Talk:Overeaters Anonymous

Rewrite

I have completed a rewrite of the article. There is enough referenced reliable sources now to prevent an argument for wp:csd#g8 (the guideline User:Coelacan used for deleting the article). — Craigtalbert 00:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is informative and balanced, except that the criticisms are left unanswered or undisputed. SteveMc 19:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Demographic abstinence differences

The use of the terms "bulemics" and "binge eaters" is misleading. Bulemia IS binge-eating, whether a person purges or not, but it is often erroneously equated with purging behavior. The DSM-IV published by the American Psychological Association and used by psychiatrists classifies bulemia nervosa, in part, into purging and non-purging types, and "purging" (i.e., compensatory) mechanisms vary in character (emesis, exercise...arguably fasting). I suppose what is meant here by "bulemics" is "binge-eaters who regularly purge/engage in compensatory mechanisms." Again, the sine qua non of bulemia is compulsive, subjectively uncontrollable binge eating behaviors, period.

Thus, for example, the sentence "...most anorexics have a previous history of bulimia," should read, "...most anorexics have a previous history of purging behaviors." Most people suffering from anorexia nervosa do engage in compensatory behaviors due to their morbid fear of obesity, but that is not the same thing as saying that they purge following episodes of uncontrollable binge eating. Many times individuals with anorexia nervosa purge after reasonably portioned meals that are not experienced subjectively as compulsive and uncontrollable.

OA does not base its concepts on psych models

History with CEA-HOW

It would be appropriate to include an accouting of how the CEA-HOW (Compulsive Eaters Annonmous) started as a sub-group of OA, and was later asked to leave, which resulted in CEA-HOW becoming it's own organization with a more structured approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.127.197 (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OA's position on psychological stress as a cause

In the Definitions section, there is the statement "...OA believes compulsive overeating is chronic and done in an effort to alleviate psychological stress.[3]" However, when I searched source [3], I could not find any material that supports this citation. I am also unaware of any OA literature that supports this statement. Can someone provide some documented source that addresses this? Nofinesse (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding this -- I rewrote a lot of the articles on twelve-step programs after they were deleted for not citing reliable sources. See the discussion Coelacan's talk page for details. At the time, my goal was to get them rewritten quickly with reliable sources, so at least their future in wikipedia would be assured. I thought people would be along later to improve on the scholarly quality of the sources, which in some cases has been true. In this article, however, I really Kerri-Lynn's article the wrong way. I should have been checking the sources she used, and at the very least using something like "cited in" rather than citing it as the source. I'm going to try to correct a little of that over the next few weeks. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pages 41 and 42: "OA is unique in its core belief that compulsive eating is a progressive, addictive illness. Its central tenets suggest that this illness: (1) can never be eliminated but only managed as a chronic problem, (2) requires that the abuse of food must be interrupted, and (3) requires that treatment not differ fundamentally from treatment for alcohol and drug dependence. Compulsive eating is also viewed as an impulsive response to stress, which alleviates tension in the same fashion that other compulsive disorders like alcohol and drug abuse do." -- Scarpy (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate Sources (moved from my talk page)

"It is suggested that new members start with a some-what rigid plan that becomes increasingly more flexible approaching the end of a year in the program": Does OA suggest this (something I find hard to believe, and it would need a citation to OA rather than a journal article)? Or is it suggested by the journal article? If it is not suggested by OA, I think it should be deleted as this is an article on OA rather than the science of weight loss. If you insist on including it you need to rewrite accordingly. As it is written now, it is unclear whether OA is suggesting it. If it is not from OA I'll probably start a discussion on the talk page about whether it should be included. Ward3001 (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's from the journal article, the author's qualitative analysis of behavior in OA, not from OA literature (at least not that I'm aware of). From the article:

The general pattern that emerged supported the idea that a new member may need a structured food plan to gain a sense of equilibrium and stability. Over time, it appeared as though adhering strictly to the food plan could itself become an obsession. The dialogue with the respondents strongly suggested the need to learn new skills and behaviors that allowed individuals to establish and maintain healthy boundaries. It is when one is able to effectively set non-food related boundaries that there is a decreased need to focus on the food plan to create limits and control.

As recovery ensues, it is normal and expected that the food plan will evolve from rigid eating to a more flexible process. During later phases of recovery (more than one year), participants were less likely to be adhering to rigid food restrictions or to measure all portions. They affirmed that their sponsor and group support were vital during the process of relinquishing the rigid plan and adopting a more flexible approach.

I'll change the language to make it a little clearer. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of statements in the article about the science of obesity and weight loss that are not presented in the context of OA itself. They belong more properly in other articles, not in the article on OA. The article is not entitled "Weight loss" or "Obesity." Additionally, the external links to professional weight loss plans are, in my opinion, not appropriate for the article. There are thousands of professional methods for weight loss. Links related to 12-step programs, self-help groups, etc. are fine. But we cannot include a link to the mulitude of money-making operations that advertise to the public. Ward3001 (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Two only two external links in the article are to OA's website and to an OA intergroup website with recordings of speakers. The wikilinks, currently, in the See also section are to wikipedia articles for notable weight loss groups. I'm okay with removing Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers, operating on the logic that if people are interested in non-profit support groups for eating disorders (e.g. OA), those would not be relevant. But, TOPS should stay as it is a non-profit support group, like OA. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(not OA)

I'm not going to edit war over this. But, for the record, I'm not saying OA supports the researcher's finding; I'm say this parenthetical gives a misguided impression that OA opposes something that it either doesn't have an opinion or would support under some circumstances. It would be better not to put words in the mouth of OA. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to delete the entire sentence. You don't know whether such a statement would be endorsed by OA, and as I stated above, the article is not about weight loss. If we don't know whether OA would agree with the statement, and the article is about OA, why should the statement remain in the article? I don't care to edit war either, but there is too much non-OA material in the article. I know that you made some changes, but the article reads too much like a dissertation on obesity and weight loss. If you and I can't agree about whether the sentence in question should remain, I may post an RfC to get other opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article? I know that OA follows Tradition 10 (Overeaters Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the OA name ought never be drawn into public controversy)[1]. So, unless it's explicitly against the practice, there's not reason to say that it's against it.

