Talk:United Service Organizations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Grammatical Error 2 About the picture 3 United Service Organizations 4 Suggested improvements 5 How many organizations?

[edit] Grammatical Error

The second sentence in the quote below, found in this article, "21:22, 18 May 2006", appears to be lacking a main verb. I would fix this myself, but I am busy/tired. "From 1941 to 1947, the USO presented more than 400,000 performances. Entertainers such as Bing Crosby, Ann Sheridan, James Cagney, Jimmy Stewart, Fred Astaire, the Andrews Sisters, Joe E. Brown, Glenn Miller, Martha Raye and most famously, Bob Hope."

[edit] About the picture

A couple times, an anon has removed Image:Miss USO.jpg. I think the image is a good illistration of USO entertainment. A good arguement could be made for showing other entertainers (if there's a PD picture). I would like anybody objecting to the image, to please explain their objections. Also, I note that the latest anon is User:65.165.212.164, which, interestingly, resolves to "United States - District Of Columbia - Washington Navy Yard - Uso World Headquarters". So I would be quite interested in why you don't like the photo. If a good reason is given, than the image will be removed. But just taking it out, without comment, will likely just be reverted. I note, that as the image is a work of a person employed by the U.S. government (U.S. marine Cpl. Lameen Witter), it is public domain. The same image is currently on public display on a marine web site. So, its not like this is an unauthorized reproduction. --Rob 14:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Service Organizations

Rob, the reasons the picture of Miss USO has been taken down are:

• There is no such person as Miss USO. The person depicted is a former Miss USO of Metropolitan NY, but she in no way represents the USO world headquarters mission.
• Only about 20 percent of the USO's mission is entertainment. If an entertainment photo is going to be used, it should be one that represents USO-sponsored entertainment, not a singing troupe that is authorized to perform only in the greater NYC area. More than than, though, as important as our entertainers are, we want people to know that the USO is about the day-to-day, 365 days a year service of people at USO centers around the world. More than 33,000 volunteers deliver a consistent message of support to troops -- most of whom never see a USO show during their military tours.
• If it seems this is coming from the USO, there's a reason for that. It is. One of my jobs here is to do all I can to ensure that our brand is portrayed properly. I will continue to do that. A member of our staff has been assigned to monitor online use of the USO and its mission, and she is the person who has been taking down that picture -- at my direction and encouragement.
• There are a lot of public domain photos out there, and most of them have nothing to do with the USO. The one of the Metro NY USO troupe is fine for the NYC USO's website, but not for an entry in an international source for information.

Thanks for understanding

John Hanson Senior VP, Marketing and Communication —This unsigned comment is by 65.165.212.164 (talk • contribs) .

A more constructive approach is suggest another photo, that's in the public domain, that better illustrates USO entertainment. Also, I would point out, there is an issue apart from the picture. This is a Wikipedia page, and it is about the USO, but is not run by the USO. You're welcome to explain mistakes/misunderstandings (as you've done, and are thanked for). But you are not going to control, or direct the content of this page. Aside from the picture, there have been a number of other anon edits (probably through the USO) which have been promotional in nature. That's not ok. Any, and all information on this page, should be neutral in tone. As an example "Today, the USO is alive and well, observing 65 years of serving our men and women in uniform and their families around the world." is totally unacceptable in tone. That's advertising, and its not allowed (Also, they are not "our" men and women, because this ain't an American-only place). So feel free to participate, and edit the article (I suggest getting one account for your org), but only to provide neutral independently verifiable information. (p.s. I removed the photo, for now, and wish to find a better one)--Rob 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested improvements

Here's some things I think this article needs:

• A complete explanation of the structure of the organization, and its subunits
• A breakdown of where its resources come from, and go to (with neutral sources, of course)
• A non-promotional explanation of non-tour things the organiation does. A lot of info has been removed for being promotional, but it needs to come back, in a neutral manner.
• A good explanation of system oversight and control of the organization.

I think a problem with this article, is that some editors are informed, but bias; while other editors are neutral but uninformed (I'm guilty of not being informed). We need informed editors, to put in neutral, accurate, verified, sourced information. --Rob 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

   Rob,
   I've tried to make an effort at expounding a bit on points 2 and 4.  
   Unfortunately I haven't provided much in the way of citations there but I hope to come
   back and enhance a bit over time.  Hopefully noone will maliciously remove the
   information that I've posted thus far. 
                                                                                       84.166.245.100 23:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many organizations?

"The United Service Organizations (USO) is a volunteer organization ..." is intrinsically confusing. Is it one organization or several? JackofOz 12:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is an organization of organizations. That seems perfectly reasonable. But the article, does need to be improved to better explain the inter-relationships. --Rob 21:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable to have a structure whereby Organization A comprises organizations B, C and D etc. But to give Organization A a plural name seems crazy to me. As an analogy, the Commonwealth of Nations consists of a number of countries, some of which are republics, some of which are monarchies, and some of which are themselves commonwealths. The Commonwealth is still a single entity and therefore takes a singular name. It is not "the Commonwealths". Maybe it's just my crazy antipodean logic. JackofOz 06:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I guesse it's like "The United States" which can be used as a singular word referring to the federation (the modern standard) or a plural word referring the states (more common in the past). Anyway, I think the main justification for the current wording, is that the USO itself, refers to itself, in the singular, not the plural. It just doesn't look "funny" when they do it, because they always use the abbreviation "USO", instead of spelling it out (putting the spelled out name in brackets). --Rob 07:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense now. The USA analogy reminds me of the United Nations, which we have no difficulty in conceptualising as a single entity. But if you give it its full title United Nations Organisation, and extend that to the USO, you'd end up with United Service Organizations Organization. I now see why they kept it the way it is, despite the risk of crackpots like me quibbling from time to time. Cheers JackofOz 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)