Talk:Drug addiction
|
|
| Contents |
Comments on Veracity
Avriette writes:
I am concerned this article is fairly subjective, and some of its facts to be if not entirely incorrect, at least tilted towards a particular political direction. I'll be making changes to it in the interest of removing rhetoric from fact as well as to increase the factual integrity of the article. This will be a gradual process. Please leave any specific input here you wish considered -- or counter to my assessment.
Comments on redirection
from vfd
- Drug addiction - content manually merged with Addiction Denni 23:36, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
- Redirected. Angela. 02:20, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as separate article. Anthony DiPierro 02:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Preferably separate article, if not then redirect. Saul Taylor 03:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I'm retracting the request for VfD. Thanks for the redirect, Angela. Denni 06:02, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)
end of VfD discussion
- continuing discussion here, (redirect or not)
Anthony wrote in his edit comment:
- This is a large page on a separate topic: much more than just a redirect
How is drug addiction separate from addiction? It appears to me that it is a subset thereof and that it would therefore be entirely appropriate to redirect to the addiction article, where the material in this one is already covered. In any case, for a multitude of reasons, massive redundancy like in the current arrangement is unacceptable.—Eloquence 06:15, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Not all the material from this page is contained in the current addiction page. Anthony DiPierro
- Then why don't you move over the material which you think is missing?—Eloquence
- Because there's enough here for a separate article. Why don't you delete the material you feel is redundant? Anthony DiPierro 00:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- If you could help me understand why this is an issue for you, Anthony, I might have some ideas and suggestions as to where to take this from here. As I look at drug addiction right now, it seems to me to be dead in the water under that title. I also see that there are already lengthy articles on prohibition and the War on drugs. In all seriousness, what is there left that would constitute more than a stub? Denni 17:47, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Are you saying it is only a stub now? What are the parts you want to remove? Anthony DiPierro 17:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- If you reread what I've said, you'll note that I did not say it was currently a stub. I said it would be a stub if the content already addressed in addiction were removed. I'm not suggesting anything be removed. I believe that drug addiction is properly a subset of a discussion of addiction in general, and hence a page related to drug addiction ought to be directed to addiction unless there is good reason not to. From my perspective, the only thing currently in the drug addiction article that is not in the addiction article is a discussion of the neurochemical processes involved in addiction. If you wish to tackle that, feel free. If not, I have information relating to how different classes of addictive substances affect brain chemistry. In either case, I would far rather be working on that than spending my time barking up a tree here. Denni 20:01, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
- I took the duplicate content out of addiction. Problem solved. Anthony DiPierro 20:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, Anthony - problem =not= solved. First, you did more than remove duplicate content. You also removed content unique to the article on addiction. Second, despite my rather lengthy response to your concerns as stated above, you have refused to engage in anything remotely resembling debate. Third, while the list of contributors to this discussion is admittedly limited, you remain the only party who insists that drug addiction needs to be treated as an article separate from addiction. Fourth, there has been altogether too much bad behavior here as far as revert wars goes, and I will not be a party to it. I had hoped that this could have been discussed over a cup of eCoffee, but that appears to be not the case, so I will take my case elsewhere. Denni 21:56, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
- You're the one making the changes, so you're the one who has to make the case. If you think I've taken things out of addiction which aren't duplicated in drug addiction, re-add those parts you think are unique to addiction and don't fall under drug addiction. If I did so, it was a mistake. I think this article is fine the way it is. If you think discussion is over, then let's have a vote. BTW, Saul Taylor has also recommended keeping as a separate article. Anthony DiPierro 18:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
When I merged the two, I attempted to carry over as much of value as possible. I did not include the section on the War on Drugs because it seems to be a peculiarly American obsession, and the Classes of Drugs is maintained both with a link to the DEA site and with a regularly updated (and searchable) list at www.streetdrugs.com. I also have difficulty with both the tentative tone ("appears to", "perceived") of the first two paragraphs, and the characterization of addiction as a 'habit,' which it most emphatically is not. In all, it was simply easier to merge the two articles than to correct drug addiction (and be left with two articles which essentially covered the same ground). Denni 06:41, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)
Drug addiction should be kept as a page separate from addiction
- Drug addiction is a huge topic worthy of its own article.
- There are 945,000 google hits for the term "drug addiction."
- There are 35 articles which link directly to drug addiction, and 3 redirects, with 38 additional pages linking through those redirects, for a total of 73 articles linking to this page.
- The article is several screens long and is much more than just a stub.
- There is a lot of room for improvement and additions to this article, which is far from dead in the water.
- The rule of thumb for combining pages is for pages which have remained less than 1K for several months (see Wikipedia:Page size). This page is currently over 5K.
- Even without the useful list of drugs, the page is still nearly 4K.
- Surely if this were a candidate for combining with other pages addiction would be the proper page to combine it with, but it is not.
- Any issues of redundancy with addiction which are specific to drug addiction can be resolved by removing that redudancy from addiction.
- The remaining redundancies are minor.
- Drug addiction is addiction. A dalmation is a dog. Just because something is a subset of something else doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on that subset.
Please add any counterpoints to a separate section. This list is subject to modification.
Drug addiction is addiction
- There are five million Google hits for "addiction"
- A redirect page never stopped anyone from getting where they wanted to go
- The article would be much shorter if it didn't have over forty drugs listed, each on its own line, essentially duplicating what is on the external links. Most of the 35 links to this article are from those pages.
- Of course there is room for improvement in this article. There is room in any article.
- If the rule of thumb is that small pages be combined, then logic dictates that specific pages be grouped into more general ones. One does not place an article on dogs into a page on Dalmations in order to promote efficient use of space.
- You're ducking the issue and you know it. Discussion of size refers to point three, as if 'screens' were any legitimate measure of article length.
- Same - any issue of redundency in articles on 'dogs' and 'Dalmations' can be resolved by removing the redundency from 'dogs'? You think?
- "The article does not substantially duplicate material in prohibition." This is a good thing, considering that drug addiction and prohibition have a whole lot of not much in common.
- "The war on drugs section has been reduced to a single sentence." Acceptable. Given that this is an article on addiction, not on regulation or treatment or any other issue not directly related to use, this ought to be added as a "see also," but I can live with it.
- "Drug addiction is addiction. A dalmation is a dog. Just because something is a subset of something else doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on that subset. " Agreed. I'm happy with the article as it stands now, and have no problem with removing the request to redirect.
This article is generally good, but the first section blurs the very important distinction between physical dependence and psychological addiction. While the phenomenon of physical dependence can aggravate psychological addiction when it occurs, they are still distinct phenomena. Several psychologically addictive drugs, such as cocaine, induce little if any physical dependence; conversely, the physical dependence that invariably occurs in the use of opioids to treat chronic pain does *NOT* imply psychological addiction (which is relatively rare under those circumstances, Rush Limbaugh's self-serving excuses notwithstanding).
I think it's fair to say that this is now the consensus opinion of both pain and addiction specialists.