Talk:American Nurses Credentialing Center: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:36, 5 March 2010

Medicine Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyvio

Reverted text copied verbatim from http://www.nursecredentialing.org/inside/index.html. Page states: © 2007 American Nurses Credentialing Center. 207.127.241.2 20:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC) I am curious as to the criticism from ANCC employeesIndy Author (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANCC staff

Sorry- did not enter new section (above). I'm curious about the last paragraph of the main article and the criticisms of current ANCC employees. State level organizations accredited by the ANCC are experiencing similar problems. Indy Author (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

I added several templates to the controversy section because it is horrible in its current state. The whole thing is one-sided, full of weasel words and there is not even a single citation. I can definately believe some, maybe even all of those claims are true, but the writing is no where near encyclopedic. It needs some serious cleanup or maybe just needs to be cut out entirely. Any thoughts? sdgjake (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked and can't find any sources to back up this section. (Wonkybusker (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Revision as of 20:54, 2 March 2010 edit Sdgjake (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 3,385 edits Controversy ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:36, 5 March 2010 edit undo Wonkybusker (talk \| contribs) 25 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 13:		Line 13:

	I added several templates to the controversy section because it is horrible in its current state. The whole thing is one-sided, full of weasel words and there is not even a single citation. I can definately believe some, maybe even all of those claims are true, but the writing is no where near encyclopedic. It needs some serious cleanup or maybe just needs to be cut out entirely. Any thoughts? [[User:Sdgjake\|sdgjake]] ([[User talk:Sdgjake\|talk]]) 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)		I added several templates to the controversy section because it is horrible in its current state. The whole thing is one-sided, full of weasel words and there is not even a single citation. I can definately believe some, maybe even all of those claims are true, but the writing is no where near encyclopedic. It needs some serious cleanup or maybe just needs to be cut out entirely. Any thoughts? [[User:Sdgjake\|sdgjake]] ([[User talk:Sdgjake\|talk]]) 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

			I've looked and can't find any sources to back up this section. ([[User:Wonkybusker\|Wonkybusker]] ([[User talk:Wonkybusker\|talk]]) 00:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC))