Talk:National Organization of Short Statured Adults

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
  1. January 2006 – August 2006

Contents

[edit] Rewrite of this article

I have had to recreate major portions of this article because the previous version was direct copyright violation of the NOSSA "About Us" page. I would appreciate any input and help on expanding the introduction a bit, but editors must be careful not to use the NOSSA website (or any other source) word-for-word even in good faith to expand this article. With this rewrite and recreation of the article, I have archived all old discussion since it may pertain to earlier versions that are no longer directly valid. Thanks. ju66l3r 04:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Issues

This person Ju6613r without question has some sort of malicious intent on attacking this organization. After previously making a comment that he was unsure of the need for an article about this organization (before he learned of the organization), this person is now intent on seeing to it that the article remain in his own words (or that of those who agree with his opinion) and with considerable mention of the "May 2006 Controversy". How does one unfortunate incident define an organization? Why is Ju6613r so intent on seeing to it that this article remain with this isolated incident clearly attached? Another example of a major flaw with the Wikipedia system. This man holds all the power to defame and to distort the truth in any way he sees fit. You don't belong on Wikipedia Ju6613r, if you allow your editorial actions to reflect your personal opinions! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.109.106.14 (talk • contribs) .

I have no malicious intent against NOSSA; to suggest that I do goes against Wikipedia policy to assume good faith from other editors. I do not protect my own words and you can find many examples in the article history of others working towards improving the article. This article does not define NOSSA by the May 2006 controversy, but it does mention it because it did happen and in happening it did involve the organization. In fact, prior to my own work on the article, others were content to simply quote from a CNN story looking down upon NOSSA and not examine NOSSA's response to the unfortunate comments made by one of their own people. I pulled information from their press release and included it in the article in one of my edits; otherwise, the article would likely still say something like "A NOSSA rep thinks criminals should be let go if they're short". I have no personal opinions on this matter, but I do uphold the encyclopedic nature of an article and the blanket removal of important and relevant information is vandalism and will always be reverted. There are means available to you and others if you think the article is wrong, including changing the text to better suit what you think it should say. But removal of the entire section is not one of those options because as it is currently written there is no justifiable reason to remove that text. It is neutral and notable therefore includable. If you have pertinent suggestions or changes, be bold and change it but do not simply remove it. Also, my name includes an L and not a 1, for future reference. ju66l3r 14:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a clear case of the inmates talking over the asylum! It is run by organized volunteer super-nerds as though they were feudal lords! Just go on the site and see the nasty goings on for yourself. And they are at it twenty-four hours a day with a passion!

Whoever prevails in any disputes about what is indeed “fact” gets to create or rewrite history as though it were true regardless of it is or not. Whoever can gather the most consensus wins. This is effectively accomplished by using a number of fictitious “user names” called “sockpuppets,” or by belonging to or organizing complicated alliances!

If they do not like what you say, it’s deleted.

If you restore it, they remove it again.

Restore it again and they remove it again and so forth until a volunteer “administrator blocks you from further edits. Usually the administrator is elected and beholding to those you are opposing so if you do not belong to any click or manufacture your own “fiefdom” you are lost!

That would be okay if they were calling themselves a Blog site, but they are calling themselves an “encyclopedia” even though one does not need any particular education, experience, expertise in any field, or writing skills to be an “editor”. Of course that is a train wreck just waiting to happen, especially when someone has an axe to grind against another person or organization and they libel them.

Making matters worse, there are many mirror sites like “Answers.com” that cite these “articles” because anyone is free to copy and paste and use any content found on the site as long as they reference (and simultaneously promote Wikipedia while doing it). Therefore anyone with a PC can create or completely change the truth to suit themselves -even libel someone — on Wikipedia, and then anyone with a PC can mirror the articles in other sites calling themselves dictionaries, encyclopedias and further this perversion of the true and facts.

That is ridiculous, like Wikipedia itself. All the other sites that carry any Wikipedia libelous content should be included in future class action suits, as well! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shortersupporter (talk • contribs) .

I'd like to make you aware that much of what you've just written is uncivil and goes against the policies of this website. I have put a template on your talk page that introduces you to the pillars of good editing and discussion here at Wikipedia. Seeing as you've made your views pretty clear on what you think are some of these tenets, I'm hoping that by actually reading the guidelines you may adjust your views and become another useful member at this site. Please refrain from the personal attacks and the threats of litigation as these are counterproductive and will lead to administrative action against the hostility. ju66l3r 14:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation of misconduct

  • Link to my additions on UninvitedCompany's Talk page regarding this article's previous copyright violation

It is becoming painfuly obvious that you have an axe to grind against this organization Ju6613r. Your accusation that NOSSA themselves are responsible for trying to "wipe away the controversy article" are unfounded. You sir, are a perfect example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, and I will not sit back and "assume good faith" from someone whose actions are so clearly biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.109.106.14 (talk • contribs).

