User talk:Scarpy/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Scarpy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
12-Step Criticism
For example, the SF Chronicle cite you moved back to Alcoholics_Anonymous#Court_mandated_attendance states: "While we in no way denigrate the fine work of (Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous), attendance in their programs may not be coerced by the state." So I'm wondering what makes more sense, duplicate cites in both AA and NA articles. Or put one copy in Twelve-step_program#Criticism and have pertinent articles link to that. That's why I moved it to a central location and planned to put some links in NA pointing there too. Any suggestions to avoid duplication? -Bikinibomb 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I started thinking about it and realized this isn't really a criticism of the programs but of the court system who forces people to go to them, so it doesn't really belong in Criticism. I'll try to find an appropriate substance abuse program page for it (or create a new article about it if I can get enough material) and link AA/NA to it there, thanks. -Bikinibomb 09:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
re: "But you might find other editors will try to keep it in the article as it supports the POV that twelve-step groups are "religious organizations," as many judges have ruled that way." The actual Ninth Circuit ruling which I've cited now says that though AA/NA have religious components they don't consider them to be religions, and the existing cite says they did fine work, so any criticism derived by editors is POV. Since it deals with meetings I put it under the meeting section. -Bikinibomb 11:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Entry "personality disorder"
I entered a balancing comment in this article and you have reverted it without satisfactory (in fact any) explanation. Please explain or undo your revert. Zoroastro 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you mean this edit I removed it because it appeard to be original research. If you can provide a citation, I'll add it back. -- Craigtalbert 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Just as one example of a massive literature see
http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/26/12/443
Zoroastro 09:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- The article you linked to is an editorial, rather than a specific study documenting such a phenomenon. Having another look at the text you added to the article it would be better off as part of a criticism in the DSM-IV article or mental disorder article. But, I said I would restore it if you provided a citation, so I did -- with some rewording to give it an encyclopedic tone. -- Craigtalbert 10:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Response from new user
Well, this is a complicated place so thanks for the welcome. I'll definitely seek your counsel as I get to know a bit more around here. --Ksteveh 14:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Questions regarding my post on NA, and other housekeeping question.
1. Is this the best way to respond when someone posts to my user talk page as you did? Or should I repond directly on my own page?
2. RE: Your comments on my NA edit - The reality is that much of what goes on in a fellowship like NA is not in the literature or any published source. In reference to the issue of prohibition use of the A.A. Big Book within NA, it is something that anyone who has spent time there would know. It is something a chairperson at an NA meeting would know. It is something that is routinely "corrected" at meetings, when someone does speak about that book. One is reminded that the book is not "NA Conference approved literature", or that the book is an "outside issue". Nevertheless, it is a defining factor of some importance, as a key difference between CA and NA, in that NA has its own literature while CA uses AA literature (with the exception of its book of personal stories).
So how do we include this information is there is no written citation? --Ksteveh 15:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Can't seem to add categories
I'm adding them at the end, as indicated. e.g. I add [[Category:]] with the name "Addiction" following the colon, but nothing shows in the preview.--Ksteveh 18:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Preview. Yup. Got that. Thanks. --Ksteveh 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Cocaine Anonymous page
Well, I think we can say this better. What is important is to cite the primary purpose of CA, which is "to stay free from cocaine and all other mind-altering substances." CA World Services website --Ksteveh 06:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
How's this? All other mind altering substances --Ksteveh 16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You won't find an explicit definition, but you will find an implicit one.
What I think is lacking in the article, is that - in spite of the organization’s name - it is NOT primarily a cocaine oriented program, and as such is directly comparable to Narcotics Anonymous, with the very notable exception of methodology. To further explain this would make the article more factually accurate.
Two quotes from the page in question:
• Cocaine Anonymous is not a drug-specific fellowship. • Some of us never even used cocaine. • Some of us used a variety of drugs • Cocaine Anonymous welcomes anyone with a drug or alcohol problem and offers a solution. • C.A.'s Twelve Steps are not drug-specific
Can we not make this clearer in the article?
And as for the implicit definition of mind-altering:
• Our bodies and minds don't know the difference between drugs used for legitimate reasons and drugs used for recreational pleasure.
