Talk:Coalinga State Hospital

Stub --> article

I tried to fill the article up a bit more and removed the stub thingy. I think it's a decent, if short, article now and no longer warrants stub designation. 71.116.241.123 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I corrected a few links. I am not sure it is necessary to include tourist destinations up to 4 hours away as it is unlikely that any of the patients will view them. There is one paragraph (which I left in) which basically describes Coalinga. Autkm 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edit & Question

Recently I edited this page a bit, adding some factual information from L.A. Times article and from the Louis Theroux doc. - hence my question: the sentence "Inmates are committed to Coalinga State Hospital within six months of the end of their prison terms" is a direct quote from the Theroux program. How does one cite a video reference?

Template:Cite_AV_media — Ríco 02:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality

While the laws call people "sexually violent predators" this labeling is highly controversial, yet this article treats as utter fact. (For instance, no history of violence is necessary to be labelled a sexually violent predator in many cases, and "predator" is a dehumanizing term that, in many cases I've read about, is quite inappropriate in my view, and in the view of many.) I would be happy with adding "so-called" or making it clear that this is a legal term.

Second, the article says, "Less than 1% of the 100,000 registered sexual offenders in the state of California fall into the SVP category. Thus, Coalinga State Hospital houses treats the very worst cases." This is pure propoganda, and is frequently used to justify these. However, there are numerous cases where the "worst of the worst" claim has been proved false. This claim should either be deleted, or it should be said to be justification that use but others reject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freunlaven47 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The state site calls them "sexually violent predators." They meticulously earned this label, victim by victim. They are generally not people that you would want walking around, say, a schoolyard. We use common terminology in the encyclopedia. We don't manufacture terms. Wikipedia is not censored. Student7 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I came across this:

Through a legal procedure called “civil commitment,” you can be classed as a sexually violent predator based solely on the subjective opinion of a state-employed psychologist or sex expert.

            — James Ridgeway, The Guardian

                       — Ríco 23:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coalinga State Hospital. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080610185620/http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Services_and_Programs/State_Hospitals/Coalinga/default.asp to http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Services_and_Programs/State_Hospitals/Coalinga/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Revert WP:Tone and POV issues

I've reverted a string of edits by user:Jessica_.D._Smith for POV reasons. Similar edits from this user to Sexually violent predator laws were reverted by another Wikipedian for similar reasons. Kryptknight (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Point of View issues

I.ve edited the section to remove the non-neutral point of view issues as best as I could.

I noted that while there are some who see the place as a clvi hospital, others see it as a punitive prison. Thus, to merely describe it as either a hospital or a prison would be non-neutral. Thus, I've included both points or view and included the term "so-called" in front of hospital or prison for neutral purposes.

I noted that while there are some who see the inhabitants as "sexually violent predators", others see them as people unjustly labelled as such. Thus, I've included both points or view and included the term "so-called" in front of references to "sexually violent predators" for neutral purposes.

I've noted the inhabitants' points of view (and provided references to sources) where they have voiced their opinions of treatment, assessments and the conditions. To exclude the inhabitants (i.e. the majority of the people involved in the facility) views as well as the views of some of the employees (and former employees) of the facility due to their views being inconsistent with the state's contentions while at the same time displaying the views of the state (that are supportive of the facility) would be non-neutral.

I've included the UK COurt's view of the place as this is not a mere opinion rather a fact that is neutral. To exclude such fact is non-neutral.

I've included the fact the BBC program made re fence to the fact some see it as a prison in disguise as such is a neutral fact. To make reference to the film and to refuse to provide such fact (despite it being truthful) would suggest a non-neutral intent.

I made reference to the US DOJ investigation and the US Case(wherein a consent decree was signed by the state) regarding the treatment and care of the institutionalized mentally ill in California as such is a fact relevant to the facility's inhabitants' description of a treatment program that is inconsistent with the decree. Bother the case itself and the opinion of the inhabitants are factual and not opinions. To exclude either, particularly considering it is meant to be a treatment facility, suggests non-neutrality. Jessica .D. Smith (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Point of View issues

BeaverLord removed "alleged" from in front of "state hospital" despite there being two separate points of view about whether the facility is a legitimate "hospital" or a prison / internment camp for those who are not genuinely in need of mental health institutionalization. So, to include one point of view without the other is not neutral contrary to Wiki's POV policies. CathyR 2015 (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)