Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Alcoholism

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where RFMF was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and RFM-Request was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.


 * Article talk pages:
 * Alcoholism

Issues to be mediated

 * Issue 1 -, a psychiatrist, is blocking the advancement of the alcoholism article through many methods, including:
 * He has been pushing the idea of only letting medical people edit the article. Furthermore, he has aggressively forwarded the idea that his personal understanding of how medicine views alcoholism should be the only view presented in this article.  This has disrupted and set back the ongoing attempt to create an article that presents all views of a topic that is not just controversial within the medical profession, but for which the medical profession itself is unable to claim an encompassing understanding.
 * Instead of providing evidence to support his claims, he has consistantly reponded to criticism with an insistance that he is the only one who has a medical professional background, and that everyone else should just accept what he has to say, or by insisting that his information is in some way axiomatic or unequivocable. This in no way aids others to understand or accept his information.
 * He has been removing anything in the article that is critical of the AMA, APA or the disease concept. He is removing cited, relevant, references because the authors are not MDs and they are critical of the AMA, APA or Alcoholics Anonymous, he has called non-MDs in the field of alcoholism "pundits" in the article itself.
 * He has performed reversions that remove multiple edits presented by those with opposing views.
 * He has removed detailing of ideas and opinions and replaced them with technical descriptions which use vague words like "multifactoral"
 * Has introduced an excessive amount of text of marginally on-topic chatter into the talk pages of the entry, making it almost impossible to actually sort out the real issues.  feels that, regardless of intent, this functions as a denial of service attack.
 * Issue 2 has been repetitively altering what has otherwise been a consensus driven document. We'd welcome non-MDs as contributors to the article, but just as an article on chemistry is best written by a chemist, an article on a medical illness is best written by a physician, medical writer, or other individual with appropriate scientific background. This user has no such background but rather is on a mission to repeatedly remove scientific facts from the article, replacing them with pundit-driven drivel.
 * Issue 3 would like to request that the entire debate about alcoholism as a disease be removed from the alcoholism page and be given its own page, "Disease theory of alcoholism". The many paragraphs written about that portion of the topic provide little if any benefit for those who would actually like to learn about alcoholism as a physical, mental, or social problem, and are better suited for those who want to understand the political basis of the arguments regarding the disease theory.


 * Response to Issue 3 This isn't a bad idea. Let's look at what would happen just to make sure it's the direction we all want to go. Let's take a disease we all agree is a disease (and I'm guessing here): hypertension. If you had two pages for hypertension, one of which addresses the condition from the perspective of the individual...how will it impact their lives, what complications might arise, what treatments are available, but all without ever calling it a disease; and then a second page that discusses why (or why not) hypertension is a disease. Not sure it works. The problem here is that there are two issues: alcohol use and alcoholism. Alcohol USE can lead to physical, mental, and social difficulties. But alcohol use isn't a disease state - that's the difference here - there are many people who can stop their alcohol use as soon as they realize that it is causing them problems, or who can reduce their alcohol intake such that no further difficulties are encountered. These folks don't have alcoholism, by definition. So how do we divide it that we don't end up with people having to bounce back and forth among pages to read what they're looking for?


 * Issue 4 would also like to suggest that the entire discussion page for this entry be reset or reverted to a much earlier version as having become unworkably complex, and riddled with discussions for which neither participant is continuing to participate.

Response to Issue 3 I believe that it might be more beneficial to have the information on two pages, Dr. And it is partially because of the point that you just argued. Alcoholism is highly debated as a disease, and if you would like to throw in your two cents, there would be a disease theory page for it. While those looking for guaranteed factual information could find it in the other section. And I don't think that there are any people looking to Wikipedia to tell them whether or not they fit the precise definition of an alcoholic... There are other more specified resources for that on the web.

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Additional issue 1 - Since there is no consensu in the scientific community that that alcoholism is a disease, the Wiki article should reflect a NPOV concering this disease and both sides of the debate should be well represented.
 * Additional issue 2 - The article should not promote an AMA, APA or Alcoholics Anonymous POV
 * Additional issue 3 - There is in fact broad scientific consensus concerning alcoholism being a disease. This should be reflected within this article as it is for other disease states.
 * Regarding Issue #1 and Additional Issue #3.Medical Man 03:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I and some others think the Alcoholism article should reflect the fact that there is no consensus that alcoholism is a disease, should take no position on the issue, and should present arguments  both pro and con. However, drgitlow insists that the article  present the disease theory as fact and simply include a sentence or two indicating that a few individuals and "splinter groups that are not generally recognized in the scientific and academic communities" disagree.


 * Drgitlow argues that there is consensus that alcoholism is a disease. When presented with evidence to the contrary (for example, that a reported 80% of American physicians reject that theory), he makes some typically ridiculous argument (for example, that by the end of the decade medical students will be properly trained about  alcoholism and will therefore believe it in the future) and then concludes that "despite your argument, there is indeed a consensus" or  "Your argument is therefore wanting. Presenting both sides of an issue is sensible when the verdict isn't in. This verdict has been in since the late '50s. Your not knowing that doesn't mean that we should follow your lead." He contemptuously calls our edits to the page "drivel." It appears doubtful that any amount or quality of evidence will convince him that a consensus doesn't exist.

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * Agree Mr Christopher 16:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Medical Man 16:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Drgitlow 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Mythobeast 00:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
Accepted.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 06:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will take this case. -Ste|vertigo 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed at the request of the parties. Essjay ( Talk )  04:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)