 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Hello, I recently noticed that a good deal of language I had written for this page was deleted, or altered drastically. Much of the edits seemed designed to remove any potentially negative information about the 340B drug discount program. I have replaced a good deal of my content, and reorganized the page in certain areas to clarify those items which are intended to shed light specifically about controversy over the program. My information is fully cited, and I believe should not be removed without justification. I think the page (and all pages) are improved if we are allowed to present all sides of an issue without anyone insisting on a single perspective.
Happy to discuss further, anytime Dc20001 ( talk) 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC).
Thank you for engaging on the talk page. The content removed did not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. An example of this is the section entitled "Impact on Clinical Decision-Making". I see that this was added back to the page. As noted, much of removed text was opinion based and/or related to current controversy over the program. Such content is not appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. WP:RSOPINION I urge those who are editing the article to keep it fact based and cited appropriately.
To review the specific reason for all edits made please view the notes in the article history tab.
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Hello, I recently noticed that a good deal of language I had written for this page was deleted, or altered drastically. Much of the edits seemed designed to remove any potentially negative information about the 340B drug discount program. I have replaced a good deal of my content, and reorganized the page in certain areas to clarify those items which are intended to shed light specifically about controversy over the program. My information is fully cited, and I believe should not be removed without justification. I think the page (and all pages) are improved if we are allowed to present all sides of an issue without anyone insisting on a single perspective.
Happy to discuss further, anytime Dc20001 ( talk) 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC).
Thank you for engaging on the talk page. The content removed did not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. An example of this is the section entitled "Impact on Clinical Decision-Making". I see that this was added back to the page. As noted, much of removed text was opinion based and/or related to current controversy over the program. Such content is not appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. WP:RSOPINION I urge those who are editing the article to keep it fact based and cited appropriately.
To review the specific reason for all edits made please view the notes in the article history tab.