First, please add new comments at the bottom of the page and remember to add ~~~~ to the end of your comments so that other editors can better read your contributions in context with everything else on the page. It is also unnecessary to copy'n'paste whole sections of other wiki-pages, so I've replaced the copy with a link to the section of UninvitedCompany's talk page that you quoted here for discussion. Next, if you have comments directed to me pertaining to my editing, please feel free to make them on my talk page. This page is for discussion and improvement of the article itself and not problems you perceive with an editor.
Now towards your assumptions, you are incorrect in saying that I have an axe to grind. My comments to UninvitedCompany were not accusatory, but instead assumptive. It takes quite a bit for an administrator to blanket-delete an article without starting with a copyvio template that allows for the recreation and removal of copyright violating material. That "quite a bit" is often contact with someone associated with the article (in this case a member/officer of NOSSA). That may not be the case, but I certainly didn't want to see the entire article destroyed over a few lines of copyvio amid an otherwise good article. Considering the number of other editors who work with me on many other articles than this one and find my edits beneficial, I think your bias against me leads you to disagree with my edits on this page and therefore call them bias yourself. I have been very limited in following up on the last time you used this discussion page to disparage me because you may be willing to contribute in a positive manner, particularly elsewhere on Wikipedia. If you believe I am not editing appropriately, then there are many methods for dispute resolution available on this website. Feel free to engage one of those avenues. But please leave this talk page for discussion of improving the article and not about your opposition to me (which can be taken to my talk page if you can do so without the personal attacks). Thanks. ju66l3r 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Suggestions

Allow me to make some suggestions. First, I don't believe it is fair that the first paragraph can not be edited. It does not include a few initiatives that NOSSA is involved in. If Ju6613r will allow, I would be happy to edit this section myself. Secondly, I think the History/Leadership, May 2006 Controversy, and hGH issues sections can be combined into one section that includes other areas that the group is involved in. I think if we re-write the article in this way, being more descriptive about what NOSSA is actually all about; not try to sensationalize this controversy issue, while still including mention of it in the piece, cooler heads will prevail. 69.85.255.2 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as the policies of this website are followed, I "allow" whatever editors choose to do with an article. I don't see how you plan on including the information from a description of the group, controversial incident in their past, and opinion on a medical topic into "one section". Can you be more explicit? These are completely different topics and as such would best fit in completely different sections (as they are already, making a very clear reading). I'd also like to know "what NOSSA is actually all about", if not that which is already stated clearly with:
"The group advocates on behalf of short people and hopes to foster greater acceptance of short people within society. NOSSA runs a series of public education programs as well as speaking to relevant media outlets on height-related issues and sponsoring height-related research in order to achieve its goals."
In other words, more specifics are important if you feel you need to rewrite the entire article as you seem to suggest. One suggestion would be to use a revision/test page for other editors' reviews as a sub-page of the article's talk space (such as creating such major revisions on a new page here: Talk:National Organization of Short Statured Adults/Major revision draft). This will allow for discussion during the generation of such a drastic set of changes as you are proposing. ju66l3r 03:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your comment, "I'd also like to know 'what NOSSA is actually all about', if not that which is already stated clearly..." I'm sure there is more to be written about NOSSA. If you were truly impartial as you claim, why would you have a problem with the man (who obviously knows something more about these guys) adding to the article? Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? 70.183.238.194 05:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about others adding and improving articles. The method is for editors to Be Bold, but that also means that editors looking to remove or worsen good portions of an article are able to do so. Given the somewhat contentious matter of this page and from all above discussion, it was a reasonable concern to discuss large changes (as they seemed to be proposed) on this page first, before enacting them and then having people go back and forth with the actual article history. My question was not loaded, I just wanted to know what exactly was missing from the current text that didn't properly define what NOSSA is about. If there was something and it was from a NPOV, then it could and should be added. My problem has never been about what someone can add to the article when they follow the guidelines. It has always been about the problems of large and non-neutral changes based on the editor's POV. ju66l3r 16:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Draft

