Talk:Drug addiction recovery groups/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

November 2007

Rational Recovery, while a fantastic idea (I love their books) is NOT an addiction recovery group and indeed it's owner, Jack Trimpey, who started RR as a network of such free self-help groups, now espouses that all such groups are harmful (though I would note that he started attacking them when they became competition for his new for-profit interprise, leading to the spin off of SMART Recovery.Henrysteinberger (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose a Wikiproject on Addiction Recovery Groups such that all the groups have articles covering them. I believe that they are all notable.Henrysteinberger (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the comment I left for you on the Rational Recovery talk page? Most such groups are probably notable, but it's not a matter of opinion as much as it is a matter of the number of reliable sources documenting them. There is information on starting wikiprojects here.

At any rate, please take care when editing articles. They're not the place for comments for original research. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to sort the alphabetic list into 12-step and non-12-step groups because that will help people see one of the major differences between the groups and I'd also note the research (Atkins, RG & Hawdon, JE "Religiousity and participation in mutual-aid support groups for addiction" Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, V. 33 Issue 3, Oct. 2007, pp 321-331) that makes clear the importance (notability) of the difference between spiritually (religiously) based groups and secular groups. Before I go to the bother of redoing and losing my edit again, is there a way to restore my edit or have it reviewed??Henrysteinberger (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Please note that I have dropped RR from the list. As I noted, and as anyone can verify using Wikipedia's own Rational Recovery page, RR does not has ANY "Self-Help Groups" and as a matter of fact and accuracy they Jack Trimpey eschues the use of groups, and so should not be included on a page entitled: Addiction Recovery Groups. Perhaps if there were an article about non-group methods, then RR would be the first entry, but it is not accurate to keep them listed here (unless one is advertising RR, which is definitely something good for a for-profit group like RR). Henrysteinberger (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If the page were called: "Addiction recovery approaches" then RR could be included, but on the RR page it says:

"RR claims that "AVRT has made recovery groups obsolete."[4] In 1998, RR announced, "The Recovery Group Movement is Over!...Beginning January 1, 1999, all addiction recovery group meetings (AA, NA, CA, SOS, WFS, ADASN [aka, SMART], AAARG, MM, JACS, Al-Anon, AlaTeen, SLAA, etc.) in the United States and Canada are cancelled and will not be rescheduled."[5]" Thus it is clear that RR eschuse groups and cannot logically be included on a page that is entitled: "Addiction Recovery Groups". This does not require a citation. Non-inclusion of material does not require a cite. Logic dictates not putting in heading "Twelve-Step Groups" implies that all 12-step groups are for addiciton recovery. I'd argue (and argue) not. It just shows which of the groups listed use the 12-steps (if not the 12-traditions), and which do not. Inclusion does IMPLY that groups are offered.Henrysteinberger (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If "groups" means addiction recovery organizations that in some form facilitate support group meetings, then you'd be right. If "groups" means a collection of people providing addiction recovery resources (my understanding of the title), then RR belongs on the list. You have to admit you have a bit of WP:COI here. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

1. what's WP:COI? 2. if you keep RR, then you/we should be adding all of the "resources" avialable for AODA (and change the name so it does not clearly imply groups - most folks think groups refers to groups meetings for addiction recovery, not groups which would include the Wisconsin Clearinghouse for AODA Information, NIAAA, NIDA, SAMHSA, etc. etc. It would not fit and would not be worth printing.

3. If we keep: * LDS Family Services Addiction Recovery Program [1] then we should be including all the churches with national charitable foundations that offer AODA and related and unrelated services. Check out that web site and you'll see that it does not fit. It is not offering Addiction Recovery Groups or even a particular program. If there are organizations that offer help but not via ADDICTION RECOVERY GROUPS then we should have (if anytone cares enough to belabor what can be found anywhere but not usually in an encyclopidia - maybe an almanac)a "list" of organizations that ... maybe you want to consult the Book of Lists?? This that ain't. So, how about we stay with a narrow clean focus and include only the ones that offer "addiction recovery groups" that are free and open to the public (or you'll be listing every group therapy provider in the country and the world) = stick to what most people understand the words to mean. OK? Henrysteinberger (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

When words are in blue text and underlined on wikipedia (like this: WP:COI) that usually means you can use your mouse to point at them, and then press the button on your mouse to take you to a new page represented by the blue underlined text (also known as a link).

