Talk:American Nurses Credentialing Center

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nursing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing 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.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Daniel-Nguyen-Official (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown.

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]

I have deleted the Controversy section. Tags were added more than a month ago requiring a rewrite, it was horribly POV and incendiary. Feel free to revert if you can find sources for it and rewrite to NPOV. If valid, the arguments made are interesting bits of information, but had the tone of someone who had had a disgruntling experience with the ANA/ANCC. Xadnder (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some research to improve this article. There do not appear to be any news articles or books referring to any controversy with the ANCC. There are some websites echoing the controversy section of this article that was here prior to being deleted. But those obviously cannot be used as sources (echo chamber). If anyone knows about any published controversy with the ANCC, please post a note on my user page. Thanks. Cadwallader (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Competition

I've published a revision of the article with references. I removed the speculation about competition with other credentialling organizations, primarily because it was un-sourced. It might be appropriate to re-insert information about other organizations that perform the same service, as well as changes in "market share" of nurses - provided it is properly sourced and written in a more factual and less speculative manner.Cadwallader (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]