Talk:Suncoast Behavioral Health Center

IP Address tried to blank page

The IP address/user "173.170.92.152" tried to blank the page. IP address is from Bradenton {found out via IP geolocation). Probably MPYS trying to delete the bad wikipedia entry. Advised for constant monitoring. Tkfy7cf (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

173.49.171.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just tried doing the same thing, as well as deleting the above comment.[1] --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Phrasing

Since the hospital has been closed twice, "shut down" is better than "Governmentally reprimanded", I think. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

POV

Based on various discussions related to the DYK nomination, I've put a POV template on this article. See [2] and [3]. The latter gives a good explanation of the POV issue, and I quote Bencherlite here: Most of the article is about not even misconduct but allegations of misconduct being raised in lawsuits, but with no word about whether these allegations were ever substantiated. I have removed a "controversy" section that was purely about investigations into the company owning the hospital, with no direct link to the hospital itself. The article does not tell us when the hospital was built or started operations, or how many patients it has treated over the years for example. Instead, we are given a purely negative picture of the hospital, with undue weight to the allegations of assault etc. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Tkfy7cf appears to have cut-and-pasted this article into the Simple English Wikipedia also. The user got a warning there for it. I've also tagged that article for POV concerns, with a note on the talk page pointing to the discussion here. cmadler (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

POV removed due to the fact that anything publicly known about this hospital is in the article. Tkfy7cf (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The POV tag was restored, but I disagree with it. Accurately reflecting the state of public knowledge about a topic is not a POV problem. It is not our fault if the public is very interested in the shortcomings of this hospital but not sufficiently interested in its history for that to be reported on. I will try my best to find additional information about its history, but the tag appears to be stonewalling at this point. Whether I find something and integrate it in the article, or find nothing at all – in either case I will remove the tag as obviously unfounded. Hans Adler 00:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a bit of information about the facility itself, taken from its web page. There simply isn't more available on the web, while there would be a lot more detail we could add about the problems of this hospital. Since mismanagement, scandal etc. form obviously the main area of notability of this institution, the article is not POV just because it focuses on this area. It's unavoidable given the wealth of information on this aspect and the scarcity of information about anything else. Therefore I will remove the POV tag again. Anyone who doesn't like this is free to find additional sources about other aspects and add the information. But do not re-add the POV tag without making a convincing case that the article misrepresents the public information about the hospital. A negative article about a seriously understaffed hospital is no more inherently POV than a negative article about a serial killer or terrorist. Hans Adler 00:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have added a couple of positive bits of information. This should be conducive to balancing the article. Tkfy7cf (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank Tkfy7cf and Hans Adler for their continued work on this article, I agree that it no longer has the significant POV issues that it did a few days ago. One suggestion for additional improvement would be if anyone can find out the results of all the various allegations and acusations detailed in the article. This article lists a 1991 lawsuit, a 1994 lawsuit and related accusation, a 1996 accusation, a 1997 criminal (?) charge, and a 2009 lawsuit, all without indicating the resolutions. cmadler (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's relatively normal. I have often observed that for less notable cases we have reports when they start, but typically nothing when they are resolved. I guess that's because at that point the incentive for the parties to feed the press their particular view is gone, and unless the case is very notable the press won't get active by itself. If none of the articles we are citing mentions the resolutions of earlier cases, then it's likely that there is nothing. Hans Adler 21:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, a common outcome of lawsuits is that both parties would agree to remain silent about the case which would be articulated in a settlement agreement or mediation. Tkfy7cf (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Image problem

I am attempting to link to the logo I uploaded but it doesn't seem to be working... any hints? Tkfy7cf (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

got the image to work, but now it has this text around it... I'll keep working on it. Tkfy7cf (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

fixed! The keeper of French yarn #7, Carbon Fiber division —Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

Notability and neutrality

I have nominated this article for deletion in regards to notability, specifically WP:CORP. The fact that, despite the recent overhaul, it remains quite POV (I have tried to clean it up a bit), doesn't help, and makes the article appear to be a soapbox for editors with a vested interest. 96.228.200.80 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to be a case of WP:COAT. (I hadn't previously known about this classification.) Joe routt (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

deletions in criticism section

I propose we delete the portions that are the four patients who escaped and caused the car crash, since it's not really about the facility. I also suggest we collapse the incidents involving individuals into a few lines, since those actions, while reflecting badly upon the facility, are also not directly about the facility and thus fall under WP:UNDUE. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove information

This facility is no longer owned by Psychiatric Solutions as stated. The issues regarding facility closure, etc., which occurred under previous management, should be removed.

Regardless of a change in management, these would still be noteworthy events in the facility's history. A mere change of ownership does not erase the past. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manatee Palms Youth Services. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329123554/http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F08-04-2000%2F0001283471 to http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F08-04-2000%2F0001283471

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)