Talk:Addiction psychology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Addictions and recovery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of addiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Addictions and recoveryWikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryTemplate:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryaddiction and recovery articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Coconut02 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bendetwiler.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TayaThornburg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hsandall.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asherm4802. Peer reviewers: Sab3434, Kjoi2000, Jtc7, Clancyelizabeth, Khiggin1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brandon R Hill. Peer reviewers: Mikesettepani, LRAnz98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organization & Editing[edit]

Hi everyone! This is my first article and I somehow accidentally posted prematurely. I will continue to work on the input of missing information under a few of the headings. I am struggling w/ some things that I could use some help with if anyone desires.

1. with the wiki text that automatically displays the table of contents as I think some subheadings may be best as a heading of their own (not a subheading).

2. The other thing I noticed is that when I copied and pasted the article/page from my 'sandbox' to the main viewing area the reference #'s appearing after paragraphs went from blue to black. Example: [1]. If someone has the desire to create the 'notes' section be my guest. I've played around w/it some and don't really want to put any more time into that part. I will continue to play w/it if no one wants to assume ownership.

3. Another thing I noticed is that the heading 'important contributers' looks bold but does not have the appropriate wiki text for it to be and I don't know how to fix. The same with 'psychologist' under the heading 'who practices addiction psychology?'

4. Also, the heading 'who practices addiction psychology' and 'recognized certifications in the field...' are formatted differently. The first w/bullets and the latter w/bold. It seems to me that it would be best if they mimiced each other but i don't know which looks best. Layout is not my forte. I do plan on uploading photos of people and diagrams w/time.

5. I began searching for categories and subcategories that are appropriate for linking. I have a list going w/the intention of getting this done very soon. Again, if anyone wishes to embark on this journey be my guest.

I'm sure that many of the items above would only take the experienced editor a few minutes while me maybe a few hours. I'm sure some other things will come to my mind that will improve the newly created page. Thanks in advance for everyone's ideas and time and energy as this page is further brought to life.AddictionPsychologistFrank (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I really think you need to start again here, looking at the article size and "What Wikipedia Is Not" guidelines; as well as some examples of good articles in the Psychology area. It basically reads like someone's dissertation, not an encyclopaedic article... To answer your questions, however:

"Headings" have 2 equals signs, sub-headings have more - change appropriately. (See: WP:HEADINGS).
You copied the displayed-text, not the text from the "edit" page. You shouldn't have done this anyway - you should have moved the page.
See point 1, above.
These sections look the same to me (and, frankly, I'd remove both and replace them with a paragraph or two...)
Categories can be tricky - I tend to look at similar articles and copy them!
(from below) No, Google takes some time to update and rank pages properly.

Cheers, Nik thestunned 11:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nik- Thanks a ton for your feedback! Could you plse be a little more specific on what you mean by the 'Article Size' and 'What Wikipedia is not? And whether you feel mine is too short or too long? I read back through both of these sections and I don't see where I violated either. If you feel it is too long there are plenty of articles longer than mine and if you feel it is too short, as with any article it is a work in progress.

4 I do see what you mean by the two sections looking the same. I believe they really are different but re-organized in a better manner makes sense.

Frankly, I really think this article is an excellent topic for wikipedia. It complements the addiction psychiatry page and other specific addiction pages (school psychology, educational psychology, addiction, substance dependence, etc). When I began thinking about this article I spent a great deal of time reading other articles to gain an idea on how this could come together. Initially, I submitted this page as a 'stub' with the hope of expanding, but it was deleted within a day because 'it wasn't long enough.' I'm just trying to understand wikipedia as the guidelines are in place yet there doesn't seem to be much consistency around it. One example is the 'addiciton psychiatry' page. There are no sources and it is only a stub. This has been the case for 2 yrs. Please understand that I am not complaining. I am really wanting to understand and do this correctly. As I mentioned in my first statement I plan to continue to work on the article. With other's assistance I really do believe this would be an excellent article. Thanks. AddictionPsychologistFrank (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In my opinion, it's far too long for the topic discussed - I'm not even going to attempt to read it, and that's probably not a good thing. I seriously doubt your first attempt was deleted for "not being long enough" - that's not in any way a valid reason for deletion.

RE: WP:WWIN, I was referring to the "Textbooks and annotated texts" and "Scientific journals and research papers" sections - this literally reads like a Psychology textbook or someone's dissertation, not an encyclopaedic article. (This is particularly relevant: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter"). The real problem here for me is that, as the article is SO long and wordy, anyone who wants to come along and fix it up has a MASSIVE task ahead of them - even as a (relatively) experienced editor I think that would take me the best part of a day to strip-down to the basic facts and re-add all the lost sources etc. It's just not really worth the effort... To be clear here, I have no opinion on whether or not the topic is a viable one, just this approach (in my opinion) is not.

