Talk:Partnership to End Addiction

A departure from standard PSA advertising
I am confused by this section. what is it trying to say? considering deleting it because I really cant tell. It seems to be trying to explain why it was created? I think the title of the section may have been recently added haphazardly. Sydpresscott (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted section
I cleared this section titled "A departure from standard psa advertising.' The title is unrelated to the text and there is already a section for the history of the company. I cant think of where else to put this information as it seems a bit irrelevant and the smoking information is already in an image box, and the end section is completely unsourced. Seemed a bit pov.

The 1960s and 1970s had been turbulent years, marked by wider acceptance of drugs than in previous decades, as well as a consumer culture encouraged by advertising in mass media. There had been sporadic efforts by anti-smoking groups to discourage cigarette smoking, and tobacco company executives learned that sales would decline overall if pro-smoking ads were shown in the same proportions as anti-smoking ads. In the 1980s, the nation faced a serious problem with substance use. At the time the Partnership was created, the nation was in the throes of the crack cocaine epidemic. Sydpresscott (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

35 citations of same source
I just combined citations to Pamela Warrick's 1996 L.A. Times piece, "Can You Just Say No?" It's cited a total of 35 times in this article which seems excessive to me, but I'm not sure exactly how to address that. Editor B (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Criticisms and controversies
Under criticisms, there is a section about how The Partnership is funded by google yet doesnt mention screen addiction on their website and that this is a conflict of interest. This doesnt really make sense, as TPTEA has never claimed to be an all encompassing list for all addictions that exist. I am going to clear the section, but I will paste it here in case anyone disagrees/argues for its inclusion. Sydpresscott (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey - I'd like this section reinstated? How would we go about doing that? Transporting (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I explained my reasoning here, but the remaining content of criticisms/controversies is embedded in the article, as per WP:POVSPLIT. I am all for this information being neutrally imbedded in the article somehow, just not as a “controversy,” because we don't know that the intention of the google funding was “distraction,” and its not neutral. @Transporting Sydpresscott (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The comments about Google are written in neutral language- I was adding emphasis because you suggested that "TPTEA has never claimed to be an all encompassing list for all addictions that exist." which wasn't what the statements suggested and was only one potential interpretation that was somewhat abstract.
 * Removing the section on criticism makes it extremely difficult to find these more negative comments about the organisation within the enormous sea of other celebratory text. It makes sense that these comments would go in their own section:
 * PDFA was the subject of criticism when it was revealed by Cynthia Cotts of The Village Voice that their federal tax returns showed that they had received several million dollars worth of funding from major pharmaceutical, tobacco and alcohol corporations including American Brands (Jim Beam whiskey), Philip Morris (Marlboro and Virginia Slims cigarettes, Miller beer), Anheuser Busch (Budweiser, Michelob, Busch beer), R.J. Reynolds (Camel, Salem, Winston cigarettes), as well as pharmaceutical firms Bristol Meyers-Squibb, Merck & Company and Procter & Gamble. In 1997, it discontinued any direct fiscal association with tobacco and alcohol suppliers, although it still receives donations from pharmaceutical companies. There has been criticism that some of its PSAs have had "little proven effect on drug use."
 * Regardless of this separation from some funding sources, PDFA has continued to receive criticism for intentionally misleading the public in relation to substance abuse. A 2013 article on Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice describes PDFA has, "...always felt free to lie — blatantly, openly, stupidly — about drugs. In fact, lying to obscure the realities of drug abuse in order to protect powerful interests and constituencies is the reason the Partnership exists.". The article continues, "The Partnership is the latest in America's long history of phony lobbies — the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is the White House branch — that revel in misinformation and misdirected policies that perpetuate the social crises they claim to be attacking because they tacitly profit from making them worse." Transporting (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Read the WP:POVSPLIT article I linked. Its not “celebratory text” it is information about the company in chronological order, which is standard for wikipedia. If you want to add more criticisms that were brought to light when the company began earlier in the article, feel free to do so, but I removed the pov fork and ordered the article chronologically, because that is a wikipedia guideline. The comments about google arent neutral, even if they are written in neutral language, because it is drawing a conclusion. If you can find an appropriate source that makes such a connection, feel free to add a quote from such a source and cite it properly, or rewrite it so it contains simply the factual information “the partnership recieves funding from google etc.” I understand why you think that might make sense, and criticisms and controversies sections appear on some older articles, but they give undue weight. WP:UNDUE Please just look at the linked pages before you respond again. Sydpresscott (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOCRIT is what i meant to link. Sydpresscott (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah thanks I found the second one helpful, the first one was a bit confusing, I had looked at it but wasn't sure how to connect it. I'm learning about the expectations. I now understand that there should not be a section specifically on criticism or controversy. What about a section on Funding? There's also the option of having a section on Responses? The chronology is a bit confusing - in "current approaches" there's a statement about receiving $55 million in funding - but the referenced article is from 2007 and relates to the org of two name changes ago. Yet the statement from 2013 is included in the section from the 2000's. I haven't done a deep dive but I can look more closely if we wish.
 * I don't feel that the statement about Google draws any conclusions. It just states facts about money being received from an organisation. Stating that organisation has been accused of intentionally manifesting addiction seems like common sense, it's the same as the tobacco industry and also the pharmaceutical industry, both of whom have also been funders and those statements are already in the article. If I understand, what you are saying is that someone would need to write a referencable article about this point, and then that could be shared? As it is, combining the information together in this way starts to make the argument within the Wikipedia article and that's not OK.
 * You've obviously done a lot of great work on the page and it's definitely more concise now so I don't mean to dismiss that. And I can see there's guidelines I wasn't aware and you have more knowledge about so apologies again for that. Transporting (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, youre right on the nose about not combining the info and the need to find a reference-able article. Ideally, sources will be self proving and just stating the known facts will be enough, without providing the conclusion the reader will probably come to on their own. A separate section about funding could work, im just trying to avoid making an argument or “stance” within the article, as you said. I dont think a responses section would be neutral, but maybe something similar, like reception, public image or impact/cultural impact with statistics. Thank you for saying that! I do agree that more “critical” information could be appropriate on this page, considering how big and relevant the company once was before it kinda did a 180 in the 2000s as its public image dwindled/its hypocrisy was more revealed. Its hard to find a way to portray that neutrally, and its a topic that is kind of lacking recent interest. I encourage you to edit and WP:JUSTDOIT :) Feel free to ping me if you have other questions/suggestions, as I frequently check this page for ideas about improvement. Sydpresscott (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome - sure I'll play around with it when I get some time - might be a few months. Thanks :) Transporting (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

