Talk:National Organization of Short Statured Adults

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)

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)

Edits

I just deleted some attempted vandalism to this page. I think this article really needs some major revamping. Most of the article can be condensed into the top paragraph. I understand that the group has only been around for a short time and much of the remaining text sounds more like a brochure written by the group. Without any objection I would like to try to condense the article a bit. I would also recommend that this article be closely monitored as i suspect vandals will not be able to resist an opportunity to poke fun at these guys.70.187.63.104 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with what I see in the article history from you. There are a number of issues where the organization has given its opinion and defined its role. These are what are listed in the article. If you review the discussion archives here, you'll see that a lot of work between myself and others went into the current draft to reach a consensus on how best to articulate the well-sourced information included on this article. For you to simply delete it all is not appropriate. Deleting whole sections is not "condensing" it. Maybe if you make some suggestions here, we can discuss it. ju66l3r (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Organization of Short Statured Adults. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061105201654/http://www.genderadvocates.org/policy/Ordinances/Laws/Santa%20Cruz%20Ordinance.htm to http://www.genderadvocates.org/policy/Ordinances/Laws/Santa%20Cruz%20Ordinance.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114214707/http://www.naafa.org/fatf/sf_height_weight.html to http://www.naafa.org/fatf/sf_height_weight.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206202758/http://ohr.dc.gov/ohr/cwp/view%2Ca%2C3%2Cq%2C491858%2CohrNav%2C%7C30953%7C.asp to http://ohr.dc.gov/ohr/cwp/view,a,3,q,491858,ohrNav,%7C30953%7C.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220073211/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/eoa1995250/index.html to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/eoa1995250/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)