User talk:AGILEpgwv

DMOZ
This site specializes in external links. Wikipedia is not here to be a collection of external links. Also please read WP:ELNO Thanks. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated here... -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not appropriate external links and you appear to be associated with AGILE. Feel free to add you links to DMOZ which specializes in external links. Thanks -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

First, I want to thank you, a clearly experienced Wikipedia editor (I see you've edited hundreds of pages, primarily if not exclusively health related). More specifically, thank you for taking the time to message me with your reasons for providing your rationale for removing the links, which were placed with only the best intentions, along with links to Wikipedia's guidelines on links.

While I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the in's and out's of Wikipedia, I am, however, something of a nationally recognized subject matter "expert" (I loathe that word, but I guess I'm about as close as it comes) on Gulf War Illness (Syndrome), with an extensive and public history in this narrow field.

My name in real life is Anthony Hardie. If you were to search on my name in Google along with "Gulf War," the search results would verify at least some of what I'll address below. My goal in editing this GWS page is solely to help provide accurate, factual, unbiased information to those interested in this issue, particularly Gulf War veterans suffering from GWI and those who care for them (in every sense of that phrase).

For the sake of full disclosure, indeed, I am affiliated with AGILE as I am its founder; I'm also an appointed member of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses (RAC-GWVI), the VA Gulf War Steering Committee (GWSC, no website), and the U.S. Dept. of Defense (DoD) GWI Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP). As such, I'm a co-author of some of the works cited in this article, including the 2008 RAC report (link provided below).

And ending a decade or so ago, I was a leading national officer of the National Gulf War Resource Center (NGWRC), and remain a general, non-participating member. I was one of the co-founders and initial officers of Veterans of Modern Warfare (VMW), and still a general, non-participating member. And, I'm regularly asked to testify or provide background information to virtually every Gulf War related activity of the federal government, and continue to provide such to numerous governmental bodies (e.g. Congressional committees, IOM, other now-defunct federal advisory committees), the media, the PGW and broade veterans communities, and the general public.

I'm also the author of 91outcomes, which, while indeed a blog, appears to Wikipedia's "published by a reliable authority" requirements. :-) And, with regards to the "self-published" aspect of blogs, as a co-author of the arguably definitive work on GWI to date, the November 2008 RAC Report (the authors are listed on p. 5 of the PDF) report, I would appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for an "established expert on the topic...." (WP:BLOGS  -- "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.")  Arguing for its inclusion on Wikipedia's Gulf War Syndrome page, a review of 91outcomes content would show that it is generally not about the author, its content is neither auto-biographical nor self-serving, and it is a source of current information of which much is globally unique and would otherwise go unreported in the media (for example, articles about the scientific presentations and public meetings of the RAC-GWVI). In short, this is not a blog written by a non-expert to then use as prima facie evidence of being an expert, it is a blog written by an established expert in the field to help advance public knowledge of the most current and otherwise generally unreported advances and news related to GWI and Gulf War veterans. However, if this still doesn't meet some Wikipedia criteria, I will understand.

I have never had any affiliation with the Gulf War Veteran Resource Pages (GWVRP), which maintain an unparalleled library of unedited, primary source information and should be provided for reference as well. Again, however, if this still doesn't meet some Wikipedia criteria, I will understand.

There's already a link to the RAC-GWVI website in the citations listing, so according to the Wikipedia criteria you provided, it should not be listed again in a stand-alone list.

Similarly, the VA's Veterans Health Initiative (VHI, with which I am not formally associated, but do review and provide formal comments) is the sole governmental resource for clinicians, and while cited in the main article, has an expired link that I'll work to correct; AGILE (with which I am affiliated as its founder) is the non-governmental equivalent, if you will. A review of AGILE would show that it relies almost exclusively on published material, save for limited rationale explaining why certain areas are not discussed (such as on the "What is GWI?" page, and even there, specific research is cited to justify exclusion).

As for "Veterans News Now," it's frequently biased and after reading Wikipedia's criteria, I would no longer recommend it be included.

Finally, the dmoz link you provide is highly problematic. Virtually all the current links are outdated, with the most current information appearing to be about 1997. About half its links are heavily biased, very outdated opinion pieces that go against the body of current, peer-reviewed medical literature on GWI (e.g., "Gulf Lore Syndrome") or alternately the works of a notorious radio talk show host who appears to make her living specifically by substituting wild conspiracy theories and not providing factual information (the American Gulf War Association is also hers). One of the links requires membership before viewing, an apparent violation of Wikipedia policy.

Before your suggestion, I made application to DMOZ to edit their links page due to these serious issues. In the meantime, I would request you remove the link as it adds nothing of value, provides only information that is false, outdated, or heavily biased, and by its inclusion on Wikipedia is lent an air of credibility by its presence on Wikipedia. If (when) it is edited and essentially repaired, at that time it could be reviewed for inclusion on Wikipedia.

As I wrote to build the case in support of inclusion of these resources on the GWI/GWS Wikipedia page, from a GWI "expert" (again, I really hate that word) to a Wikipedia "expert" editor, I'm open to any suggestions you might have with regards to how best these linked resources I propose might best be included?

Finally, I intend to review the content of the main page next, though it seemed to have been updated with good, new information since the last time I edited it quite some time ago (using only my IP address in the more distant past, not a sign-in). The WP guides you provided were most helpful, and I hope it's okay if I ask you any questions that might arise on do's and don'ts or technical issues while I'm doing that...?

Again, thank you -- for your input, guidance, and time.

-- Anthony Hardie AGILEpgwv (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)AGILEpgwv