Wikipedia

Talk:Crystal Meth Anonymous/Archive 1

< Talk:Crystal Meth Anonymous
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Demographics

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

CMA is not a predominately-gay fellowship. All of this talk about that violates the Fifth Tradition and is an outside issue. Please be mindful of singleness of purpose, which is to help everybody who wants to stop using crystal meth to do so. Bruce Garrison 21:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The CMA website states that it is a fellowship of men and women, and to characterize it as a predominately-gay fellowship is incorrect and potentially harmful.Bruce Garrison 07:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Men and women can both be gay.
If you don't like what's on the article then you should talk to Heather Worth, Patrick Rawstorne, Steven Lee, and Frank Sanello they wrote the information that it's based on, and you should tell them to correct what they've wrote.
Alternatively, you could (as I've all ready suggested to Pete S), post something on an official CMA website clarifying this history and status of the organization. Until then, wikipedia is not the place to host information plagiarized from the CMA websites: [1] [2]. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The page as you have it characterizes the fellowship as one that is predominately gay men, but that is not the fellowship. How can we have an entry that is based on an oblique characterization of the fellowship from a paper that really looks at the efficacy of a twelve-step program at meth addiction in a population in that study that happened to consist of gay men? The best description of what CMA is comes from CMA itself.Advocate 08:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the language that was taken directly from CMA literature. As for the more substantive discussion here, simply because one study about the efficacy of CMA participation in gay men characterized the fellowship as centered around that group that article does not become authority for that descriptive, which was not the point of the article. Advocate 08:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate70 (talk • contribs)

I've added links to something on the official CMA website clarifying this history and status of the organization.Advocate 09:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate70 (talk • contribs)

It's not one study, three difference sources characterized it the same way. Again, if you want to get mad at somebody, get mad at them. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what in my posts led you to think that I was "mad." If anything that I have written seems that way, I apologize. I have no desire to be anything other than completely civil.

As for the content of the entry, the only study that characterizes CMA as a predominately-gay male fellowship was written by Lyons, Chandra, and Goldstein. As I mentioned before, that was not the thrust of that study, it was an oblique descriptive that had nothing to do with the results of the study which was the efficacy of CMA attendance on that studied group.

As for the other studies,

Worth, Heather; Rawstorne, Patrick (October 2005). "Crystallizing the HIV epidemic: methamphetamine, unsafe sex, and gay diseases of the will.". Archives of sexual behavior 34 (5): 483-486. doi:10.1007/s10508-005-6274-9. ISSN 1573-2800. Lee, Steven (Spring 2006). "Crystal Methamphetamine: Current Issues in Addiction and Treatment" Paradigm. Retrieved on 2007-06-10. Sanello, Frank (2005). Tweakers: How Crystal Meth Is Ravaging Gay America. Los Angeles, California: Alyson Publishing. ISBN 1555838847. OCLC 56608054.

