Talk:Lanterman–Petris–Short Act

message: For reference in future article expansion:
:The Short-Doyle Act was passed in 1957, signed into law by Gov. Goodwin Knight.  This Act put much of the burden of caring for the mentally ill on local communities, and eventually contributed to "emptying the state mental hospitals", an unintended consequence incorrectly blamed on subsequent Governors Edmund G. "Pat" Brown and especially Ronald Reagan.  Short-Doyle is still in effect.  Releasing the mentally ill onto the streets was actually an unintended consequence of the introduction of Medicare (Medi-Cal in California) in the mid-1960s, when the U.S. Congress withdrew funding of treatments in mental hospitals and had little to do with the actions of the California legislature or Governors Knight, Brown and Reagan.  You can read an overview at http://lang.sbsun.com/projects/lostamongus/displayarticle.asp?part=2&article=art01_main&page=6, "Lost Among Us" — a special report by the San Bernardino Sun. — QuicksilverT @ 15:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to Short-Doyle 

message: I propose merging, into Lanterman–Petris–Short Act, the articles 5150 (involuntary psychiatric hold), 5250 (involuntary psychiatric hold), and 5270 (involuntary psychiatric hold), which are just sections of the LPS act.  The individual sections of the law are not separate topics from the LPS Act target article, though "5150" is marginally well-known in California popular culture because it's been used as slang or the name for other things.  None of the three section articles are much longer than a stub after 5 years; 5150 had been longer than a stub, but had most of its text removed by another user based on not having sufficient independent sourcing. --Closeapple (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Support I agree. The 5150 article covers exactly the same topic and this article is better written and better sourced. The 5150 article should be deleted and any useful content should be merged into this article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Disagree -- nobody goes to google and looks up "Lanterman–Petris–Short Act." This is not about the act per se, but about the term "5150." When folks say, "Hey, i heard that So-And-So got 5150ed" they do not mean to say, "Hey, i heard that So-And-So was confined to a psychiatric treatment facility under the terms of the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act." 75.101.104.17 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is saying that we should remove the fact that this is referred to as being "5150'd" that is why we have the ability to define synonyms so that different words or phrases can go to the same article. If we did the merge then when someone googled "5150" they would just be directed to this page. Actually, I think that happens now anyway because this page is so much more popular than the 5150 page. That's how I came to this page originally, I kept hearing people talk about being "5150'd" and wanted to know what it meant. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Support merge: no information need be lost with the merge, and the current information in the 5150 page should be moved to the existing Lanterman–Petris–Short Act#5150 section. The colloquial used of 5150ed can also be included as a subsection there - there is enough space for it and its highly relevant to the modern interpretation and use of the act. Klbrain (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Support with the caveat that the information, including the bits about language, from 5150, 5250 and 5270 and merged. - Scarpy (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge section articles