• Over-the-counter and other legal drugs (such as cough syrups or pain relievers that contain alcohol and/or codeine, diet pills that act as stimulants, and antihistamines that act as depressants) can be just as big of a problem for us as street drugs.
I think we can do better with this article. --Ksteveh 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Adult Children of Alcoholics Page
The entry I entered in Adult children of Alcoholics was a direct quote; and just as opinionated as the doctors symptoms of the behaviors of adult children but I guess thats your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmennell (talk • contribs) 11:52, November 15, 2007 (UTC)
Sexual Compulsives Anonymous
Great work on the rewrite of this article - it's editors like you who make wikipedia the valuable free resource that it is. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For the rewrite of the SCA article. You took on a huge task that no one else wanted to do, and did it well. Great work, and I agree with Fredrick day. — Becksguy (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you, it warms my heart
that you appreciated my few intrusions into Antipsychiatry! Yet, I have my reasons to write anonymously; and I'm afraid I'm found on various IP numbers (not many or much on any), because my computer has no fixed one. But, as I said, your welcome was not wasted for that! /83.253.58.192 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As to editing, I'm more than up for it
but it can be like building a really neat sand castle and having a bully come along and kick it over before anyone has seen it. And as you can see I'm learning the conventions. My last and best worthwhile edit, (I thought) was to the Addiction recovery groups page in which I merely sought to put some order to the alphabetical listing of 12-step and non-12-step groups. Considering that so many of them are 12-step and people don't always know which are which since they don't always say "anonymous" in their title. I sorted them and it was immediately undone. I'd do it again if I knew how to hold the change until it was reviewed by more than one cruising editor or if I at least knew how to raise the discussion of my change so that it was not immediately deleted. This could be the start of something for me. I have a lot of expertise in AODA work as you can tell from my credentials posted on my talk page (hopefully that's OK??).Henrysteinberger (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Stryker article
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Stryker (disc jockey), you will be blocked from editing. JacksonBR 05:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hay
thank you for helping me out with that message earlier this morning. I didn't really know what to do, as you pointed out I am relitivly new at this, but I do want to take an active role in Wikipedia. That beeing said, I believe we are on the same page and hope that we are working together. I would appriciate any help you can give me in navigating the role of a Wiki editor. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I will take you up on your offer to help. I am about to engage in some major rewrites on the Exorcism page in an attempt to make it a worthwile article. the discussion section isn't very active, however I can see that several editiors have been making minor changes fairly activly. Demon possesion and Exorcism are hobbies of mine (strange I know) and I have the resorces to do this project. The question is...what can you tell me that may make this a good experience. I am up to date (I think) on the guidelines, however I know that there are things that are about to happen that I have not forseen. any advise will be appriciated.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I do appriciate it. I look forward to our...um collaberative (in a very loose sence of the word)? work. hope you like the paranormal...although judging from your edits you are more of a down to earth person.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I have been in paper hell for the last few weeks and have APA on the brain.Coffeepusher 05:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
(humorous aside:)On the note that you just wrote on the AA talk, this was my responce (which really is supposed to be funny)...I am in scholarly article hell...I can't wait to get to the day when I can research AA stuff...oh beautiful day, when my time becomes my own and not some egotistical academics who happened to write something that pissed a bunch of other academics off so they make all their friends read it...and before you know it, it is required reading for some subject just so everyone knows what arguments have already been used... that was my response...and I am giggling a lot (and I died a little inside)Coffeepusher (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem that I was hoping you could help me out with. I seem to have gotten into MrAlberts bad graces on the Bill W. page because I questioned the validity of his adding of "other woman" to the page...and then I took it off because of a lack of responce. currently he is going to report me for vandalism (which won't stick, so I am not worried about it) but I need to know how to resolve the situation. I know you have delt with him in the past...and that you have experience with this thing.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
organization cats
Hi Craigtalbert -- You're putting a bunch of categories back on articles that I took off. All those categories are now on the Category:Addiction and substance abuse organizations, so it just helps to clean up each of those individual categories. This leads to redundant categorization, and category clutter on articles. Have you looked at the Category:Addiction and substance abuse organizations ? --Lquilter (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Flame ups
It amazes me how heated people can get on line. funny, when I started editing wikipedia's AA page the first thing that happened was a 3 day flame war with mrchristopher. AA does that to you, and it was over little things. I will try and be calm, as long as you biteme when I am unreasonable...deal.
somthing I thought of...and thought I should show you. does this look familiar Fred04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) The Library04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Mr.Miles04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
he has been doing alot of extra signitures lately on the bill wilson page, and I havn't figured out why untill I noticed he had a different name in front of them. mabie he is trying to do this: Craigtalbert04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) or MisterAlbert04:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I won't do it ever...but somthing I thought of. Coffeepusher (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Public sphere
Craig,
I am asking you and another editor to look at a project I am working on, and tell me if it makes sence so far.
