Talk:Nursing home residents' rights

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Nursing home residents' rights is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Human rights

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

An email has been received at VRTS concerning some or all of the text on this page, and can be read as ticket:2010071510040245 by users with a VRTS account.

However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for the text. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published.

For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, someone else with a VRTS account, or the VRT noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by a VRT volunteer, the text will be deleted.

Comment

This article has accurate information, which is appropriately cited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonychicotel (talk • contribs)

However, I'm not sure that it's an encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article style in un-encyclopaedic, the article appears to focus exclusively on the United States. This is a world wide English language encyclopaedia, it is in a list format which is not appropriate to a Wikipedia article. Suggest the article creator gets this moved to their user space, spends some time on studying Wikipedia policies and reworks the article into an acceptable format if that is possible. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Large parts of teh artcile are copy-pasted from {http://www.canhr.org/factsheets/nh_fs/html/fs_outline_resrights.htm} which has a copyright 2008 notice. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it on behalf of CANHR with the express allowance of those holding the copyright. I took it from the factsheet because it was their suggestion. And, the fact-sheet merely states the law, which is perfect for this format. That is why I cited the fact-sheet numerous times (to make it obvious that I was giving those with the copyright, those persons who told me I may write the article as I did, proper credit). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlivingston (talk • contribs) 17:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what. I just found out that this material was not even copyrighted. Wow! I spoke to one of the staff who deals with administrative issues, and he said that while it was placed on the website, it has not been copyrighted. This needs to be taken off the wikipedia page immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlivingston (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this text is in the public domain, or is already under a license suitable for Wikipedia: Explain this on this article's discussion page, with reference to evidence. Thanks for telling us that the text isn't copyrighted. Unfortunately we need to assume it is, until there is evidence to the contrary.

However, copyright issues aside, I'm still not seeing how this is encyclopaedic in any way. I agree with FisherQueen and Jezhotwells. TFOWR 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't copyrighted, and I sent you an e-mail from a canhr email address. What more do you want? As far as it being encyclopedic, it must contain comprehensive knowledge. All this is is comprehensive knowledge. It gives nursing home residents comprehensive knowledge so that they may fight for their rights. This is the type of thing that needs to be in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlivingston (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, an encyclopedia is for informational articles about specific subject. Bills of rights are a different kind of writing than encyclopedia articles- an important kind of writing, but not the same kind. I agree that this subject is important, but I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the right place for it. But it's not as useful to discuss it on this talk page as it would be to open it to a community discussion- I'll send it to Articles for Deletion, and the whole community can discuss whether this is an encyclopedia article or not. If the community agrees with you, then it won't matter what I think- the article will stay. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and note that what's needed is discussion of how this article fits with Wikipedia's rules- so asking people who have never used Wikipedia before and don't know the rules to come participate in the discussion won't be helpful. In fact, it'll be disruptive, and can even increase the possibility that the article will be deleted. Don't worry. Trust the process. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an informational article. It breaks down large sections of the law into something easy to read. As such, it provides information in a way that nothing else will. It is no different than something else which explains statutory or case law. The only difference is the format. I wanted it to be easy to follow, so that residents would be encouraged to read it. And, it certainly is about a specific subject (nursing home residents' rights). So it is an informational article about a specific subject. A bill of rights is different. I am not presenting statute in its original form. I am taking apart statute with help from CANHR staff so that I can make law readable to residents of nursing homes. Therefore, your analogy to a bill of rights (or anything in an untranslated form) is not fair or accurate. This is certainly appropriate in that it gives helpful information (to some invaluable information) with a specific thesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlivingston (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Framework

It is my hope that the current framework (created by another editor and added to by me) presents material in a more encyclopedic fashion. In my opinion, more specific information about rights can and should be added in the appropriate sections and new sections about such things as the theoretical, human rights underpinnings and evaluations of how residents' rights have functioned in practice can be added. I would add more of the material from previous versions if there wasn't (apparently) some concern over copyright.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed

There are two statements right now with citations needed flags, not because I think they are not true but because I could use help in finding specific support for the propositions that US federal law may not apply to homes not receiving medicare and medicaid and because I couldn't find specific support for the statement that California incoporates federal law at the CANHR main page. Any help appreciated. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me out with those cites.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]