Jump to content

Talk:Gamblers Anonymous

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

Notability

[edit]

There are reliable sources discussing Gamblers Anonymous. See [1], [2]. As such, I'm removing the notability template. — Craigtalbert 09:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Removal of Notability Template

[edit]

While I agree that reliable sources have been added, there are still several citations needed, including:

  • The fact that GA started on September 13, 1957 in Los Angeles.
  • The fact that GA members or compulsive gamblers are more likely to have psychological disorders, stress, or higher rates or suicide as referred to in the lead paragraph.
  • The fact that GA is a predominantly male fellowship and that the number of women is increasing.

As such, I am adding a refimprove tag and including where I think citations are needed. — Csuhman 04:31, 5 Dec 2007

You'll notice that there are citations following sets of sentences. This is in keeping with the guidelines in WP:CITE and eliminates unnecessary redundancy. For instance, the first three sentences in the article are supported by the first source, whereas the next four sentences are supported by second source. It's true that we could be excessively pedantic and cite the first footnote and the end of each of the first three sentences, and the second footnote at the end of each of the next four sentences. But that clutters up the article and hurts it's readability. I will be happy to send you the PDFs of any of the articles if you think I'm BSing you. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm satisfied. It was just unclear to me which group of sentences were being supported by each of the footnote citations. Thanks for your contributions. --- Csuhman (talk) 2:34, 5 December 2007

Comment on second paragraph in Effectiveness section

[edit]

NOTE: This was originally posted in the article, moved to talk page.

EDITORS PLS TAKE NOTICE: The above paragraph cites an article of scholarly work but does not correctly link to the reference. Upon inspection of the quoted area of the research, one will notice that the above portion is taken completely out of context. When the scholar writes that members who stopped attending meetings were more likely to consider sharing "meaningless," he is citing another much older piece of scholarly work. In the next paragraph, he goes on to write, "Yet these studies relied upon interviews without accompanying observation of GA meetings, so no detailed account is given of what exactly was dismissed as meaningless. Further, since a solid descriptive base is lacking, we are left with speculative evaluation."

I do not know how to edit this piece correctly, but it is my view that the above paragraphs are completely unsubstantiated and written by someone who 1) did not read the original research article and 2) has never attended a GA meeting.

The full article, which defends GA's record and practices can be found here: http://jgi.camh.net/doi/full/10.4309/jgi.2003.9.9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoapplesandanorange (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for steps of GA - surprised they're not here

[edit]

Came from link Re: alternate wordings of 12 step, which detailed lots of differences in wording for GAs 12 steps but I'm not seeing the list here. Help? DrMel (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikpedia Self-Published Sources

[edit]

@GacmFeb23rd2013: I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but there's too many self-published sources used here. e.g. citing websites affiliated with GA in the article about GA. Articles should rely predominately on reliable sources that are scholarly journals, newspapers, etc. Would you be willing to discuss before re-adding the SPS? Thanks. - Scarpy (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scarpy:I am using GA as the source from their literature. There is not much published on Gamblers Anonymous outside of what GA has written or it's chapters have written about GA to back up GA's practices, methods, steps etc... I'm also copying Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. They use their literature to site what they say. I literally have the AA and NA wiki pages up when updating the GA wiki site. The types of Meetings offered by GA are only stated on the GA website as to format and procedures.
As for symptoms, I stated the 20 questions GA has used for 58+ yrs, and offered other symptoms from NOA, Harvard Medicine, the American Psychiatric Association, and other's yet, that was also taken down.
All the GA literature that I'm using to back up these statements have been used now for 58+ years. Most of it is in pamphlets, and some in books mostly published by GA. For example the 20 questions, date back to almost 60yrs. They appear in the original combo book when it was a 4 page booklet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GacmFeb23rd2013 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GacmFeb23rd2013: I tagged the occurrence of these in the text you've added.[3] I would also suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:PEACOCK and WP:COI, as reading this I'm getting hints that you may have a conflict of interest with Gamblers Anonymous. - Scarpy (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scarpy:My apologies in sounding that way, I have been a member of GA since July 9th 2013 and I'm currently a very active member in Rhode Island. I am actually trying to get all that horrid misinformation about GA from this wiki page. I tried back in 2018 under this name "Gacm792013" and got nowhere. [Gamblers Anonymous (GA)' is an international fellowship of people who have a compulsive gambling problem.] Sound like AA, [Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is an international mutual aid fellowship[1] with the stated purpose of enabling its members to "stay sober and help other alcohol..] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GacmFeb23rd2013 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Things are not notable for articles if they don't have reliable sources about them. Similarly, while GA is obviously notable, the types of meetings they have is relatively trivial, which is revealed by there not being secondary sources talking about them. If the only place that describes some GA-thing is some other GA-thing, then it likely should not be in the article. 2005 (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GacmFeb23rd2013: I like Gamblers Anonymous and want it to have a good Wikipedia article and will help you towards that goal. But please heed the advice of 2005 and these things that I'm linking here you really really really really really need to read: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SPS, WP:COI, WP:PEACOCK and in response to your most recent rebuttals WP:NOTRIGHT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please click and read each of the pages behind these links that start with 'WP:' and get back to us. Otherwise we're just going to have a long back and for where we quote what's in all of these Wikipedia guidelines (and others) back to you. I'm really very serious here, I've been a Wikipedia editor for 14 years and have seen this play out dozens of times in other articles about support groups. Please, please, please, please read those and it will save us all a lot of pain and frustration. - Scarpy (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Scarpy: Thank for all the above info. I did read through it. And yes there is a problem with stating facts from one source and having it toot it's horn. I'm looking for other sources out there and adding those to the GA sources. Stuff like meeting types, I can't seem to find other sources, but think I'll mention AA, NA, OA and other -A's who have similar setups and formats for meetings.
Otherwise, I'm working on it. Just give me some time. I've put out a call for help from other GA members in our meetings. Thanks again for the feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GacmFeb23rd2013 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GacmFeb23rd2013: The problem here is you'd need to find WP:RS saying that GA meetings are similar to AA, NA, and OA. With a few exceptions (like books) the way to go about writing articles isn't "let me see what's in similar articles and add equivalent sections." It's "let me find all of the WP:RS on this topic, and write the article giving it all WP:DUE weight." Sorry to keep throwing this at you, but you may also want to read some help guides on talk pages. Be sure to indent appropriately and sign using ~~~~. (e.g. WP:TALK and WP:TALKPAGE). - Scarpy (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should add some good places to look for WP:RS as it pertains to GA would be Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, books written about Gamblers Anonymous that are not published by organizations affiliated with Gamblers Anonymous and Newspapers -- more or less in that order. I would start there rather than soliciting sources from other GA members (unless they have citations and scans of newspaper clippings covering GA in depth that aren't available from Google Newspapers). - Scarpy (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Scarpy: Thanks. Loads of good books, and other resources.
Will use all. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GacmFeb23rd2013 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)‎[reply]
@GacmFeb23rd2013: please have a look at WP:TALK and WP:TALKPAGE and be sure to sign talk page posts with ~~~~ - Scarpy (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of recent reliable sources

[edit]

In it's current state this article is a mess of self-published sources. I'm adding some references of newer literature to follow up on.

- Scarpy (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamblers_Anonymous&oldid=1242059237"