jeffrey Schwartz, a lawyer and founder of NVIC; and adds sentence starting At three years of age. Is that all of them? I need to review the sources before making an actual comment, but as a minor stylistic point we should not be linking directly to Google Books. Instead, use the magic word ISBN; personally, I use Magnus' reference generator for filling the templates. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is not linking to Google books widespread practice or policy? (Sorry! Newbie question.) It seems really useful because the link goes directly to the source page. Cdowney (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

First pass: neither of those sources are throwing red flags for me, and the removed clauses were a bit awkward, so that is good. The proposed phrasing definitely implies that the routine vaccinations in fact caused illness or death, which I do not believe was actually established (please correct me if I err, here). Suggestion: The group was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed routine vaccination for the illness or death of a child. I think there is some danger of topic creep here - we should link to Vaccine controversy, but otherwise focus narrowly on describing the organization and its history. The next two sentences I think are a bit too tangential for the lead, but I think could be expanded to make a nice paragraph in the body, perhaps at #Background. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at page 280: "She had an uncontrolled seizure disorder that her pediatrician said was linked to the DTP shot" - and later she died from a seizure. I don't think that "blamed routine vaccination" accurately captures an undisputed (per Arthur Allen, page 280, "there was no question") diagnosis from her pediatrician. Your point about topic creep makes sense, but I wouldn't link to vaccine controversy for something that isn't disputed. What do you think about keeping The group was founded in 1982 by parents of children who died or became ill after undergoing routine vaccinations and then, as both you and BullRangifer suggested, move the next two sentences from the lead into the body? Cdowney (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

2/0, I like your suggested wording. It avoids the problem described at "correlation does not imply causation" quite nicely. It doesn't deny the possibility either. I don't know the details, but the lawyer's child could have been one of the rare victims of an allergic or other unfortunate reaction. All medication that has real effects also has real side effects, and vaccines are no exception. It's just that these activists constantly fall into the correlation=causation trap mentioned above and try to convince people that the rare exception is the rule. The next two sentences should be in the body. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I'm hoping that my suggestion (above) meets your concerns. Cdowney (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer 2/0's wording. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I Added the suggested wording about the founders. I think we are also in agreement about adding some more detail about the founders and the founding to the body - Cdowney, do you want to take care of that? Or I can get to it in a day or three if we are still in agreement. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do some work on that. The edit by 2/0 is an improvement, but shrouds the fact that, according to her pediatrician, Julie was injured and killed by the DTP shot. That is a really important fact to get across in order to understand the dynamics of NVIC's founding. Its not that the founding parents just "blamed" the vaccine. Cdowney (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

NVIC and vaccine safety

I propose changing "questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines" to "supports more research into the safety of vaccinations" per a recent article in US News and World Report (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2011/01/20/slightly-more-than-half-of-americans-say-vaccines-dont-cause-autism-poll)

I request that interested editors please provide comments. Thank you. Cdowney (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over NVIC advert on Delta Airlines flights

This needs to be covered in the criticism section:

• American Academy of Pediatrics on the Delta Airline Video.
• Pediatrician Group Slams Delta Airlines For Running Video Made By Vaccine Skeptics. Forbes, Matthew Herper, 11/07/2011
• Delta In-Flight Ad Spurs Backlash From Flu Vaccine Advocates. ABC News, Lara Salahi, Nov. 11, 2011
• Health Petition: Tell Delta to Stop Putting their Passengers' Health at Risk. Change.org

Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

The article currently describes the NVIC as "private" but I cannot find any substantiation of this. In fact, the IRS lists the NVIC as a public charity IRS Exempt Organizations Select Check. Also, the Wikipedia page on 501(c)'s points out that there are two types of 501(c)(3): public charity and private foundation. The NVIC is not a private foundation, it is a public charity per the IRS. Would editors please comment on why the NVIC is described here as private? RockRollOver (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I propose changing the lead from describing the NVIC as "private anti-vaccination advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines" to "a nonprofit organization that questions the safety of vaccination" The proposed change seems to cling closer to NPOV by carefully citing an academic article with multiple authors, some of whom are well known and very influential within the realm of vaccine policy, such as Neal Halsey. The change removes the error of classifying the NVIC as "private." Are there any comments, questions, concerns about this change? RockRollOver (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

