Talk:Conservatorship/Archives/2013
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ACLU as sole reference??
How about a less biased source, editors/authors?
70.105.201.243 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
US bias
Presume the article is referring to the United States, but which ever country it is referring to it is not clear. Terms like "much national debate" etc are not clearly explained. Mattlore (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- As a US legal concept, of course there is "US bias". Duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.1.101.248 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Very true, but the english wikipedia is read by people all over the globe. We ought to use words to explain what it means "in the US", without assuming an American audience or author. Keep our standards high. —fudoreaper (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, now... what? I mean, er... WHAT?? The opening line of the article reads: "Conservatorship is a legal concept to be found in the law of many states of the United States of America, ". Read that again, I'll wait. By U.S. standards I am wildly liberal, but there is no valid "worldwide view" if the subject is defined as being "in the law of many states of the United States"! Ultimate question: How does one globalize discussion of local-level law? (Although I must say reading the bias article linked to by "Worldwide View" was bleeding hysterical!) 68.166.5.42 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Like Administration?
I assume that this is similar to the UK and Australian companies being put into administration. If so should there be a link and a note connecting the two?
(Elephant53 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC))
conservership/guardianship-assisted living
My sister in an assisted living home. She needs a guardianship and conservatorsonship because she has dementia. I had turned her over to a fidiciary because I have multiple scleroses, epelipsy, and other health problems. The fidiciary and her social worker depleted her funds plus cashed in her life insurance policy: consequently, I decided to take it back because of this. I also requested a complete audit of where her money went. She was in a nursing home at that time when this happened. The fidiciary has not even got another court date; I can do this. What is your suggestion.
assimilate two articles
The "conservator" discussed in this article is quite distinct from the conservator being discussed at possessory conservator -- apparently, the former supervises banks, the other children. (tongue in cheek). However, the guardian-of-childen needs some dedicated space in this "conservator" article, or a "conservator" article of its own. (As you can tell from the outgoing wikilink to this page). How should we handle this? Agradman talk/contribs 04:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)