Talk:California Nurses Association

HR 676

Prowler08 made a series of edits that. while they were purported to be merely copyedits, gradually changed the substance of a particular phrase. CNA/NNOC is clearly a prominent organization that energetically supports HR 676, not merely a "supporter," so I have restored the language that existed prior to prowler08's edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.101.187 (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The edits I made were to save the above referenced statement since Checkmate000 deleted it for not being sourced. If you look at the edit history, I was the one who restored it. Two of the meanings of the term copyedit are to edit for style or to put text into an acceptable form. These were not "purported copyedits" as you claim above. --Prowler08 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

deletion of footnote regarding voting rights of NNOC members

There was formerly a footnote stating that NNOC members do not have voting rights in the organization, with a reference to the 2007 LM-2. However, this footnote was unclear. Did it mean to suggest that collective bargaining unit members outside of California do not have voting rights, or that at-large NNOC members who pay a nominal yearly fee do not have voting rights? No distinction was made, and the footnote was deleted. The footnote left open the interpretation that collective bargaining unit members outside of California do not have voting rights, an interpretation that appears erroneous. For example, members of the CNA Board of Directors have been elected "from across the nation."

Deletion of Unsourced passages on 2008 Field Poll and NNOC legislative activity

This deletion by user Checkmate000 is problematic, and the claim that the deletion was done because the passages were unsourced is doubtful. Checkmate000 has a history of making POV edits to this page and to the SEIU page. There is a widely recognized war between NNOC and SEIU. Let's try to keep it out of Wikipedia. If Checkmate000 is so concerned with the sources for this information, he or she could easily look up the sources rather than delete the passages. Or, alternately, Checkmate000 could show his or her sincerity by deleting passages wholesale from the SEIU or Change to Win pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.67.167 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ad homenem attacks upon myself are not what wikipedia is about. Please refrain from them. It is not vandalism to remove uncited information which has been added in the past few edits. Please add cites before readding it. I will remove it one last time as the next time will be the three reversal rule. If you are the person who added it intially please tell us where you got this information. As far as I can tell this information has no basis in an unbiased source. Checkmate000 (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC) (PS please sign your posts.)

material presents bias

The following article resembles more of a campaign for the CNA instead of presenting unbias material detailing their history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.95.5 (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Update needed

It would be nice if someone would update some of this info, such as the current president. There is now a Council of Presidents with 4 members. I have ties to the organization, so I thought I would leave this up to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.218.150 (talk • contribs) 18:03, January 25, 2008

Actions in Ohio

I believe that these actions are relevant and should be included in the article. Please engage in a discussion or at least give a reason prior to deleting them. If you believe that it is not in a neutral point of view please edit it to make it more neutral rather then going about a wholescale deleting of the section. Checkmate000 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

Because there were objections when I did this unilaterally, instead I am going to open the discussion of this merge. I believe that because they have the same governance structure and that their employees operated under the CNA/NNOC label with very little distinction between the two, that they should be merged into one article. Also the NNOC article is lacking details which exist on the CNA page about NNOC. On top off all of this, the NNOC site is simply a subsite to the CNA site and appears to be simply a different names of the same organization. I'm sure that there is at least one person who disagrees with me so could you please explain the rational of keeping the two organizations, which are run by the same people and employ the exact same people and share a common website, in separate articles? Checkmate000 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

MERGED

California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee ( in case anyone is watching this page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Clothes (talk • contribs) 07:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NURSE priority check

I have rated this article as 'low' importance according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nursing/Assessment#Importance_scale. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it. Also upgraded to 'start' class. Cheers, Basie (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sponsored first in nation nurse patient ratio laws

Anyone like to take up the important role CNA played in establishing first and only law requiring nurse to patient ratios? Very important precedent and an often cited fact. I’m involved in organization so conflict for me Zoophillie (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)