User talk:71.82.198.122: Difference between revisions
SkylabField (talk | contribs) Please let us know which studies are missing in Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous. |
SkylabField (talk | contribs) Thank you again for your contributions, but please follow Wikipedia etiquette. Discuss content, not editors. |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Please let us know which studies are missing in [[Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous]]. I welcome more informed research on this very controversial topic. But I want to see real research, not just polemical assertions without evidence to back them up and personal attacks against other editors. Please use [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and summarize studies (put more emphasis on recent studies, as per [[WP:MEDDATE]]) which you feel are more neutral. [[User:Defendingaa|Defendingaa]] ([[User talk:Defendingaa|talk]]) 17:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC) |
Please let us know which studies are missing in [[Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous]]. I welcome more informed research on this very controversial topic. But I want to see real research, not just polemical assertions without evidence to back them up and personal attacks against other editors. Please use [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and summarize studies (put more emphasis on recent studies, as per [[WP:MEDDATE]]) which you feel are more neutral. [[User:Defendingaa|Defendingaa]] ([[User talk:Defendingaa|talk]]) 17:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
Thank you, again, for your contributions to [[Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous]], and I want you to know you are welcome to make positive contributions to the Wikipedia. Please be aware that [[WP:EXPERT|professional credentials do not matter here]] and that [[WP:NPA|it’s important to talk about the content, not about fellow editors]]. I encourage you to discuss specific issues with the content of the article. Are there studies were are overlooking? Are we misrepresenting any studies out there? If there is original content in the article, where is it, so we can address it? But, the fact of the matter is this: “[https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2014/04/07/defense-12-step-addiction For the past several years, the addiction research field has moved beyond asking whether AA and 12-step treatment works, to investigating how and why they work]”. This in mind, I am removing the NPOV tag again; please, if you wish to put it back, please discuss exactly which specific ''content'' of the article is not neutral, instead of talking about the editors editing the article. Principles before personalities. |
Revision as of 18:00, 25 May 2019
Please let us know which studies are missing in Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous. I welcome more informed research on this very controversial topic. But I want to see real research, not just polemical assertions without evidence to back them up and personal attacks against other editors. Please use reliable sources and summarize studies (put more emphasis on recent studies, as per WP:MEDDATE) which you feel are more neutral. Defendingaa (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, again, for your contributions to Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous, and I want you to know you are welcome to make positive contributions to the Wikipedia. Please be aware that professional credentials do not matter here and that it’s important to talk about the content, not about fellow editors. I encourage you to discuss specific issues with the content of the article. Are there studies were are overlooking? Are we misrepresenting any studies out there? If there is original content in the article, where is it, so we can address it? But, the fact of the matter is this: “For the past several years, the addiction research field has moved beyond asking whether AA and 12-step treatment works, to investigating how and why they work”. This in mind, I am removing the NPOV tag again; please, if you wish to put it back, please discuss exactly which specific content of the article is not neutral, instead of talking about the editors editing the article. Principles before personalities.