Jump to content

Talk:Community reinforcement approach and family training

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial Editing

[edit]

I am just starting this page. Wish me luck Jcautilli (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well referenced indeed! I think as a Wikipedia article it should be more concise. Having the references there lets people find more info when they want full details. I'll shorten, and eliminate some repetition, trying not to lose any significant information, but I'm unfamiliar with this topic so if when you look at my revisions you think I cut too much, feel free to put back info I should have left in. Thank you for your work. --Egmonster (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Community reinforcement approach and family training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Community reinforcement approach and family training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Anon Relationship

[edit]

There was recently a major edit of the comparison between CRAFT and Al-anon. This section needs significant work. While I don't have time for a thorough review right now, I believe this revision is an improvement to the article. However, I'm tempted to propose that we remove the entire Al-Anon and CRAFT section. While the edits improved coverage of Al-anon's positions, that isn't the topic of this article. This section seems polemical rather than informative. What in two sentences or less is the disagreement between Al-Anon and CRAFT? I urge future editors to be aware that there is a conflict here and edit thoughtfully. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added information in comparison section to make it clear that the Al-Anon and Nar-Anon facilitation thérapies are actually both psychotherapy and not 12 Step Programs. Since this is a therapy article I don’t think the section on the different approaches of Al-Anon and CRAFT makes any sense. One is a professional therapy approach seeking recovery for the addict and the other is a spiritual one that isn’t intended to get the addict into recovery. They specifically have no opinion outside of Al-Anon and therefore don’t oppose CRAFT in theory or practice. Dakinijones (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sondra.kinsey that whole Al-Anon should be deleted from this article it’s still a little WP:COATRACK but also has very few citations and these are almost entirely primary sources. The section reads a lot like WP:OR which is actually contrary to policy (unlike coatrack) So, I’ve added a whole load of [citation needed] tags so that if someone does know of a supporting source for the statements we could at least eliminate that problem. A lot of the problem is a conflation of “CSOs” and “friends and family”. The first is a CRAFT term referring to people close to an alcoholic who want to get them into recovery and the second is an Al-Anon term referring to people who are affected by an alcoholic’s drinking. (As far as I know Al-Anon have never identified friends and family as CSOs) There may be a substantial overlap of the two but I think it’s misleading to the reader to suggest that the two are identical. If sources could be found the Al-Anon section might have a place on Wikipedia but it would make more sense on the Al-Anon page than here. This is about a professional, paid therapy whereas Al-Anon is non-professional, unpaid and basically a self-help group. Critiquing Al-Anon so extensively on CRAFT’s page doesn’t make a lot of sense. Dakinijones (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Community reinforcement approach and family training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of first quote box “overview of CRAFT” or similar

[edit]

Sorry accidentally left out description of edit. Although previous edit note said I was going to delete that quote box and why... and then I accidentally hit publish without deleting! Anyhow, it’s duplicate material of content that’s in body of article (in slightly different form) and relies purely on primary source refs that are actually dead links. So, I’m assuming it won’t be missed in terms of article content. Been trying to get the article in better shape by re-ordering material, adding content and non primary source refs. Also intend to remove material that is either totally irrelevant, tangential to the article title or appears to be WP:OR But since I’m making errors now imma call it done for tonight. Dakinijones (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Al-Anon section, any editor opinions?

[edit]

The question is... bearing in mind the wiki policy WP:OR and also WP:COATRACK as a supporting issue, should the CRAFT article Al-Anon section be deleted ? or possibly moved to a different article such as Al-Anon? or perhaps move material to other sections in this article?

The section entitled Al-Anon has been a matter of concern for editors dating back at least as far as 2016. In 2017 the pre-existing WP:Coatrack tag was removed (by editor sondra.kinsey I believe) after extensive editing on her part to remove the most clearly extraneous material. However she requested future editors handle the matter with care as the section appeared polemical rather than informative and there was obviously a conflict here. She also asked if anyone could state the nature of the disagreement between Al-Anon and CRAFT in two sentences.

I have put a fair bit of effort myself now into trying to improve this article. I have added several sections, moved content, added referenced content, removed a small amount of duplicated content, removed one or two dead links and verified others. I have also added a lot of [citation needed] requests to the Al-Anon section to highlight some of the problems with that section. It is largely unreferenced. Also it conflates the terms “friends and family” with “concerned significant others” which are used by the two parties in different technical senses to my understanding. That conflation in my opinion leads to WP:EXCEPTIONAL and therefore requires exceptionally good references. Where there are citations in this section they are, with the exception of one case, to primary Al-Anon sources followed by a mostly unreferenced section beginning “this answer has three characteristics”. The one reference in this section is to a primary source as evidence that not all medical professions subscribe to the disease view of addiction. Which is a genuine but minority view, however I added to the section a wiki to our article discussing both the majority and minority views of addiction as a disease with appropriate weighting to the opinions that are currently held.

My primary interest here is to improving the article for use by readers. For full disclosure I should acknowledge that I am very familiar with 12 step programs. I have also undertaken academic studies of psychological courses at university as well as attended therapy sessions. Personally I can see the value of both CRAFT and AL-Anon and don’t see why it would be either or.

Which brings me to an answer to sondra.kinsey’s request for a short answer to the disagreement between them. It starts with the alcoholism of Robert Meyer’s father. His mother was depressed - and violent[1] - as a result. She went to Al-Anon and according to Meyer found comfort but she didn’t get what she wanted - his father into recovery and for him to stay sober. See new section “Development of CRAFT” for ref to his statement on this from an intro to a book.

In two sentences: Al-Anon “has no opinion on outside issues” such as CRAFT, so has no disagreement with it. Meyers disagrees with Al-Anon because he felt it failed his family and he was inspired to create CRAFT to do what Al-Anon should have done (but actually don’t aim at doing).

My proposal would be 1. Move section “3. Medical opinion” to another part of this article. It’s not WP:OR and may be relevant to CRAFT 2. Delete the rest of the AL-Anon section since it is either unreferenced WP:OR or has only primary sources despite being WP:EXCEPTIONAL and so contravenes Wikipedia policy.

I think mentioning Al-Anon in this article is warranted but that such mentions should be made as part of the general text and not as a separate section (in the same way as Johnson Intervention is treated, the other approach that research has focussed on comparing CRAFT to) Of course such mentions should be appropriately referenced.

Normally I’d give a longer notice before deletion to give greater opportunity for input from other editors but since this section is, I believe, against policy and involves an unconnected organisation I’m only planning on waiting a month before going ahead with my proposed 2 actions assuming no one has any objections. I am hoping that other editors will make an input into this discussion as I’m not entirely comfortable with the thought of deleting almost a whole section. But in this case, I do think it would be justified and is in fact necessary. Dakinijones (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://motivationandchange.com/craft-interview-bob-meyers/ Meyers Interview

Multiple Issues Box

[edit]

Nearly all of this article is using citations and other information from the founders (esp. Meyers) of this behavioral therapy, and so I sincerely question its neutrality - given it's all self-promo-esque, I went with the peacock tag.

Similarly, when looking through the article to add citations, I noticed most of it is actually just quotes (again, mostly from the founders). Edenaviv5 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Community_reinforcement_approach_and_family_training&oldid=1195299879"