Talk:Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust

16 June 2014
Hi Thanks for directing me to the right talk page. This is all pretty new to me. I've read through the conflict of interest page and the BRD page to understand things better. I can appreciate the Supreme Court Ruling may still be relevant to some people (though perhaps given how complex it is it would be better for it to have it's own Wiki page). However I defer to your experience on this front. In terms of the rest of the info though, part of the description of services is inaccurate and needs updating in temrs of what is provided in each borough. If you're happy for me to do this I can do so again. Is there any reason not to include information about the types of services covered which was in the edit under Community and Mental Health services? I can accept the Prinicples of Care info at the bottom may be seen as self promotion so this removal is understandable. Can we remove or provide a disambiguation between Pennine Care and Pennine Acute - this is a major issue as it stops patients finding the right information and the organisations are not linked in any way. Let me know what you think, I've tried to look at this again with an impartial eye. Thanks B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.151 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2014‎


 * Hi, B. Yes, there's certainly a lot to learn here! - I've been around for many years and still regularly find out new things about obscure corners of its rules and conventions.
 * Regarding this article, the important thing to note about our articles on organisations (such as parts of the NHS) is that they aren't intended to duplicate detailed information that's already available on the organisation's own web pages. We provide a link to its home page for that. One very good reason for this is that Wikipedia is a volunteer project: no-one has any responsibility to keep anything up-to-date, so it could actually be counter-productive to include in-depth information about locations and services that will change – this could be especially important for the NHS!
 * It's also important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we restrict our content to, well, encyclopedic content such as that you'd find in a work like Encyclopedia Britannica (though greatly expanded, of course). Our policy on What Wikipedia is not goes into more detail about this. The major part of all our articles consists of paraphrases and summaries of what others (reliable sources) have already written about the topic. That's why the court ruling is included: it's one of the few things about the trust that has garnered wide interest.
 * Now, if any of the information is actually wrong, then of course you can correct it. And if you can find anything else that's been published (in those reliable sources) about the trust, you could add that: it would help provide a wider encyclopedic view of the topic. I'm sure that quite a lot could be said about its history, for instance.
 * I hope this brief attempt at explaining a complex subject has helped. Happy to explain further if you have any other questions, or you could start reading at Five pillars ;-) —S MALL  JIM   00:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input. I've had a more subtle go at an edit this time. I might add more salient info from other external soruces down the line. B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.151 (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)