User talk:Henrysteinberger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Henrysteinberger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Craigtalbert (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] November 2007

Henry, I deleted a lot of articles for recovery groups that did not meet notability and qualified for speedy deletion. I am a secular humanist and I have no complaint with SMART Recovery's goals or methods. If I were trying to recover from an addiction I very well might seek out this group. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you assume good intent on the part of editors and administrators here at Wikipedia; it makes communication so much smoother and extinguishes potential flames. I will look into the article soon and let you know what needs to be done to recover it. ··coelacan 05:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It turns out the article was considered for undeletion, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 11, but this was declined because it was a copyright violation, a cut and paste of the Smart Recovery website. It'll have to be rewritten from scratch. Before anyone attempts to do so, though, it's necessary to establish whether the organization meets this guideline: Wikipedia:Notability or specifically Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The original article did not. So, has Smart Recovery received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?
As for a wikiproject, you would start at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to suggest it and look for participants. ··coelacan 14:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan - SMART Recovery has been noted in eight SAMHSA publications:


TIP 30, Continuity of Offender Treatment for Substance Use Disorders from Institution to Community TIP 34, Brief Interventions and Brief Therapies for Substance Abuse TIP 40, Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction TIP 43, Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Addiction in Opioid Treatment Programs TIP 44, Substance Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System TIP 47, Substance Abuse: Clinical Issues in Intensive Outpatient Treatment What is Substance Abuse Treatment? A Booklet For Families and the Spanish version, ¿Qué es el Tratamiento para el Abuso de Sustancias? Un Folleto para las Familias. Therapeutic Community Training Curriculum

It is recognized by five major health organizations: ASAM,SAMHSA's Clearinghouse for alcohol & Drug Information, NIDA, Center for Health Care Evaluation and the American Academy of Family Physicians. They have received funding from NIDA to develop training materials and from NIDA to Inflexxion to develop InsideOut, a corrections program based on SMART Recovery.

I could go on and on, but I think I have established the point. SMART Recovery is recognized and cited outside of it's own publications. Further, it has been shown to be equally effective in the Walsh study:Religiosity and participation in mutual-aid support groups for addiction by Randolph G. Atkins, Jr., Ph.D. and James E. Hawdon, Ph.D. published in the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Volume 33, Issue 3, October 2007, Pages 321-331,

the article is now available on-line at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/

So, Craig, please, considering all of this please include the SMART Recovery article with a request for editing, rather than leave it totally deleted until some poor overworked wikipedist has the time to totally rewrite the article from scratch. {[helpme]}Henrysteinberger (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence of SMART Recovery's notability. SMART Recovery is extensively reviewed and used as a prime path to sobriety in Sober for Good: New solutions for drinking problems - advice from those who have succeeded by Anne M. Fletcher from Hiyghton Mifflin, 2001, which was subsequently covered in two weekly reviews by Jane Brody in the New York Times. SMART Recovery is noted in Hester & Miller's Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approachesa: Effective Alternatives 3rd edition, Allyn & Bacon, 2003, and in Managing Addictions: Cognitive, Emotive and Behavioral Techniques by F. M. Bishop, Aronson Press, 2001. I can also list numberous newspaper articles where local papers have covered the start of their local SMART Recovery groups and discussed the merits of the program. SMART Recovery has been presented at numerous yearly gatherings of psychologists and other health care professionals, and corrections officals. How many more citations are needed? It is notable. Henrysteinberger (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: As to editing, I'm more than up for it

Your last edit to Addiction recovery groups hasn't been undone (yet) [1].

The change I undid on that article was because you added a lot of original research, -- like your comment about Rational Recovery, which may be true, but isn't cited.

The thing about notability is that it should be something that's obvious from reading the article -- not from reading a number of talk pages, where you argue it.

So, when you're making changes to an article, you need to cite the source of your statements otherwise it doesn't contribute to the notability and it is what wikipedians call original research. Take, for instance, one of the articles I wrote: GROW.

You'll notice that following a sentence or a set of sentences there are superscripted numbers, these numbers correspond to references to sources that are listed below in the references section. These are meant to indicated to readers and other editors where this information came from. If these were gone, a casual reader would have no way of determining it's notability of the topic by reading the article -- they'd have to go and research it on there own, making the article almost useless. So, to establish the notability and to show that I'm not doing original research, I cite my sources when writing the article.

When you don't do this, it gets wikipedians mad because original research damages our reputation as an encyclopedia. Then the articles get deleted, and edits get undone.

Like I've said before, please edit, but please mind WP:V, WP:N, WP:NPOV, and most importantly WP:NOR.

If you need help with any of the technical aspects, I would be more than happy to oblige you. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Craig - If I were to sort the list at the start of addiction recovery groups using information from the list of twelve-step groups in Wikipedia, would that be original research? Do I have to cite each group back to their web cite to prove that it is or is not a 12-Step group? And similarly cite each web site for the non-12-Step groups? Finally, the term "anonymous" which is 'synonomous' with the 12-Steps (original research) and groups ending their names in -on like Alanon, are clearly drawing on anon short for anonymous, but I can't find that anywhere - though it is an obvious conclusion. How does such a clarification get into an encyclopedia??Henrysteinberger (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the list of the twelve step groups the external link or the link to the article should serve as an appropriate citation for the kind of group it is (e.g. people could look at the article or page for the group and verify this themselves). There are some articles (non-list-like)that are written almost completely like this.
The only thing I object to is the wording that implies all twelve step groups are addiction recovery groups, which is not true. There's also some that are difficult to categorize such as LDS Family Services, which uses the Twelve Steps but not the Twelve Traditions, etc. There's also a question about whether or not compulsive eating is a kind of substance abuse, and the "addiction-ness" of sex and all that. But I'm not really up for a fight at the moment.
Just watch the red links. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Craig - Are you saying I use too many red links? If the wording might imply that all 12-Step groups are addiction recovery groups, I have made a mistake and welcome your correction of that. You are obviously aware that AA (the first such group) and most of its spin offs were addiction recovery groups and that the addition of applying the 12-Steps to almost every conceivable problem that humans face is a recent (and in my opinion unfortunate) phenomenon. But this is not a place for opinions. The facts are likely already in WikiP and I'm just too lazy and uninterested in 12-Step history to do that work. Let some 12-Stepper do it. They have already produced copious verbage on the subject. As to LDS - I didn't want to start another battle, but it should not be listed there at all, unless you are going to list every agency that provides AODA help. It appears to be advertising that was snuck in.I can (but won't bother to) show you several other such groups that the SAMHSA "resources - self-phelp" web site lists which are just local groups that had the time to submit their names to what other wise is a list of national (and so NOTABLE) self-help resources. If it didn't believe that my changes would anger someone or other, I'd do the research and catagorize (with citations)all of the listed groups. It seems only consistent (is there a rule about being CONSISTENT?) to provide a page of any group noted on the list, else they lack noteability and should not be listed at all. Thanks for your feedback. I have not viewed the page yet, but it will be nice to see an undeleted, though perhaps further edited, page when I get there.Henrysteinberger (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not angry. :) The SMART Recovery article is also looking very good.
With the red links, a lot of times what will happen is that they're red because they're using a little different capitalization or other variation than the name of the article. So you need to do something like this [[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytic]]. If there isn't an article for the thing you're trying to wikify, and you can show it's notability, it's usually best not to introduce red links, but just to write a stub. Alternatively you can WP:REQUEST the article. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)