1. it seems like you deleted the entire section on criticism and controversy? This included a lot of other concerns about the organisation in addition to Google funding.
 * 2. I'm not sure why you would think that Google funding an organisation to focus on addiction to drugs as a distraction from the addiction that they are intentionally manifesting is irrelevant.

At the current time the Legal Director of Google sits on the Board of Directors of the Partnership to End Addiction. Google are listed as a "Fundraising Champion," which means they donate between $100,000 - $249,000. There have been reports of Google and other social media companies intentionally manifesting screen time addiction. The Partnership make no mention of screen time addiction on their website, the entire focus is on substance abuse.

Inaccuracy of name-change lineage
Zblockattoendaddictiondotorg (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Specific text to be added or removed: Please remove the sentence "Partnership to End Addiction, first known as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) then later as the Partnership at DrugFree.org, and The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, is a New York City-based non-profit organization which runs campaigns to prevent teenage drug and alcohol use in the United States." and replace it with "Partnership to End Addiction is a national nonprofit headquartered in New York that was born out of a strategic partnership between two nonprofit organizations with experience in substance use disorder. The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (formerly Partnership for Drug-Free America) and The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse merged in 2019.
 * Reason for the change: It is factually inaccurate to state that “Partnership to End Addiction, [was] first known as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) then later as the Partnership at DrugFree.org, and The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids” since this implies a continuity that is not there: in other words, Partnership to End Addiction not merely the latest name change for an organization formerly known by various names, it is in fact the name of a merger between The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (formerly Partnership for Drug-Free America) and The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse merged in 2019.
 * References supporting change: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/center-on-addiction-changes-name-to-partnership-to-end-addiction-and-launches-new-website-301089239.html


 * The lineage as described in the requested prose is not confirmed by the source provided (the source does not provide a lineage, only describing "Center on Addiction has changed its name to Partnership to End Addiction. In tandem, it has launched a new brand identity and redesigned website at drugfree.org. The changes are part of an evolution following the 2019 merger of two distinguished leaders in the substance addiction space"). As far as I can see, the source does not go on to mention who these two " distinguished leaders in the substance addiction space" were. If this is not correct, please advise, taking care to make use of the quote parameter to give the verbatim text from the source. Please add this new information in a new edit request below this reply post. Regards, Spintendo  22:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request
Specific text to be added or removed: Please remove the sentence "Partnership to End Addiction, first known as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) then later as the Partnership at DrugFree.org, and The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, is a New York City-based non-profit organization which runs campaigns to prevent teenage drug and alcohol use in the United States." and replace it with "Partnership to End Addiction is a national nonprofit headquartered in New York that was born out of a strategic partnership between two nonprofit organizations with experience in substance use disorder. The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (formerly Partnership for Drug-Free America) and The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse merged in 2019.

Reason for the change: It is factually inaccurate to state that “Partnership to End Addiction, [was] first known as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) then later as the Partnership at DrugFree.org, and The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids” since this implies a continuity that is not there: in other words, Partnership to End Addiction not merely the latest name change for an organization formerly known by various names, it is in fact the name of a merger between The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (formerly Partnership for Drug-Free America) and The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse merged in 2019.