Ok. I have created the first draft of a revised NOSSA article. Everyone please review it and let me know what you think. I encourage everyone involved to contribute their thoughts free from any and all bias. There is no reason why this article shouldn't replace the old version if we all can agree that it is non-biased. I await your replies...69.85.255.2 06:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree to that revised version. I believe it keeps all of the pertinent facts and introduces a few other good facts/sections as well. One thing we'll have to look over once this version is in place (if it's acceptable to a consensus) is the replacement of wiki-links, references, and external links that were lost in the cut'n'paste from the original page to your revised page. A suggestion for next time would be to first use the "edit this page" button on the original article and then cut'n'paste everything from the edit box into the new "edit this page" article creation. This will keep formatting/wikification/etc. in place on sections/sentences you don't plan on changing.
Thank you for taking the time to improve the article rather than simply delete whole sections of it. I think the revision is a good one. ju66l3r 16:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive the newbie. I just realized that the 'edit this page' link allows for the editing of the top paragraph. I stand corrected...69.85.255.2 02:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I cleaned up formatting and wikification type issues as well as added in all of the <ref> tags to collect all of the links at the bottom with a description for people to get an idea of the source prior to having to click on it. Hopefully, other editors will find your changes satisfy their complaints about the article. ju66l3r 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

Does the group have a publicly available logo/design that would be attributable to the group? It'd be good to include a picture of some kind to help break up the big blocks of text in this article. If so, I think a peer review/application for "good article" status could be shortly down the road to have some outside eyes take a look and evaluate this article for quality. Getting a baseline of "GA" status would be good for both Wikipedia and the article. ju66l3r 23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

They have a logo. Not sure if they would authorize its use on Wiki. I can email them and find out. All i ask is that this group be treated fairly. Not sure what a "good article" means...68.109.106.14 05:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Some logos/images can be used as "fair use" because it is educational/etc. I will look into it. As for GA status, I'm sorry, I should have linked to the guidelines to help make it more clear. Basically, articles have three states of quality: normal, Good, Featured. One of the goals is to improve articles and have the community decide whether they are good enough to warrant a better label, thus giving a better metric for how encyclopedic the entire site is doing, etc. ju66l3r 14:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I added their new logo with permission of the group. Let me know if I desecrated any wiki rules in doing so- j/k. 68.109.106.14 04:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope, looks like an appropriate license and good picture fitting exactly what was needed. Thanks for getting permission and adding it to the page! I just recently had an article that I created moved up to Good Article status today. I'm really busy right now with my dissertation defense, but I may move this page to the top of my To Do list so that we can get it reviewed for GA status as well. Might be a month or two though before I can really work at it myself. Hopefully in the meantime, it will continue to be edited towards the guidelines. ju66l3r 15:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New changes

The princeton economist study - I added the source - balances article for neutral viewpoint.

cosmetic limb lengthening - re-introduce paragraph/add source which illustrates a major issue that the group addresses. how can you say that this is "irrelevant" to the article? this is something that the group is actively addressing (one of the major issues the group was set-up to address) according to their own websites...JonathonBlunt 16:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing sources for both of these things. The previous copy of the Limb lengthening section spent more time discussing what the procedure was and one sentence describing NOSSA's involvement on the issue. Remember, this article is NOSSA first, controversial societal issues a distant second (if at all, then only as background to NOSSA's stance with plenty of linking to more direct information on the issue in another article). The latter sections of this article are starting to become more involved in defining dwarfism-related topics than shaping an article on NOSSA. Honestly, if NOSSA has a position on cosmetic limb lengthening, then the article just needs maybe 1 sentence describing the procedure and then 2 or 3 describing NOSSA's position. Similarly, the extensive examples for heightism-related laws probably belongs in the heightism article under a header for legalities/laws and then NOSSA's official stance with a wikilink to the appropriate section in the other article. ju66l3r 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I will do my best to fix the article a bit. I have a few suggestion. I don't feel the economist study really fits in the article. I also agree that the height discrimination legislation section should be condensed into a smaller paragraph that describes more of what NOSSA is doing in that regard. does anyone object to my making those changes?JonathonBlunt 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Per the economists' study, do you mean to remove it or rework it? I think the fact that specific board members of NOSSA addressed the study in direct quotes suggests that it may be relevant to defining the group. I do like the revisions to the limb lengthening section. ju66l3r 05:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I re-worked the article a bit. Let me know what you think. I think I did what I can. If anyone else would like to contribute, please do so. Thanks!JonathonBlunt 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I like the reorganization. I'm wondering if some of the sections aren't really subsections of a greater "Issues" header or something to that effect. So that instead of separate sections for each area that NOSSA has taken an official stand, they would be umbrella'd by a header for "Official views" or something like that. ju66l3r 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/Talk%7ENational_Organization_of_Short_Statured_Adults_faa5.html"