they are very persuasive as to the high rates of crystal meth use by the gay community as well as what the intake of that drug does on sexual behavior. I do not discount this as a serious issue that has merited serious study. These studies properly belong in the entry for crystal meth or methamphetamine, however, not the entry for Crystal Meth Anonymous. The History page of CMA from the official CMA website states nothing about the gay male or gay female community. It mentions a few men and women who started the fellowship because crystal meth addicts were unable to properly share about their addiction at AA meetings. The CMA website does not mention the gay community anywhere on its literature titled "What is CMA?" either. These studies belong on this page as much as the rates of alcoholism among certain ethnic groups belongs on the Alcoholics Anonymous entry.
The CMA-approved literature "Who Is a Tweaker?" mentions uncontrollable sexual desires, but it phrases it in a way that applies to any crystal meth addict, gay or straight, male or female.
This is an important issue, because if someone who is suffering from addiction gets the wrong impression about who belongs at a CMA meeting, they might not seek help because of erroneous information in this listing. Again, I have to state that the Relevant Source here should be what is presented on the official CMA website, not a descriptive that was used in a study that was not central to the results of that study.
If one searches the CMA meeting directory, one will find that out of approx 448 meetings in the US, only 22 meetings list themselves as Gay or Lesbian (20 with the words Gay or Lesbian, and another 2 use the G or L code instead) to identify themselves as dual-identity groups. This is good evidence as to the demographics of the fellowship currently.Advocate 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I mischaracterized you as being mad. Pete S. (User:Petermixt) was emailing me about this article and threatening to sue me over it's contents a few weeks ago, though he later thought better of it. I had the impression that several CMAs were/are trying to "gang up on me" until I was intimidated enough to allow information in the article that does not follow wikipedia's guidelines. But that could just be my imagination.
This time last year, there were just barely been enough reliable sources discussing CMA to justify an article on it, there are a few more indexed by Google Scholar now [3] (and many of the ones on this list do not qualify). The CMA article is one of may that I "rewrote" after most of the twelve-step articles were deleted about a year ago. These articles were deleted for doing exactly what you're doing to the CMA article now - removing reliable sources and adding plagiarized content and original research.
The articles I cited discuss CMA specifically and say what they say. I don't have a horse in the race about how gay or straight CMA is. But, you can't just remove them because you don't like what they say (or if, perhaps, you're a CMA member and have a WP:COI). If you want to add other material to balance it, that's one thing. But I'm not going to let people fill articles with original research and pseudoscience, especially when those people are trying to bullying me in to doing it. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Peter S. I am not trying to bully anyone, I just don't think that these articles are authoritative as to what CMA is. The Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous pages, for example, are packed with self-identifying references to their own literature. You suggested yourself that "something on an official CMA website clarifying this history and status of the organization" would suffice. I will remove the Disease model of addiction language until there is better sources for CMA's opinion of that issue, but as far as what CMA is, how does their own literature, history page, and meeting directory turn into original research, pseudoscience, or plagiarized? As for the three articles I removed, I don't see how they say anything about CMA's demographics, the still there does mention it in its abstract. However, none of these articles were studies about CMA's makeup, they were studies about meth usage among gay men. If you feel they should be added back, I understand. As long as you don't mind me adding what the CMA Meeting Directory objectively shows about the identification of the groups nationwide. I just want those studies placed in their proper context as to what the studies say. I don't see the other three characterizing CMA in their abstracts, have you read the full articles? I will take a closer look at them if it means that I have to go to the library to read the full articles. If you have the full articles, I wold like to see them.
I will revert the page to they way you had it, remove the request for a 3O and add to waht was already there and we'll see what we have, okay? Advocate 02:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There are all ready articles on the disease model of addiction and disease theory of alcoholism. None of that information should be in this article. The NA and AA articles are horrible examples.
Yes, something on the CMA website clarifying the history of the organization would be fine; to clarify points about history and demographics. Questionable and self-published sources can be used in that way, not as the basis for an article. Wikipedia is not your webhost. This is all explained here: WP:RS and WP:NOR -- Scarpy (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Your link to what happened last year was very informative and I am starting to better understand the WP:RS and WP:NOR requirements. It was hard at first to understand when the articles lending notability might be incorrect, but I catch on fast. Thank you for your help and for your work on the Twelve Step guides as a whole! I hope that the current revision is acceptable. I took the original entry and clarified history, demographics, and literature form the CMA website. I also fleshed out the limitations of the studies as to what they say about CMA. No doubt that meth is a problem in the gay community, and if that discussion gives the entry its notability, so be it. Thanks again! I also appreciate your help over at the 12-step entry, but will talk to you about those over there... Advocate (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The article still has some major issues, but some of what you added is useful. I will return to this when I can pay a little more attention to it. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As has been discussed on the AA and other related twelve-step articles, many people looking for information on these groups are probably looking for information on their effectiveness. To make it consistent in this article, I'm going to move some of the information around such that there's a "stand-alone" effectiveness section. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Crystal Meth Anonymous. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crystal_Meth_Anonymous/Archive_1&oldid=1028240073"