Talk:Moderation Management
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Bias
I agree with Drgitlow's comments and concur in his editorial suggestions. I also question the author's source of the statement that Ms. Kishline's fatal DWI crash occurred, "after leaving MM and joining AA;" that is contrary to news reports at the time. The careful reader of this piece may detect a pro-MM bias which, even if unintentional, should be reduced by expanding the Controversy section.
--pointlessforest 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This page was severly vandalized by someone who refused to sign in or leave his/her name. Further attempts at vandalism will be reported to wikipedia.
Pork chop tze 18:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Froistad
If anyone can demonstrate why the Froistad incident is relevant, I will include a discussion of it. Else it seems no more relevant than prefacing the AA "big book" with the statement "One poor chap committed suicide in my home. He could not, or would not see our way of life." Pork chop tze 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since I added it... It was a major media event, a murder confession in an online mailing list. It doesn't mean a whole lot to MM, but it is significant in its own right. Ronabop 14:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
Regarding this sentence at the end of the first section in the article: Controlled research into controlled drinking programs has conclusively demonstrated that they are far more effective than traditional abstinence based programs.
That sentence is misleading since it presents only one perspective. I have added citations that demonstrate the sentence's inaccuracy.
I propose one of three solutions: a) Leave everything as it is now. b) Take that last paragraph and move it to the Controversy section c) Remove the entire paragraph as irrelevant to the article's overall discussion of MM.
Is there consensus on how to handle this? Drgitlow 18:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More Controversy
Generalizing from her experience to support either point of view would be an unfounded expression of opinion.
[edit] Rewrite Suggested
While edits over the past few months have greatly improved this article, I think that incorporating the findings of an article in the journal "Psychiatric Services" (http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/54/5/621) would help bring this page more up to date.
Before spending any time on this, (and I am not sure when I will find the time), I'd like to be sure that no editors interested in this page would object. And in fact, if one of the current editors wishes to do this, I'd be glad to collaborate. Drienstra 05:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV
I would suggest that the following section lacks NPOV. "Writers who have made such assertions have conveniently neglected the widely reported fact that Kishline was attending AA for months prior to the accident. [1][2] It is also important to note that all other support groups also have "failures". Many prominent members of abstinence-focused groups, as well as some not so prominent ones, have failed to achieve the goal espoused by those groups. Nonetheless, it appears that many people benefit from a variety of support groups. It is also clear that scientific research supports the basic program of MM as an effective one that can be the basis for either a professionaly delivered treatment or a self-help approach."
In the first sentance calling the neglection "conveniently" expresses a POV right off the bat. It makes the following statements that all programs have failures and stating that it is "clear" that "scientific reasearch" supports the basic profram of MM as an "effective one" appear POV, especially without sources. Inseeisyou 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
