Talk:National Emergency Medical Services Association

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thank You for your contributions to this article. This forum is for developing the encyclopedic article on NEMSA backed by referenced facts per wikipedia policy. This is NOT a forum to discuss whether NEMSA is good or bad but instead to show divergent points of view that lead to an unbiased article for NEMSA. Also - please sign your posts by including four tildes (~~~~) after your comments.

Portland, Oregon[edit]

Portland Oregon - I was in Portland during the time mentioned. Portland / Vancouver EMS workers are critical of NEMSA because NEMSA disclaimed the bargaining unit without notifying the Teamsters prior to the disclaim. This allowed a several hour window in which AMR attempted to implement health care changes unilaterally before the Teamsters could file their signatures with the NLRB. In reality however this is absurd. If the situation were reversed, Teamsters would not have told NEMSA they were going to disclaim prior to doing so. Teamsters supporters were openly bragging they had 50% of the workforce's signatures and were going to file them the next morning to stop the vote on the second contract offer. NEMSA disclaimed prior to the filing of those signatures with the NLRB. bacon42 (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC) bacon42[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

This article is hardly written from a neutral point of view. NEMSA is the only contributor and several of the facts are not supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.35.248 (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2008

It does look like most of the material was contributed by NEMSA (talk · contribs), which raises concerns of conflict of interest, even though I don't know if that user is linked with the union in any way, apart from their choice of username. Please consider adding verifiable facts yourself, or challenging statements that seem to be incorrect. By the way, it is ok for any user to add verifiable facts without supporting references, but such statements are open to challenge or deletion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:03, 6 November 2008

(UTC)

It appears as if both the political and critics section of the page contain weasel words

Other than NEMSA's web site and a few news articles on the web, there are few sources that provide a balanced view of NEMSA, thus a neutral point of view may be harder to achieve... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.89.151 (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case stick only to the verifiable facts. If those remain unbalanced, then the POV tag will remain in place. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that until there are additional verifiable facts this article should retain the POV tag until it is cleaned up more Anyonesguess (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Referenced[edit]

Remove POV Tag?

I removed the POV tag as the article is now well referenced. Additional problem language, can we discuss the language on an individual basis as something is found? The tone appears to be neutral now.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.89.151 (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2008

I agree. There are probably some issues there, and citations need to conform to Wikipedia style. But it does not look like it is seriously non-neutral. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is still leaning near POV given that all the information comes from one article and the other refs have suffered linkrot I would say if nothing else it needs to have more (better) references. Upon further review 3 of the links are to NEMSAs website 3-4 of them go to a single news source and one has rotted. Perhapse a better tag is unreferenced?{{Anyonesguess (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Advertisement[edit]

This article has been written, and rewritten after criticism, always from a pro-NEMSA pov by a few writers. A visit to the article's website reads very much like this article. Here (http://www.nemsausa.org/home_about.php) the first three paragraphs are the source for, and in some cases are used word for word, here in this article. And there is substantial lack of creditable references. For example, the number of members is not supported by the latest federal Department of Labor filing but instead from a newspaper article where NEMSA speaks with the reporter. The Portland, Oregon piece takes a major portion of the article but means little to a new reader. I feel this article is more a recruitment advertisement for NEMSA than neutral with substantial references.67.101.6.35 (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)SKN[reply]

The article you reference on NEMSA's home page has 2 links to 2 different wikipedia articles on it including the NEMSA article. This is a chicken and egg thing... who borrowed from who? Furthermore, you talk about the number of members but provide no link to the department of labor filing yourself... if you had that information, why didn't you change it on the page and supply the appropriate link? Furthermore, in exploring NEMSA's website there is a timeline with downloadable documents in places that may be referenced... Recruitment advertisement? Have you read most of wikipedia pages lately? While agree on the POV tag, the advertisement tag doesn't make sense... I've seen far worse on wikipedia not be tagged as such... --64.195.89.151 (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if nobody is going to respond I'm just going to remove the tag until we can get a discussion going on this...--64.195.89.151 (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you consider there was a weekend when not everyone in the world polices article with the same vehemence as others, you'd see why there were no responses. It doesn't matter about chicken/egg - if NEMSA cites wikipedia on NEMSA's webpage, that's not a valid source for use on wikipedia - wikipedia itself does not count as a reliable source for wikipedia articles. I've seen far worse on wikipedia not be tagged as such so what? WP:othercrapexists isn't a valid argument. This entire article reads like an attempt to show how much better NEMSA is than any other union, with the entirety of the Politics section being a comparison piece, with no independent citation. It's an advertisement, with little/no third party sourcing.--Vidkun (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that solves the problem doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.237.62.146 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

04/20/2009 ... OK... completely re-written... hopefully takes care of the advertising part and the well referenced part... but let me just say... you folks are great at criticizing the article but none of you actually change the content of it... makes it hard to keep up, much less encyclopedic. Now as you edit the article and the talk page, perhaps you can actually suggest changes to make it work better. You people kill me... you claim I have a COI when you won't edit the article yourself... Well, if I do have a COI at least I actually am editing the article down... my goal is to make this as encyclopedic as possible. Can I get some help here, or would you all rather complain on the talk page and tag the article? Thank You. --NEMSA (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEMSA - it's not our job to ADD material to any article if we don't have any to add, but if we see that stuff is violating policy or guidelines, we can, and should tag it as such. It is not the responsibility, moreover, of anyone objecting to your additions to correct them, it is the responsibility of the person ADDING material to back it up with reliable third party sources. And, considering your user name, a reasonable person could see your involvement in this article to be a conflict of interest, therefore, the COI tag is going back on.--Vidkun (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hit and Run Editing Doesn't Help Here...[edit]

The new post wasn't even up 2 minutes before a Hit and Run Editor tagged COI without looking at the CONTENT. Is the Content neutral and encyclopedic? If not, change it so it is... removing the hit and run tag....--NEMSA (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the responsibility of someone noting the problems with sources to fix them, it's the responsibilty of those adding the info. There is a persistent COI problem with this article, as you are listing yourself pretty much as a NEMSA member, and continue to be one of the major editors to this article. That establishes that you have a conflict of interest, and the tag will stay there.--Vidkun (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Membership changes[edit]

Much of the information in this section seems sourced to the blog or website of a competing EMS union. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 01:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]