Archived previous discussions at; User talk:Drsjpdc/archive1

RE: User:Drsjpdc PLEASE REFERENCE THIS PAGE

{{helpme}}

   THIS IS COMPLICATED AND THERE  ARE HIDDEN ISSUES HERE... PLEASE READ THIS THROUGH.

Background In the beginning, I admit that as a newbie, I committed the sin of posting an autobiography. Worse, I linked it to an organization I founded, and this was perceived, (though this was NOT my intent) as "self-promotion". Then a supporter, asked me for biographical data, and HE re-posted the page, expressly to avoid the COI issue, and I, not he, was blocked for three days as punishment for the re-posting. OK - let's forget about me for now. There is NOW no bio. thus no longer any COI. I am certainly not interested in self promotion anyway. Don't need to.

FICS This is a separate entity, for which I am NOT on the Board. Simply a member now. I am a past president, and was the founder of the agency. I am also the only one who has taken the time and trouble to attempt to learn Wiki culture, and coincidently I am also the person with the most information about the Federation and its history, having been there from the start.

It is THAT international in scope ref>WP:ORG</ref>; non-profit organization, the FICS, or "Fédération Internationale de Chiropratique du Sports", or in English, the International Fed. of Sports Chiropractic, is now being kept from publication in Wikipedia, in my estimation, as direct result of the controversy I inadvertently created, and that per se, is not fair to the organization. I understand that the "if that one is here, then this one should be" is not an acceptable argument. However, it is a reasonable argument that certain standards should be reasonably applied, and applied with an even hand.

The last attempt I made to have this re-posted was to appeal to the admin Cirt who ultimately deleted the page the second time. I am now being told that there are not adequate "secondary sources" to support "notability". Thus dismissed out of hand, and with no further comment. My arguments, from your own references and rules are as follows:

A.- [[1]] - The page clearly states:

                   Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not
                   synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and 
                   demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, 
                   economies, history, literature, science, or education." (emphasis added).

In the completely RE-WRITTEN page on my sandbox site, I have provided NUMEROUS articles in valid SECONDARY sources (news sources completely unrelated to FICS, or myself, which are circulated to around 60,000 Doctors of Chiropractic, plus Chiropractic interested persons in about 55 Countries every two weeks.

I have a question: Q: Are medical journals acceptable as secondary sources for medical articles, but chiropractic journals are not acceptable sources for chiropractic subjects? Is this even-handedness? Injecting personal belief systems is also against wiki policy as a basis to edit out articles, just because you personally disagree with the subject. I know there are people, especially those affiliated with medical organizations with such beliefs. There was a Federal lawsuit (WIlk, et al v AMA, et al in the 70's)which convicted the AMA of just such a conspiracy, and a permanent injunction was issued by the Federal Courts against this, but desit that in the Courts, reason prevailed; still, the propaganda they spewed out for all the time before pervades the minds of some closed-minded people.

B.- IN WP:NOTE under "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations"; "non-commercial organizations" it clearly states:

                            Non-commercial organizations

Shortcut: WP:CLUB

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

  1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. (FICS is WORLD)
  2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party,
     independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion
     for all organizations as described above.)

I have shown in references that:

I.- FICS is named in the International World Games Association website, for the World Games in beginning in 2005 in Duisberg, Germany that it was the provided of medical services for the athletes of the event, and then AGAIN, and will continue in the future as they are under contract, to provide Doctors, for Kaoshiung, Taiwan's Games, and etc.
II.-FICS is listed as a "recognized agency" by UNESCO, ICSSPE, GAISF, and others.... all THIRD party sources, and clearly documented.
III.- FICS is cited in more than one McGraw-Hill textbook 9A respected THIRD PARTY publisher) as one of the TWO recognized International Organizations that govern aspects of the Chiropractic profession WORLDWIDE (and the other page is not controversial).
IV.- FICS is a tenant, in the building, BUILT by the City of Lausanne and the IOC itself (IOC recognition is pending).... and their logo is proudly listed on that site along with all the other World Governing Bodies which were acceptable to the IOC and Lausanne to have offices there.

Thus, clearly, FICS meets BOTH of the requirements of this alternative criteria policy.

In addition there are "additional criteria" listed on your page: to wit:

Additional criteria are:

   * Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead.
   * The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.  (emphasis added).

FICS consists of some 55 national associations with around 40,000 total individuals, around the World, and has been in existence since 1987, and has provided care via gratis delegations of Doctors to athletes in Asia, the Middle east, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America to level the playing field at sporting events.

In summary; I believe that the page may have been initially deleted for good reasons, but the re-written page, (ABSENT my autobiography anywhere), for the International Federation of Sports Chiropractic 'should be re-posted forthwith, and the Federation should not be held to an unreasonable level of expectation that world news media should be interested in it, when professional organizations are not typically subjects of such coverage. Reasonable coverage in secondary sources, unrelated to the Federation, or myself, should be sufficient to show its notability when it is clearly an agency which is Worldwide in scope. FICS' notability is established here, and it should now be fairly judged by the established WIKI criteria I have quoted herein, expressly to cover such organizations and situations.

Respectfully,

Drsjpdc (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This actually is not complicated; please don't fall into the frequent trap of endless dialogue - you'll have much more success sticking to simple, policy-based arguments.

You do have a conflict of interest with FICS - past president, and founder. Just because you have left the org does not remove the COI. For example, Bill Gates has stepped down as CEO of Microsoft, but I still feel that his opinions on that org would be somewhat slanted, and he would also be discouraged from editing the company article.

Therefore, you should not create the article yourself, nor should you directly edit an article created - please follow the practices outlined in WP:BESTCOI. You could suggest an article via either requested articles or the articles for creation process - but either way, please make your involvement with the org clear, to avoid problems down the line.

I am not disputing (or necessarily agreeing) whether the org meets notability requirements or not, because that is beside the point here.

The best advice I can give is to work on other articles that you are not at all involved in - thus avoiding all of these difficulties. If this organization is indeed notable enough, then - in the fullness of time - I'm sure that someone will write an article about it.

I hope that you will not be offended by my frank statements, which are made with the best of intentions - to improve Wikipedia, and that's what we're all here for.

If you do have any further questions, please use a further helpme, and please be as consise and specific as possible. Myself, and other Wikipedians, will be only too willing to help you, as long as you conform to the community-agreed policies. Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]