References supporting change: https://drugfree.org/article/our-history/ https://drugfree.org/newsroom/news-item/partnership-for-drug-free-kids-and-center-on-addiction-announce-merger-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zblockattoendaddictiondotorg (talk • contribs) 21:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I had previously asked for the COI editor to provide the text from the proposed source that confirmed the information that the editor is requesting to replace. They were asked to provide that information under a quote parameter of the citation template. They have not provided that text. Further edit requests discussing this particular topic should provide the text from the proposed source which confirms the replacement of text. Furthermore, the COI editor is asked to remember to sign all talk page posts. Regards, Spintendo  18:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request
Specific text to be added or removed: Please remove the sentence "Partnership to End Addiction, first known as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) then later as the Partnership at DrugFree.org, and The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, is a New York City-based non-profit organization which runs campaigns to prevent teenage drug and alcohol use in the United States." and replace it with "Partnership to End Addiction is a national nonprofit headquartered in New York that was born out of a strategic partnership between two nonprofit organizations with experience in substance use disorder. The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (formerly Partnership for Drug-Free America) and The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse merged in 2019.

Reason for the change: It is factually inaccurate to state that “Partnership to End Addiction, [was] first known as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) then later as the Partnership at DrugFree.org, and The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids” since this implies a continuity that is not there: in other words, Partnership to End Addiction not merely the latest name change for an organization formerly known by various names, it is in fact the name of a merger between The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (formerly Partnership for Drug-Free America) and The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse merged in 2019.

References supporting change:

Zblockattoendaddictiondotorg (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The requested text "born out of a strategic partnership is not acceptable. I suggest you revise your request to use less jargon-y type terms ("strategic partnership"). Regards, Spintendo  20:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request
Specific text to be added or removed: Please remove the sentence "Partnership to End Addiction, first known as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) then later as the Partnership at DrugFree.org, and The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, is a New York City-based non-profit organization which runs campaigns to prevent teenage drug and alcohol use in the United States." and replace it with "Partnership to End Addiction is a national nonprofit, headquartered in New York, that was born out of a merger between two addiction-focused nonprofit organizations: The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (formerly Partnership for Drug-Free America) and The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse."

Reason for the change: It is factually inaccurate to state that “Partnership to End Addiction, [was] first known as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) then later as the Partnership at DrugFree.org, and The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids” since this implies a continuity that is not there: in other words, Partnership to End Addiction not merely the latest name change for an organization formerly known by various names, it is in fact the name of a merger between The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (formerly Partnership for Drug-Free America) and The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse merged in 2019.

References supporting change:

Zblockattoendaddictiondotorg (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To better foster reader comprehension of this detailed lineage, it would help if the dates that these organizations existed were appended next to their mentioning in the lead section in a year-to-year format.
 * If they agree to this construction, I leave it to the COI editor to enter the dates as appropriate and submit the text under a new edit request below this reply post. Be sure to alter the request template's answer parameter to read from y to n when ready to proceed. Regards, Spintendo  00:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If they agree to this construction, I leave it to the COI editor to enter the dates as appropriate and submit the text under a new edit request below this reply post. Be sure to alter the request template's answer parameter to read from y to n when ready to proceed. Regards, Spintendo  00:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request
Specific text to be added or removed: Please remove the sentence "Partnership to End Addiction, first known as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) then later as the Partnership at DrugFree.org, and The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, is a New York City-based non-profit organization which runs campaigns to prevent teenage drug and alcohol use in the United States." and replace it with "Partnership to End Addiction is a national nonprofit, headquartered in New York. The organization was formed following the merger of two addiction-focused nonprofit organizations: The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (2014–2019) and the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (1992–2019). The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids was previously known as the Partnership for Drug-Free America (1985–2010)."

Reason for the change: It is factually inaccurate to state that “Partnership to End Addiction, [was] first known as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) then later as the Partnership at DrugFree.org, and The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids” since this implies a continuity that is not there: in other words, Partnership to End Addiction not merely the latest name change for an organization formerly known by various names, it is in fact the name of a merger between The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (formerly Partnership for Drug-Free America) and The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse merged in 2019.

References supporting change:

Zblockattoendaddictiondotorg (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spintendo  03:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox edit request
Specific text to be added or removed: Formerly called Partnership for a Drug-Free America (1985–2010) Partnership at DrugFree.org (2010–2014) Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (2014–2020) Reason for the change: Partnership to End Addiction is not the latest name change of the organization, name lineage explained in first paragraph of wiki. References supporting change:

Zblockattoendaddictiondotorg (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Reply 16-OCT-2023
Regards, Spintendo  23:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is presumed that the requested change is that the infobox's former name parameter be removed (as no other directions have been provided with the request). As the organization claims this particular lineage (through the supplied reference) it is not unreasonable to mention these former organizations as "former names". Additionally, no other parameter name was suggested as a replacement. The COI editor is asked to peruse the Infobox organization template's labeling parameters for additional information.

Research table
i removed the research section/table that simply includes lists of research, as i couldnt find a way to fit this into the article. maybe this data would fit more into an article about attitudes about drug use, but this isnt about the partnership for a drug free america from what i can tell, its just the results of studies conducted by them. ive included the chart below if anyone disagrees

Research findings
The Partnership conducts longitudinal studies to assess attitudes towards drugs and alcohol. Sydpresscott (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)