Talk:National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Conflict of interest
[edit]As a possible conflict of interest, I'd like to put on record that I (the original author) am the publications editor of the National Treatment Agency. However, I think I've written a fair and balanced article and fulfilled all the referencing requirements of Wikipedia. I have no wish to be closely involved in further editing of this page, unless anything is factually incorrect or the page is vandalised. There is a current debate at present on the merits of harm reduction-based and abstinence-based approaches to treatment – however, I don't think this is the place to do it. If this becomes an issue, I suggest it is used to expand the existing Wikipedia page on methadone maintenance Paul Brookes (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Page edits from Smcg1967
[edit]Smcg1967: Rather than undoing any edits immediately, I'd prefer to highlight the issues relating to your amendments. There is generally a lot of personal conjecture in your edits and virtually no referencing. Remember this is a factual article and also that referencing your own website goes against Wikipedia policies. However, I'm happy to give you time to redo your edits in line with Wikipedia guidelines.
Specifically:
- Mike Ashton's paper you link to cannot really be described as an exposé and isn't relevant to the point you are making. He does question the £3/£1 figure, which would be a valid point. If you wish to do that, please also give a full reference
- Although you are correct to state that the Treatment Effectiveness strategy was unpublished, I don't understand the point you're making and why it's relevant
I'll also add at this point that I'm no longer an NTA employee. Paul Brookes (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Current article
[edit]A lot of information from the original article has been removed. I appreciate this organization no longer exists, but some useful historical information and background has been lost. What's the rationale here? Paul Brookes (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)