I have been editing the Public Sphere for a little while now, and it is heading into a direction that I am happy with, I am about half way through with what I want to do. My problem is that it is a highly specialised page, and that I seem to be the only one editing it (outside of typo correction). It reads well for me, but then again I know the topic matter.
I was wondering if you would be able to look at what I have so far (through the Counterpublic section) and tell me if it makes sence. I am looking for someone who has no experience with public sphere theory, because if the page sounds like gobily gook to them...its a poorly writen page. if you have the time, look it over and tell me what makes sence, and what questions you have about public sphere theory. this would greatly help me in my future edits to the page. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:Verifiability and the matter of Research Results vs. Revealed Truth
Hi. Thanks for your dedication to articles on various self-help groups. I don't want to get into a revert war with you, but I believe you are misinterpreting that policy of "truth" vs. "verifiability."
To summarize our exchange in edit summaries at Self-help groups for mental health:
- I qualified statements about research results by inserting wording such as "research indicates that" and by changing "Self-help groups are effective..." to "Self-help groups have been found to be effective..."
- You reverted those additions, saying "citations show that what 'research indicates.'"
- I said: "Restoring language that states these are research findings; real scientists do not represent the results of single experiments and studies as revealed truth."
- You said: "wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability, this is what the studies say."
As I said above, I believe you are misinterpreting that policy of "truth" vs. "verifiability." WP:RS says "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." Note that the authors of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals do not represent their findings in terms of "This is what is," they present them in terms of "This is what we did and this is what we think the results mean." To avoid misleading readers, when Wikipedia describes a research finding, it needs to be represented as such. When researchers' conclusions based on study results are described in a WP article as if those conclusions were facts, the source does not directly support the information presented in the article.
I have not reviewed all of the sources in that article (I lack access to many of them), but I have consulted some of them, and I know that the academic literature does not present findings in the kinds of absolute terms that are used in some sentences in the article.
For example, Kyrouz et al. (reference 23 in that article) stated "Most research studies of self-help groups have found important benefits of participation" and "Many studies have demonstrated that if the current members of any self-help group are surveyed at any given time, the members will respond positively about the group and say that it helps them." They did not say what is said in the article in the first sentence under "Effectiveness," namely that "Self-help groups are effective for helping people cope with, and recover from, a wide variety of problems." IMO, that statement in the article does not accurately represent the information as it is presented in the source. Accordingly, I changed the wording in that sentence to "Self-help groups have been found to be effective..." The wording in the rest of that paragraph, such as "Participation in self-help groups for mental health is correlated with..." is more appropriate to the claims made, in that it describes the evidence that was the basis for a conclusion. It's the first sentence in the paragraph that I find to be misleading.
I had similar concerns with other paragraph intros, and I edited the ones that bothered me the most:
- "If self-help groups are not affiliated with a national organization, professional involvement increases their life expectancy." (That's a conclusion based on analysis of data, and should not be worded as if it were a "true fact".)
- "Professional referrals to self-help groups for mental health are less effective than arranging for prospective self-help members to meet with veterans of the self-help group. This is true even when compared to referrals from professionals familiar with the self-help group when referring clients to it." (I am particularly bothered by this one, as it includes the statement "this is true," which conveys a tone of authority that I am sure is not supported by the research paper that is cited. I would bet that the paper, which I have not seen, represents the findings as a valid correlation, not as a true fact.)
--Orlady (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a copyediting issue or a matter of adding extraneous or redundant words, as your reply on my talk page suggested. It's also not a matter of weasel words. It's an issue of accurately conveying what the cited sources actually say. (I wish I had access to the articles....) --Orlady (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)