Talk:Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital

message: After looking around on a few other pages and sources, I noticed a trend with other Kirkbride buildings.  Many claim to be the (generic) "largest," "largest under one roof," etc. until the Pentagon was built.  I'm not sure which one to believe, and without square foot figures on all of them (footprint/foundation and total square feet), I don't think we can keep the unverified info in there.  However, another question is raised by this: If Greystone claims to have the largest continuous foundation until the Pentagon was built, is that the same thing as having the largest building under one roof?  It seems like a very insignificant distinction to make, but everyone/every building wants its claim to fame, I suppose!  I'll keep searching.  Would be nice to see blueprints of all these places!  I'm also in contact with the man running this website: http://www.gpph.net.  I'll pick his brain on this issue, too.  Rkitko 11:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest foundation? 

message: Thanks to user:69.115.40.66 for drawing my attention to the below innacurate statement:
Patients were slowly transferred to smaller-capacity programs until, in 2005, no patients resided at Greystone.
I assume this user removed it because in 2005, there actually were patients at Greystone (not in the Kirkbride building, though).  Sorry for the confusion.  I modified it to the existing sentence:
Some patients were slowly transferred to smaller-capacity programs, reducing the number of residential patients to approximately 450 in 2005.
to reflect the information contained in the following pdf file on page 50:
http://www.lsnj.org//PDFs/budget/EyeonBudgetIIWeb.pdf, which contains this information in a table:
Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital
*Actual FY02: 553
*Actual FY03: 553
*Revised FY04: 515
*Estimated FY05: 451
Hope this helps explain why I reverted and revised this edit, user:69.115.40.66.  No hard feelings.  Thanks for contributing!  Rkitko 04:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  19 Feb. 2006 Revision/edits 

message: I currently work in a different psychiatric hospital in NJ and I can assure that GPPH is still very much open.  They currently use less than half of the buildings, but still accept patients from STCF's (short term care facilities) through out Passaic and Morris counties, (and a few other counties I believe), for long term care.
GPPH also houses a large number of Krol patients, (patients not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity), ISTs (incapable of standing trial)and chronically mentally ill. The patient population has been reduced to about 450. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amaugust (talk • contribs) 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, thanks for the information.  Do you happen to have any specific resources or literature (either online or print) other than what's already cited in the article that confirms those facts?  I'd live to take your word for it, but Wikipedia can't consist of "original research".  Thanks! (and don't forget to sign the page with "~~~~")  --Rkitko 06:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPPH 

message: "The 1970s and 1980s finally saw some weight lifted from this overcrowded facility because of the trend toward de-institutionalization, which was a direct effect of the use of Thorazine, one of the first drugs that was capable of treating the mentally ill."
There are other factors to be considered - care in the commuity, anti-psychiatry movements, empowerment of service user groups, humanistic and psychosocial approaches.  To state that de-institutionalization was a direct effect of Thorazine ignores any social, political, legal or psychological context.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.75.169 (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributing a fall in psychiatric inpatients to the introduction of psychotropic drugs. 

message: This list was included in the text, but needs to be worked into the prose of the article instead of in a list. --Rkitko (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  trivia 

message: It should be noted somewhere that this building was used as the location for the fictional "Mayfield Psychiatric Hospital" in the season 6 premiere of Fox's "House M.D.".  70.134.77.23 (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't. It's not encyclopedic information for this article to mention a passing use in a tv series. Should we add a note to every building article that has ever been seen in that tv series? The importance of the location must be reciprocal, e.g. mentioning this building in an article about the House episode under a "production" or "filming" section would be appropriate and warranted, however mentioning this single tv series in an article about the vast history of this building is relatively unimportant and unwarranted. This is, of course, unless the building is widely known for being a shooting location for a variety of shows and movies, then it becomes increasingly more important to mention. But, of course, we need reliable sources, and I don't believe any exist. Rkitko (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No House M.D. reference? 

message: I've had an interest in this hospital for years and finally decided to contribute to its article here.  While adding some info on recent developments I noticed a shocking lack of citations in this article.  Hopefully this appeal isn't falling on deaf ears and there are people who have this watchlisted, but I believe this article could use some improvement.  If there are no citations for the large majority of information in this article, I can only assume that most of the material was garnered from the rather large external links section, which includes links to articles that should be citations/references and not external links.  I can also only assume that this was a simple oversight over the years as much of this work to the article was done years ago and never corrected.  
Per WP:ELRC sites used as sources should be cited as references, and i'm assuming much of the article content came from sources used as external links.  I don't know this for certain and because the article is largely without inline citations, all of its claims need to be fact checked against sources.  Some of the external links are fine, like this one and this one, but should also be cited as references per .  
As it would be terrible to remove all unsourced material and leave this article nearly blank, it will be a process to attribute everything properly.  Weedwacker (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: FriarTuck1981 (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

text: There's no need to remove any info. I'm the original author and the content hasn't changed very much. It was one of my first articles in a time at Wikipedia (2006) when inline citations were still new and not thought of as necessary. I just haven't bothered to spend much time rebuilding the article with inline citations. Since much has changed and there are new and better sources out there, it might be better just to build a new draft article and sack this one rather than chase down old references. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some Wikiprojects and tags to help draw in fresh eyes.  A new draft article sounds like a good idea and i'd be happy to contribute to one.  I've created the page and will begin working on it soon, if you want to help contribute to it. Weedwacker (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  FriarTuck1981 (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup may be needed 

message: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/04/something_stinks_about_the_greystone_deal_di_ionno.html Jeremyb (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  demolition and bids for alternative uses 

message: Cullen was sent to Ann Klein Forensic Hospital not GPPH.  Also, the dates he is listed as having been there wouldn't be accurate anyway. 160.93.17.45 (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable patients