Talk:Optica (society)

A separate section on the rich history of OSA would be useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocoptics (talk • contribs) 16:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just tagged this article for CSD G11, given the enormously promotional tone. I don't think this can be salvaged, it should be re-written from scratch. In addition, there are copyvio problems. For example, the lead is copied verbatim from the last paragraph of this page. There may be more like that (much of the article sounds like it, to say the least), but I think all this is damning enough already. For these reasons I think this should be deleted rather than tagged for cleanup. --Crusio (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Look at this article The Name Change Controversy (2006) and the way the "name change" is described in the Mission of OSA: "In recognition of its global reach and focus, since 2008 the Society has been known as OSA - The Optical Society."

I have the impression that the legal name is still "The Optical Society of America" and "The Optical Society" is the current trade name. Can somebody confirm this impression or provide the evidence I'm wrong? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

---

Hi SchreyP,

The legal name of OSA is "The Optical Society of America, Inc." In recognition of our global reach and focus, since 2008 the society has been known as the Optical Society.

Thanks, Angela Stark, OSA staff — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelaOSA (talk • contribs) 18:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Angela, Thanks for this clarification. Much appreciated. Is there a reference available, maybe in one of your journals, other publications or updated bylaws, to support this statement? I could not find any free available references till now. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 21:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

More than one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

An OSA publishing venture from the late 90s to 2000s -- "Trends in Optics & Photonics" (TOPS). There were 99 volumes published, most were OSA conference proceedings (post conference digests). Ad: [1] Confirmed with publisher there's no list of these on their website to reference; they are represented in the digital library instead by the name of the conference. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, full disclosure, I work for The Optical Society, I am doing this of my own volition, but I am keenly aware that I still have an obvious COI. I am also aware that there was a past issue with staff making changes that were not neutral/impartial. But the page does desperately need some help, so I wanted to request some updates/fixes and help as best as I can.

Please find below some recommendations for the scientific publishing area of the article. I have tried to include well cited neutral information below as best as I can including independent and historical citations. My goal was to add some background/historical information about the beginning of publishing by the society and to fix the overly promotional tone of the existing paragraph.

I have also included some minor modifications to the journal listings and have included the addition of the new OSA Continuum journal. - Tinynull (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Reply

   Edit request declined  
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that the Optical Society has either published or been published in.^[a] Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Directories or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a publisher should not list all of its publications or historically significant past publications. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's published output.
2. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, publications, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose.^[1]  Spintendo  00:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Spintendo: Thanks for taking some time to look at this, I apologize that my message wasn't clear, I did my best to follow the template to make the request. I am a bit confused now though. I took a look at the Wiki pages for several of our contemporary/sister societies and they do list all of their journals and publications, though it appears to be as a simple list rather then the detailed bulleted list currently on this page. Such as American_Chemical_Society#Journals_and_magazines, American_Institute_of_Physics#List_of_publications, and American_Physical_Society#APS_journals. This seems to run contrary to what you've posted above, so can you provide some clarification or examples?

Our journals are well known and well cited in the field of Optics and Photonics, as verified by Thomson Reuters in the Journal Citation Report, and the vast majority of them do have a presence already on Wikipedia as they are highly notable. Should it be reformatted to a more simple list as shown on the pages I referenced above?

Also the modification to the lead above the journals list, where I included some background historical information on the first publication by the society, should that not be included or is it more appropriate to the history section? - Tinynull (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tinynull: Thank you for your questions.

1. I can't speak to how the other articles you've mentioned look or to their contents. (See WP:OSE.) Suffice it to say my interpretation of WP:NOT is that articles and lists are two separate things, and only rarely shall the twain meet. The Optical Society is an article, and is not a list in name, thus, the majority of information which resides here should be prose and not lists.
2. The lead sentence as you've proposed it should look is unacceptable. Here is one sentence from that lead:

   Journal content on the OSA Publishing (formally Optics Infobase) platform offers the highest number of article citations (40%) when compared to any other publisher in the Optics category of the 2017 Journal Citation Report®

   As you can see, this one statement in the lead is not giving the reader an introduction. What it does is try to compare itself to the competition, and more troubling, it attempts to make itself out as better than the competition. Add to that the fact that it uses unacceptable symbols such as the registered mark, and all of this makes your lead inappropriate for inclusion.

I hope this clarifies things. Regards,  Spintendo  01:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Subject not notable on its own merits. Suggest making it part of the Optical Society article Rogermx (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Optical Society of Amerca. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 17:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Full disclosure: As of 2021, I am an employee of Optica responsible for sorting through our Wikipedia pages. I've noticed a number of pieces of this page that need restructuring, alongside possible additions to keep us consistent with sister physics societies. Per the Edit Request recommendations, I'm adding suggestions here before submitting a formal request for a neutral party to consider the changes.

Please see my sandbox for recommendations for specific text. As these are recommendations, I understand and encourage if edits must be made should they not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Note the citation numbering is off, but new citations include: Optica Foundation website, The Name Change Controversy, Charity Navigator.

Text Edits

For the introduction and History sections: I noticed the phrasing in both areas are very awkward and could use some grammatical upkeep, specifically "Optica (formerly known as The Optical Society (OSA) and before that as the Optical Society of America)"

I recommend rephrasing it to just "Optica (founded as The Optical Society of America)"

I took a look at other re-named nonprofits, specifically the Ocean Conservancy, that uses this wording. Further on that, Optica would still like to clarify the series of name changes (Optical Society of America --> The Optical Society --> Optica). Similar to the Ocean Conservancy page, could there be a section detailing this?

Example text below. The "Name Change Controversy" referenced on this Talk page can be the citation, which describes in detail the name changing process the organization went through.

Previous Names

The Optical Society of America (OSA) (1916 - 2008)

The Optical Society (2008-2021)

Optica (2021 - present)

The last sentence of the History section reads awkwardly too. "In September 2021, the organization's name changed to Optica, which references the organization's journal and is geographically neutral in order to reflect the global membership of the society."

There's no clarification for "organization's journal," of which there are 19. "September" also seems unnecessary here. Adding a link to the Optica journal Wikipedia page could help provide that clarity as to the specific journal.

I recommend text similar to: "In 2021, the organization's name changed to Optica, in reference to the organization's journal of the same name and geographic neutrality to reflect the society's global membership."

Additions

I'd also like to request a paragraph be added for The Optica Foundation, under an "Affiliates" section. This is something I noticed other nonprofits do for Foundations, specifically referencing the AARP's section for the AARP Foundation (under Affiliates). This Wikipedia article's primary focus is on publications, but the organization also does charity work and is listed as a nonprofit via the Optica Foundation.

Looking at our sister societies SPIE and APS, I can see they also have specific sections for divisions like “SPIE Open Access” and APS’ Units. Unrelated to these societies, nonprofits like the National Wildlife Federation have an Affiliates section as well.

Example text is provided in my sandbox, linked above.

Apologies if my requests are unclear or not worded as specifically as they should, I am not a regular Wikipedia editor. If you are an editor taking a look at this, please let me know what details are needed and what changes should be made. If approved, I can send through the edit request.

In good faith I would like to keep our page as neutral as possible per Wikipedia’s rules both as an employee of Optica and as an avid user of the site; I realize that a predecessor in 2009 or 2011 seems to have written in a promotional manner. I want to avoid this from happening again. Thank you. Sbradley99 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply