Talk:Rawson-Neal Hospital

Suggested edits to paragraph on bullying controversy

@Bbb23: @EdJohnston: @Frood: @CLCStudent: @Accesscrawl:

This is Dr. Ben G. Adams, psychologist cited in the paragraph about the bullying controversy published in Nevada Current on August 7, 2019. Because of my conflict of interest (COI), I am proposing edits here on the talk page.

All of the text that I am suggesting for editing was added on August 12, 2019, at 17:51 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rawson-Neal_Hospital&diff=prev&oldid=910525291) by EPGuy64, who had previously made numerous attempts to completely delete and suppress the entire paragraph about the bullying controversy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EPGuy64 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EPGuy64). For this reason alone, the text added by EPGuy64 deserves to be considered with extra caution as potentially misleading.

Here is the specific text, added by EPGuy64, which I propose be edited:

'The lone source of record, Dr. Ben Adams, was dismissed from the hospital following his claims of abuse. All complaints of bullying made to the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health were investigated and found to be without merit.'

I suggest that the above text be edited as follows:

'The only one of the six informants cited in the article who did not remain anonymous, Dr. Ben G. Adams, was dismissed from the hospital following his claims of abuse. The Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health claimed that it investigated all complaints of bullying and found them to be without merit.'

Here is my rationale for changing 'lone source of record' to 'only one of the six informants cited in the article who did not remain anonymous':

The Nevada Current article indicates that the reporter interviewed six informants, not one. For me to be described as the 'lone source of record' seems diminishing and misleading. In fact, I was not the only source cited in the article; rather, I was the only source who did not remain anonymous. The article did not refer to me as its 'lone source'; the use of this diminishing language to describe me seems to be an attempt to discredit my allegations without investigation. The fact that this language was added by EPGuy64, a user who had previously vandalized Wikipedia by making several attempts to completely delete and suppress the entire paragraph about the bullying controversy, suggests that the term 'lone source' was added to Wikipedia in order to diminish and discredit my allegations without investigation. I am not asking for any information to be removed, and I am not asking for Wikipedia to agree with my allegations. I am simply asking for fair, neutral language that accurately reflects what was reported in the Nevada Current article.

Here is my rationale for changing 'All complaints of bullying made to the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health were investigated and found' to 'The Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health claimed that it investigated all complaints of bullying and found them' (main change is addition of the word 'claimed'):

An important point in the Nevada Current article is that the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health (DPBH) claimed that it investigated the allegations of bullying and found them to be without merit, but that neither I nor any of the witnesses cited in my complaint were ever contacted during DPBH's supposed investigation. So for the Wikipedia article to simply say, 'All complaints of bullying made to the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health were investigated and found to be without merit' seems misleading. The point of the Nevada Current article is that DPBH claimed to investigate the allegations, but never actually contacted any of the witnesses cited in the complaints (including me). The Nevada Current article fairly describes my bullying complaint as a 'claim' and an 'allegation,' so it seems unfair that the Wikipedia article about this controversy would then describe DPBH's claim as something more definitive than a claim, i.e., as something that DPBH definitively 'found' to be 'without merit.' Yes, DPBH claimed it investigated the complaints and found them to be without merit, but there is absolutely no evidence that DPBH actually did carry out a fair and thorough investigation. In fact, the point of the Nevada Current article is that DPBH did not fully investigate the information that was reported to them.

Please note that I am not asking for any information to be hidden or suppressed. Rather, I am asking for the article to be edited for clarity, fairness, and neutrality, so that it is not misleading, and so that it accurately reflects what was reported by Nevada Current.

Thank you very much for considering my request, I appreciate this very much.

Bengadams (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Greyhound Therapy

I added the link to Greyhound therapy, as it quite literally applies to the case with Rawson-Neal Hospital. The addition of the "derisively" is in line with the Greyhound therapy article itself, and Greyhound therapy is also the term used by the Sacramento Bee in its reporting on the incident. "Derisive" should not be construed as a personal POV statement, but rather reflect how the term is objectively used. My edit did not constitute any change in POV for the article as a whole. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)