Talk:Priory Hospital/Archive 1

3RR
I've noticed quite a few reversions on this page, some users getting close to violating WP:3RR. Please discuss your opinions on this talkpage, not through repeated reversions. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

International reputation
Ignoring the fact that it's not in any of the sources, the phrase "international reputation" belongs nowhere near this article (or any article in Wikipedia) for at least the fact that it doesn't mean anything. Reputation for what? In whose eyes? A good reputation or a bad reputation? The phrase "world famous rehab clinic" is directly sourced and has a clear meaning. It is an obvious change for the better and I will make this change without an excellent reason not to.

Personally, I still think "world famous" is unsuitable hyperbole for an encyclopedia whether it's sourced or not, but inflating hyperbole further and making it vague is atrocious editing. GDallimore (Talk) 14:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you've given your own "excellent reason not to". For "unsuitable hyperbole" I read unencyclopedic language. It's not our job to parrot the exact words of a source. You choose to describe my preference for "internatational reputation" over "world famous" as "attrocious editing". The irony of you then complaining of "unsuitable hyperbole" appears to be lost on you. "World famous" may be suitable for a newspaper, it is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Your "good reputation or bad reputation" non-point applies equally to "world famous". An "international reputation" is a simple synonym for "world famous", no more no less. It just doesn't look as crass in an encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * So you agree that neither has any place in this article. Great. I'll make the edit. GDallimore (Talk) 12:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No; as you well know. Don't edit war and I would ask you to respect WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You said that "world famous" is a synonym for "international reputation". Therefore, they're both unacceptable. You can't win this argument. Either they're the same and neither is acceptable or they're different and we have to stick with the source.
 * Note that "world famous" is in the version of the article you reverted back to, which you agree is unacceptable. Therefore, I'm reverting to my version which is more in keeping with the above discussion. This is not edit-warring, this is you unreasonably protecting your preferred version despite saying that it contained unsuitable phrases. GDallimore (Talk) 16:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And you've yet to give any reason for including the phrase "international reputation". It adds nothing. So can be removed. GDallimore (Talk) 16:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yawn. You seem incapable of grasping a fairly simple concept. The breadth if an institution's notability can be within its own country or can be international. Noting which it is, if RS comment on it, is something an article should do. Here we have a source saying it is "world famous". This means it has a notability outside of the UK, and across a number of countries outside of the UK. There should be some words to reflect that fact. "World famous" is an unencyclopedic term and should not be used. "This is not edit-warring". Ha ha. DeCausa (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly, the claim of international reputation should be removed. Putting it in the very first sentence is pure promo.  If it is true, then it should be discussed as appropriate with reliable sources to back it.  Reliable sources for such a claim would probably come from the medical literature; the Express and the Guardian are not reliable guides to medical excellence.
 * In addition, "best known for" is an entirely subjective claim with no encyclopaedic value, and a comparison to a US institution is of value only for US readers. This is not an encyclopaedia for US readers.  As such, I removed these examples of bad writing, and I hope the person who restored them twice, and who, from the look of this talk page, might feel a sense of ownership here, will not restore them a third time.  200.83.101.199 (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Depressing but not surprising to see that they did, a third time and a fourth time, without any serious attempt to justify it, and bizarrely enough mentioning BRD, a foolish essay but one which does at least advocate using the talk page, something this user is consciously refusing to do. 179.56.55.207 (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * BRD applies because you boldly tried to removed sourced text. You have added nothing to the above discussion. The statement is sourced to the Guardian and the Daily Express. That's perfectly adequate for stating that it has that reputation. It is a ridiculous assertion to say that it needs to be corfobarated by medical literature. This is not about whether it medically has those attributes, merely whether it has that repuation. Yawn. The point about BRD which if you knew anything about WP reflects the generally expected standard of behaviour, is that the long-standing text remains unless there is consensus to remove it. That's not even BRD, that's policy: WP:CONSENSUS. Sbo stop the edit-warring and wait until that happens. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sourced" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion, and implicit in "sourced" is "reliably sourced".  The Guardian and the Daily Express are not reliable sources of medical information.  Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Not newspapers.
 * The length of time text has been present in the encyclopaedia has no bearing whatsoever on its quality.
 * You didn't bother to justify your edits on the talk page even when they were objected to by several different editors. You just waited a bit and made them again.  That is not a good faith act.
 * You haven't bothered to try to explain why you want to introduce a comparison which is geographically biased and meaningless to most readers.
 * Repeatedly writing "Yawn" suggests that you have a problem with adult conversation. Grow up.  179.56.55.207 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are edit-warring. It is absolutely relevant how long text has been in an article: this is how WP:CONSENSUS works. "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." You've tried to revise existing wording and that is disputed. The original text and consensus prevails until that emerges. You are just edit-warring your change in. All that's going on here is you don't wish to follow how Wikipedia operates. DeCausa (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note, the above edit-warring IP is a block-evading sock: see Long-term abuse/Best known for IP DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)