For what it's worth, the page on Addiction psychiatry may indeed be long enough. If, on top of all the existing pages on psychiatry and addiction cover most of the topic already, then a small article discussing the intersections between the two is fully viable. (I doubt, however, whether that article is indeed comprehensive, just illustrating a point!) Nik thestunned 09:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nic- Thanks again. I believe I now understand where your concerns are. Your comments on the length and addiction psychiatry are of help too. At this point do you think I should delete and repost when it's been changed or do you think it would be OK if it remained during the reconstruction process? I hope you are OK w/my asking you questions here? Just trying to gain a better sense of wikipedia. Another question I have is regarding the scientific journals and textbooks. It is my understanding that sources were best if from peer reviewed articles, textbooks, books instead of internet. This is why I pulled journals and books as sources whenever I could. This comes from 'Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.' AddictionPsychologistFrank (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the idea of the article is great, the topic has alot of great importance, As i read the WHOLE thing it came across multiple times as scrambled and not organized, A lot of great ideas and points but some serious organization of facts need to happen. i personally dont mind the length as there is alot that can be said about it, I would suggest going back through and looking at what sentences and paragraphs that could be combined or condensed. finding a way to get the information across without rambling would be important in a topic like this that can be so broad. Kylecook5088 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific journals and textbooks are great sources - it's just better (for others) if you can find online versions. Feel free to remove the deletion template but I'm afraid the (many) maintenance templates will need to stay until the issue has been resolved - remember: facts and information, not learning or teaching (e.g., NO questions should be posed, especially not as a section header...). Nik thestunned 10:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first section, it may contain more flow if the last paragraph was placed earlier. It is a minor change, but placing the definition before the explanation may be more pleasing to the reader. Theboyerboys (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Jacob[reply]

Hello Everyone,

I am wanting to make some organizational changes to combine and create a more concise section with subsections for the treatment area of this article. My idea is to combine the sections "licensed practitioners," "modalities of care" and "treatment" into one section with several subsections. My hopes are that this will bring more organization to this page and help the user when trying to seek out different forms of treatment. Baileypass (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Addiction as a Disease" section under the first section there is a line that says "The Disease Model in Addiction" I believe it is supposed to be a section, I am going to bold it. Hmess1 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

References[edit]

One more thing I noticed is that during the copying and pasting from my 'sandbox' to the 'viewing page' about 30 or so of my references disappeard. If anyone knows how to locate this would be great news! AddictionPsychologistFrank (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Googling 'addiction psychology'[edit]

Sorry guys...things keep popping in my head. When I type in 'addiction psychology' into the Google Search Engine the wiki page does not appear. Is this because the page has not been assigned to categories? AddictionPsychologistFrank (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Addiction psychology. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add the following external links to ventral tegmentum and nucleus accumbens. external links used in the ones on the words on this page Hmess1 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmess1 (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Addiction psychology. 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:

Added tag to https://www.lifeofwriter.me/2023/09/the-importance-of-mental-health-in.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607044012/http://www.ieata.org/about.html to http://www.ieata.org/about.html

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) 16:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Diff/876860520: The whole article is tagged as "written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.". 67.128.27.34 has pointed out a possible problem: The "references" for the deleted statement seem to be opinion pieces, not necessarily displaying a widely accepted fact. For such a popular topic, it is probably easy to find multiple such sources, even published books, about opinions. I think that we should keep the disputed material deleted because it has not been written from a neutral point of view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Fixing the citations in the first section of the article. Hmess1 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less Like an Argumentative Essay[edit]

I am going to delete the first sentence from the section "Addiction as a Disease." I think it does not belong in that section and it is making it sound more like an essay rather than a Wikipedia article. Hmess1 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take out the first sentence of the article. It just makes the article sound more like a persuasive essay. Hmess1 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Edits[edit]

Hello all! I am new to Wikipedia and have been assigned to edit articles for a class. I have edited the first paragraph of this article in order to help the clarity of the article. Please let me know if these changes help the article or not. Thank you! Asherm4802 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New edits[edit]

Hello everyone! I was assigned this article to work on for one of my college classes. This was my first time using Wikipedia, so it was pretty intimidating, but I learned a lot! For this specific article, I made a couple of edits simply fixing small grammatical errors. I also added some new information to an already existing section; "Outpatient-treatment programs." I added the new information to simply give more insight on what these treatment programs were. On top of this, I added two new sections myself. I added the section "Inpatient rehab" and gave information on what it was and how it works. I also added the section "Relapse" and gave information on what it was/what it meant, and also some triggers that cause relapse. I hope I improved this article with the edits that I made! --Coconut02 (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your additions. I think you've done a great job and I hope you will continue editing Wikipedia. DarthVetter (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Winter 2023[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 3 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bazer.Kemp (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bazer.Kemp (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Spring 2023[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 April 2023 and 17 July 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iceman2077 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Pioneer25 (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]