References

I think we should just replace the word "private" with "public charity",ref and leave it at that. You could also add the ref to the IRS for that wording. The lead is a summation of the content of the article, which is why we shouldn't disturb or change it any more than absolutely necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll make the change. I do have some NPOV concerns about the lead, but will bring that up later in a separate section. Did you notice that the NY Times article does not describe the NVIC as anti-vaccine? The NY Times described the NVIC "an advocacy group that questions the safety of vaccines" -- the use of "anti-vaccine" in conjunction with the reference seems misleading to me. But I will start a new section to discuss. Thanks for your input. RockRollOver (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the "anti-vaccine" wording is because of other sources. Numerous other sources describe the real nature of the NVIC as "anti-vaccine". They are essentially an American version of the Australian Vaccination Network. There isn't much difference between them. I'm going to add a ref for your edit. Thanks for finding this info. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a problem in describing an anti-vaccine group as an "anti-vaccine group". The word "private" indicates the fact that the NVIC is not (despite its name) a governmental organization. It's not "private" in the sense of a privately held corporation with shareholders etc., but it's "private" in the sense that it's non-governmental. MastCell ^Talk 01:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Concerns

I'd like to start a discussion about NPOV as it specifically relates to the claim that the NVIC is anti-vaccine. Please see the Dubious section of this talk page to see how this concern began and the first few comments about it.

The more I look into this, the more it seems to be an opinion. Wikipedia is clear that the best reliable sources are "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."

A peer reviewed article whose authors include Neal Halsey and Daniel A. Salmon (who was Director of Vaccine Safety in the National Vaccine Program Office at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and who is now the Director, Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins, referred to the NVIC as "a nonprofit organization that questions the safety of vaccination"

The NY Times article that is used as a reference for the entire lead sentence refers to "anti-vaccinators", the "anti-vaccine movement" (three times), anti-vaccine groups, "an anti-vaccine advocacy group" - but does not refer to the NVIC as anti-vaccine. This article specifically refers to the NVIC as "an advocacy group that questions the safety of vaccines". Thus, it is clear that the NY Times does not view the NVIC as anti-vaccine or part of the anti-vaccine movement.

I'd like to find a way to bring the lead into conformance with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I think that we can say that it is a fact that the NVIC questions the safety of vaccines. But it appears to be engaging in disputes (instead of describing them) to claim without adequate substantiation that the NVIC is anti-vaccine. Indeed, the Specter quote in the article is clearly quoted in the Wikipedia manner so as to be clear that this is his opinion. I suspect that it may be a violation of NPOV to use a quoted opinion to establish something as a fact. The use of the Institute for Science in Medicine press release appears to be engaging in a dispute. Press releases by advocacy groups are not in the list of Wikipedia reliable sources.

I am interested to hear more comments about this. RockRollOver (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the problem with calling the NVIC an "anti-vaccine group". It is an anti-vaccine group. I think that's obvious to anyone who spends a moment looking at their material. But OK, since this is Wikipedia we can't state the obvious unless we can find it expressed verbatim in reliable sources. So let's see... ABC News calls the NVIC a "non-profit, anti-vaccine organization". In his book Denialism, Michael Specter describes the NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America". (Specter is quoted in the interest of attribution, but that doesn't lessen his book as a reliable source. The "opinion" is that the NVIC is the most powerful anti-vaccine group, not that it is anti-vaccine). And so on. It violates WP:NPOV to ignore these sources and to pretend that the NVIC isn't an anti-vaccine group. MastCell ^Talk 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Like Yes, it's definitely seeking to hide it's real status as an anti-vaccine group, but RS expose it for what it is, and we quote them. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer, do you have any references for your claim that the NVIC is "seeking to hide its real status as an anti-vaccine group"? I'm not seeing this in the small number of sources referenced thus far. RockRollOver (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, thanks for explaining your view. I especially appreciate that you found a reference to the popular media that describes the NVIC as anti-vaccine. When ABC news refers to the NVIC as anti-vaccine, but the NY Times writes an article about the anti-vaccine movement and yet doesn't describe the NVIC as anti-vaccine, I think we might have a dispute that we have a responsibility to more accurately and carefully describe rather than taking sides. It is not my intention to take a side. Please note that refraining from making a claim that the NVIC is anti-vaccine is not the same thing as making a claim that they are not. RockRollOver (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you (both MastCell and Brangifer) would be interested in helping out with gathering more reliable sources so that we can work together on examining and discussing the evidence? What do you think about restricting the reference documentation to the talk page until we have a chance to work through our different perspectives more thoroughly? RockRollOver (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Denialism, by Michael Specter, as a reliable source

I'd like to open a discussion about the appropriateness of using Denialism as a reliable source. Wikipedia lists the term "denialist" as a contentious label that "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject." I'm thinking that while Specter's book could be useful to help describe one side of the dispute regarding whether or not the NVIC is anti-vaccine, it cannot be considered a reliable source when trying to establish verifiable facts about the NVIC. The very use of Specter's Denialism as a referenced source suggests to the reader that the NVIC is, in fact, engaging in denialism. Per Wikipedia's policy, opinions are not to be treated as fact and contentious opinions are best avoided unless we can show that it is "widely used by reliable sources". Any thoughts about this? RockRollOver (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)