Talk:Royal Brompton Hospital

Bias in court case section, and conflict of interest editing
Multiple clearly biased statements relating to ongoing court case removed. They do not belong in an encyclopedia.82.39.214.235 (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your removal was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Brompton_Hospital&diff=460107608&oldid=460106644 reverted] by RBandH giving the rather curious reason "The revision is factually incorrect" - if it is incorrect, why reinsert it? Although the user chose to ignore a related question on their talk page, the account name, the tendency of the edits and the frequent use of the first person plural in the promotional statements that this user added to the article (e.g. "our service", "our excellence", "Our experts") clearly indicate a conflict of interest problem. On December 20, an editor using an IP registered to the Royal Brompton Hospital made some edits and removed the conflict of interest warning which had been present in the article since November 2010, but the imbalance between the views of the hospital and those of the NHS (as e.g. detailed here: International experts reject Royal Brompton’s allegations) is obvious.
 * Some other parts of the article also suffer from problems re WP:V (no references cited) and peacock statements - eschewing precise, factual information in favor of the vague, promotional tone that is common to PR texts (e.g. "leader", "leading", "pioneering").
 * Summarily, it appears that some staff at the Royal Brompton Hospital regard this Wikipedia article as a PR tool for furthering their institution's interests, even in an ongoing legal conflict, with disregard to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Summed up perfectly. User:RBandH (Royal Brompton and Harefield, anyone?) has systematically destroyed this article with their WP:COI. Most, if not all, of their edits should be removed to get the article back on track. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In agreement that some of our previous edits were not neutral and apologise for that. Now trying to help the article get back on track and will continue to do so - all advice and support welcomed. Do believe that the court case is relevant as it is the first time one NHS organisation has taken another to court - historically and encyclopedically relevant? On one point above, the revision that was amended related to a statement by another user saying that the hospital was going to close; this has never been the case. Will try to find some verification for currently unverified information - this has been added by another user so unsure of source. Thanks. RBandH (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)