Talk:Rampton Secure Hospital

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

National Health Service (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Health Service, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National Health ServiceWikipedia:WikiProject National Health ServiceTemplate:WikiProject National Health ServiceNational Health Service

Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities

Nottinghamshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nottinghamshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire 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.NottinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject NottinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject NottinghamshireNottinghamshire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Hospitals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals 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.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rampton Secure Hospital received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Untitled

Do we need to name individual patients? GraemeE17 20:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Julie grant

At http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rampton_Secure_Hospital&diff=100880048&oldid=100873796 I reverted a non-NPOV edit by User:Julie grant; it was her first edit. Could we discuss this alteration? Anthony Appleyard 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rampton_Secure_Hospital&diff=102683561&oldid=102650703 , but I restored parts of her edits which were NPOV: at date she has edited no other pages. Anthony Appleyard 07:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rampton Hospital

(Julie grant 10:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)) Please can we remove the names of patients? Rampton Hospital is a healthcare setting and as such we have to respect patient confidentiality.[reply]

Julie Grant

Communications Manager

Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

That Beverley Allitt and Ian Huntley are/were in Rampton Hospital, and their offences that led up to this, are well known via the newspapers and the television news and thus became de facto public knowledge without leak of confidential sources. Anthony Appleyard 10:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed the patient names from the article. Not notable, and you need to provide a source. Please read WP:BLP and find credible sources before returning this information. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 00:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rv, for reason stated above, and refs added. Anthony Appleyard 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of accuracy, rather than patient confidentiality, is it correct to include Ian Huntley's name in the Rampton Hospital article when he was in the hospital for a matter of weeks for the purposes of psychiatric assessment (cf. Huntley Wikipedia article), after which he was deemed unsuitable for admission? Given that the Huntley article apparently has him residing in HMP Wakefield - the accuracy of which is, incidentally, equally debatable - this also seems somewhat self-contradictory and a bit speculative. --Mehr licht 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music References

I'm not sure how many musical references to Rampton there are, but the Anti Nowhere League just released a story concept album called 'The Road To Rampton' concerning the life of the main character who by the end of the album ends up being arrested and placed in the hospital in a song called 'Rampton'. Maybe someone wants to add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.15.125 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy-Up

I've re-written much of the staff facility paragraphs in order to present a less personalised description and to tidy the style and tone. These still required citing for factual accuracy. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Content

Could anyone provide more information on the different wards and services available at Rampton for example the therapeutic villas, therapies etc etc it seems to me that this article only really focuses on the staff facilities or rather removal of and doesn't provide much information on the layout and facilities available to patients and also uses a lot of colloquial and subjective language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjudge123 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased and uninformative article

In response to what is an extremely biased, badly structured and uninformative article - plus requests to add extra info (see above) - I tried to add context and history. Half way through doing this someone has deleted it all. Someone who regards eg the National Archive as not being sufficiently of merit to cite. Who didn't read the entire article and didn't give me or anyone else chance to add further references. The article remains uninformative, biased and wrong until it is improved. It seems that someone doesn't want it improved because rather than add references (which I was doing), they just deleted the additional content. This is very bad etiquette.

I suggest you read WP:CITE and WP:RS and add the citations as you go along. The guidelines are very clear. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't patronise me and there were plenty of citations in the piece if you chose to read it rather than just press delete. BBC, Handsard, local press, and national archives. Clearly you didn't really look. If you had bothered to request further citations where you thought they were needed then that would be helpful, but deleting everything without any real guidance as to why is destructive and unhelpful.

You have completely white washed the article, you are edit waring and you are now engaging in personal attacks. I suggest you restore the last fully sourced version or you may be blocked from using wikipedia. Dormskirk (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any reader interested in the truth on the Boynton Report should read the following highly critical summary of the report contained in Sir John Boynton's obituary in the Telegraph: "Boynton's team found serious problems relating to the geographical and professional isolation of the hospital, its lack of leadership and difficulty in recruitment, and its focus on containment rather than therapy. The report was also highly critical of an internal complaints procedure under which not one of 178 complaints over a four-year period had been upheld." This extremely important report led to the Mental Health Act 1983, one of the most fundamental reforms ever to be introduced into the NHS. See Obituary: Sir John Boynton. Dormskirk (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dormskirk - I have removed some of your rather emotive language. If the government really did believe that Joe Ashton 'trivialised' the issue can you provide an actual quote from someone who said this, with a reference? Or is this just your opinion? This article generally needs to have its language toned down as parts of it read like a polemic not a Wikipedia entry.SandrinaHatman (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with your edits. I was more concerned about the changes in November 2019 which introduced quite a lot of unsourced material. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]