Talk:National Emergency Medical Services Association

message: 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)
thread_title: Portland, Oregon

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Neutral point of view

message: 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)
thread_title: Well Referenced 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hit and Run Editing Doesn't Help Here... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Membership changes