At any rate, I see what you're trying to say. It may be worth separating this in to two articles: e.g. one called "self-help groups for addiction recovery" (or maybe replacing self-help with mutual-help or mutual-aid), and maybe another that's something like "institutions supporting addiction recovery." -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel wonderfully understood. I agree with your solution, but lack the time and expertise to do the work, especially the second on institutions, though I could give someone the leads (I have a huge file just for alcohol, but all in hard copy)/ As to the what to call it, is there a way to stay with what we have and qualify it with alternatives in the text e.g. also called: mutual self-help" "mutual-support and self-help" but I think folks going to these groups are helping themselves so they'd understand it as that, though there is definitely an element of mutual-support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrysteinberger (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Creating the pages is easy, you could just click on Addiction recovery institutions. Renaming this article to Mutual self-help addiction recovery groups is probably a good compromise. An admin can do that if you ask them. The only thing is that I don't enough WP:RS to write the Addiction recovery institutions article. If you can start on that, I will see about getting this one renamed. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

February 2008

Hello techies,

I am still learning how to do all this stuff but in the meantime could some place a link onto LifeRing, under Non-Twelve-Step groups, so that you can just click on LifeRing and it takes you right to the website which is www.unhooked.com. I realize there is a link beside it but it would be better (like some of the others) if you can click right on it.

I would do it myself but I am afraid I might mess things up.

Cheers,

Michael Walsh Victoria, Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.241.86 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Online Recovery

I emailed wayback(at)archive.org to see what happened to their archives of http://www.onlinerecovery.org/alt/ and http://www.onlinerecovery.org/12/ . They were working, but now give a "failed connection." -- Scarpy (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul Hickman at Internet Archive wrote back to me and said they were having server problems at the the pages would be back up again as quickly as possible. I link is fine marked as dead in anticipation that it will be back up again soon, but I won't object if anyone removes it. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison

This is a very interesting table. It's not really sourced, but is the kind of thing I would like to see supported by reliable sources in this article. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"For mutual aid association to function effectively as a recovering community, there must be many groups, frequent meetings, and diverse activities. Only 12-step fellowships have achieved the critical mass of groups and membership to make a recovering community possible. There are 100 more AA meetings in Toledo, Ohio, in 1 week, for example, than there are Women for Sobriety groups worldwide." -- Linda Kurtz

Hrmm... -- Scarpy (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A section on "necessity of peer-support" and "dual membership" in twelve-step and non-twelve-step groups would have enough reliable sources to support it. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Temperance vs. Addiction vs. Moderation

I removed International Organisation of Good Templars. It's more of a temperance organization that an addiction recovery group (and there's all ready a list of them). I'm also thinking DrinkWise and Moderation Management don't really belong in this article, or that there should be a foor-note explaining their presence on the list. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

DrinkWise

I've been reading a bit about DrinkWise, it is an educational program/campaign, not an kind of recovery or harm reduction group. In this way it's more similar to Rational Recovery than it is to Moderation Management or Alcoholics Anonymous. Good summary is here: [2]. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Page hits this month

To get an idea of what articles we could be working on.

• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Alcoholics_Anonymous - 21878
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Cocaine_Anonymous - 469
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Crystal_Meth_Anonymous - 1413
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Marijuana_Anonymous - 891
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Nicotine_Anonymous - 588
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Narcotics_Anonymous - 4641
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/LifeRing_Secular_Recovery - 471
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Moderation_Management - 825
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Narconon - 4784
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Pagans_In_Recovery - 449
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Secular_Organizations_for_Sobriety - 333
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/SMART_Recovery - 891
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Women_for_Sobriety - 13 (even without an article!)
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/List_of_twelve-step_groups - 3738
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Self-help_groups_for_mental_health - 1433
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Temperance_movement - 15631
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Twelve-step_program - 29254
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Rational_Recovery - 1124
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Addiction_recovery_groups - 1397

-- Scarpy (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2009

In regards to the manner in which the Referrals section is written, it appears to point more to clinicians not believing in CBT methods, and really doesn't follow the reference article, of which an excerpt I have included below...

"Clinicians in the 12-Step subgroup were more likely than those in the Diversity subgroup to be unfamiliar with alternatives to 12-Step programs and to believe less strongly in the effectiveness of CBT and PSY. A logistic regression found beliefs about CBT effectiveness and clinician preference for the 12-Step model to be related to the likelihood of referring exclusively to 12-Step groups. Findings suggest that clinicians could benefit from information and training on assessing and referring clients to various options for continuing care."

The reference points more to the problems associated with ignorance, the section of this article points more to belief, which could be construed as experience. I believe this is misleading. Oldefarquer (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to keep the peace by not doing an edit before investigating that someone might strongly disagree with it. Oldefarquer (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Aversion to Reversion

I had thought this respected media documentary to be relevant to the article.

• "The Spirituality of Addiction and Recovery", Speaking of Faith, Public Radio program, May 15, 2008, American Public Media

However, User:Scarpy, without discussion, reverted it out under WP:EL. I still think it deserves merit. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

its placement alone under a subsection provides undue weight of a non-notable documentary (that has not produced any secondary sources). why is this link so important to you? you have placed the same link under numerous articles in 3 different formats without modifying the content of the article otherwise.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

that radio show originally aired in 2006, more than enough time for secondary sources to pick it up.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We disagree, although I read your points. The documentary is -- as you queried "why is this link so important to you?" -- in my opinion, is an excellent, useful, encompassing, conscientious, and from well-respected sources. But there is other work to do. Enough. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to this on my talk page. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)