Talk:SMART Recovery

Good start
Sources are good. Tone/content is pretty neutral. Only problem is that the further reading section is egregiously long. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The list of further reading was made rather long to show the notability of SMART in scientific publications and general press. Otherwise, it's unlikely such a list would be compiled. Further, the article is aimed not at simply the user community, but at the professional community as well, that may find readily available references in that list. 71.124.8.104 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I thought I was logged in. Oldefarquer (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oldefarquer - I assume it is you who wrote this and I want to compliment you. That list certainly verifies the organization's notabilityd and provides the "interested reader" (which is what WikiP is all about) with useful related sources. If Craig wants, I can go through the list and pick out the most relevant (or whatever criteria you both agree on). I'm familiar (I brag) with most (maybe all) of the books and articles cited.Henrysteinberger (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you could trim the list to the seven most relevant of the books/articles on the list. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit busy now, but I will come back and prune the list down to what I regard as the best 7 (Likely the 7 most recent which could reference the others). Please bear with me as I have other obligations which have kept me from checking in on this for some months. Wiki may mean fast, but scholarship often moves slowly.Henrysteinberger (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As to my recent edit, please note that a mention of the organization's main publication is no different that the mention of AA's Big Book and RR's Small Book, both of which are (or last time I looked were) noted in their enteries.Henrysteinberger (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the size/content of the list now, I pruned the it awhile ago to include books from reputable publishers. But, if there is SMART Recovery literature you wanted to add to the list, I don't see a problem with it -- in fact, it's a very good idea.


 * I'd also like to get some more of your ideas on the addiction recovery groups article. William White has written three very good articles on the topic: Pre-A.A. Alcoholic Mutual Aid Societies, The history and future of peer-based addiction recovery support services and Addiction recovery mutual aid groups: an enduring international phenomenon. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and also Alcoholics Anonymous as a Mutual-help Movement -- Scarpy (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Recognition
I want to echo the sentiment of prior commentators that this was a very good start.

I have some concerns over the "Recognition" wording. To most readers, "recognition" implies some sort of official sanction. The citations offered do not speak whatsoever to any recommendations or "recognition" by these agencies of SMART Recovery. SMART Recovery is included in the self-help referrals section of all of the referenced/cited organizations. I don't know that it is accurate, after reading the links provided, to say that they are "recognized". I also saw that the "parent" of SMART, Rational Recovery, was NOT listed as a resource in the links you provided, and in many cases, SMART recovery was the only non-12-step group included in the referrals you provided. Again, though, being listed as a referral is not tantamount to being "recognized," and for that reason, I am not comfortable with the current assertions that SMART Recovery is 'recognized" by those agencies.Lucida.ann (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Recognition would not be the same as recommendation, or citation. The agencies listed recognize SMART as a freely-available self-help recovery program and list it in their directories (as you mentioned). If you have a better term (I know of no term that fits this bill, other than recognized), I'd be interested in hearing it. As far as an official sanction, I believe that might be valid as grants have been given to SMART from the governmental organizations. Others probably know more about that than me.


 * Rational Recovery is NOT the parent organization of SMART Recovery. The two share a common history, the organization split, and the name Rational Recovery went with what is now a for-profit and privately-held concern. The two resulting organizations have no current business association with one another. Oldefarquer (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Oldefarquer. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that it be made clear that RR's program rejects its own earlier program. Not only is it not now related to SR, but RR eschews all self-help groups, even though they started as a network of free self-help groups. I'm not judging their motives (well, actually yes I am, but not here), but I think the reader should understand that the difference is beyond trivial. It's essential. Henrysteinberger (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to expand the article
I think I'm going to expand the article to include the stages of change and create subsections for the four points. I'll be using the SMART Recovery Handbook as my primary source. If I get anything wrong, please let me know. The article may be in a state of flux as I expand it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe cite the website since people can follow those links from their computer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The handbook lists 7 stages and the website omits the last 2 stages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some third-party, reliable sources that we may want to work into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to apologize. Unfortunately, I have not made as much progress in expanding the article as I had hoped, and it appears that due to work commitments I will have less time to devote to Wikipedia. I do plan on expanding the article, but it may take weeks, rather than days (which I originally anticipated). Therefore, I removed the 4 points and the {underconstruction} template from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)