People can go to OA.org if they're looking for an overview of OA based on questionable sources, encyclopedias provide summaries of scholarly knowledge on topics using reliable sources. Peer-reviewed articles analyzing OA, providing information on the organization that you wouldn't get from it's own literature are exactly the kind of sources that this article should be based on. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Have you read the article?": Despite such a condescending question, I'll answer it. Yes, many times.

"So, unless it's explicitly against the practice, there's not reason to say that it's against it": That is inclusion by default. Is it necessary to say that George W. Bush opposes public hangings? No, because if he hasn't made an issue out of it, it's not necessary to include an endless number of opinions he might have that have nothing to do with his article. I'll emphasize my point again: The article is about OA. It's not about weight loss per se. Information about techniques of weight loss (e.g., "start with a somewhat rigid plan that becomes increasingly more flexible") that are not part of OA should not be in the article. Should we include advice from the Atkins diet because OA does not prohibit Atkins and some OA members might subscribe to it? No, the article isn't about weight loss; it's about OA. The title you gave to this section epitomizes this issue: The sentence is "not OA".

"People can go to OA.org if they're looking for an overview of OA based on questionable sources": That's not the way it works on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article is supposed to provide an overview and cite sources to back it up. The reader should not be required to go to the source unless he wishes to verify the accuracy of the information or seek more detail than the article provides (or should provide).

"Peer-reviewed articles analyzing OA, providing information on the organization that you wouldn't get from it's own literature are exactly the kind of sources that this article should be based on.": Only partially correct. Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal or textbook. It is an encyclopedia for the general reader. It's fine to cite scholarly sources, but peer-reviewed articles are not the only sources for Wikipedia. OA itself is a proper source; in fact, it is probably a more important source for information about OA than many other sources. It's fine to use other sources for criticisms, demographics, etc. But it is not OK to derail a discussion of OA by going into details about factors that are associated with weight loss in general. I'm not opposed to peer-reviewed journal articles. I am an academic and have a Ph.D. But with the exception of highly technical articles (and this is not one), Wikipedia articles don't hinge on peer-reviewed journal articles, especially when details from those articles are only vaguely relevant to the Wikipedia article.

This sentence is only one among others that I have a problem with because they diverge from the core issues of OA and go off into tangential areas that add very little to understanding OA. I think we may need an RfC. Ward3001 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC's are usually a good idea. But, I think we may just be talking passed each other. For instance, I may not have been clear about what article I meant, I wasn't referring to the article we're working on, I was to the one with the information in question [2]. I also very much agree that this article is about OA, not about eating disorders or weight-loss in general.

Articles like the one with the information in question, An Analysis of the Role of Overeaters Anonymous in Women's Recovery from Bulimia Nervosa aren't about weight-loss in general, it's a specifically an analysis of OA. The conclusions drawn in it were based research of OA groups. It's not an article on the Atkins diet, or any other tangentially related subject -- it's an article on OA from a peer-reviewed scholarly source.

I do strongly disagree with removing information cited by sources from the article. Literature published by OA falls under the guidelines of self-published / questionable sources. There's some of it cited in the article now. If this article was based mostly on OA-literature, it wouldn't be much more than an extension of the OA website, and it would certainly not provide a neutral point of view.

Wikipedia policies are very clear on this point, and when the question was raised for ArbComm a while back, the decision was unanimously in favor of reliable sources. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I read An Analysis of the Role of Overeaters Anonymous in Women's Recovery from Bulimia Nervosa before beginning this discussion. I don't have a problem with using the article for information about demographics of OA, rate of success among OA members, etc. What I have a serious problem with is including the author's recommendations about weight loss, specifically: "start with a somewhat rigid plan that becomes increasingly more flexible". That is advice about weight loss. It is not a description of OA. It goes beyond OA, and that makes it beyond the scope of this article. That would also be true if someone interviewed 100 OA members who use the Atkins diet and recommended that an effective means of weight loss is to severely restrict carbohydrates. The sentence above about how rigid one's diet plan should be does not reflect on OA, it reflects on the author's opinions about weight loss.

"If this article was based mostly on OA-literature": That's a gross misinterpretation of what I said. Read what I said again. I never said the article should be based "mostly on OA-literature". I said OA is a good source for information about itself. If OA says they have 12 steps, it's fine to say that in the article. If OA makes reference to a "Higher Power", it's OK to say that it does so in the article. OA is not a scientific organization and doesn't claim to be. Excluding information from OA on the basis that it is "pseudoscience" is absurd because the article on OA is not a scientific article. I'll say this again for emphasis: You're trying to write parts of this article as a scientific journal article on weight loss. I'm fine with including other sources, including peer-reviewed journals, if they pertain directly to OA. But a journal author's advice about weight loss does not belong. Ward3001 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionable and self-published sources are fine for the purposes you've suggested, and that's how they're used in the article now.

I strongly agree that a journal article author's advice on weight loss does not belong in this article. What I included were the results of a study of OA members, where the sample studied found success with a particular strategy in making food plans. I have no idea if the author's who published the results of that study agreed or disagreed with the plans suggested by the OA members they studied, or what advice they would give people about weight loss, and I did not see the authors express any of those opinions in the article.

It seems like we're mostly in agreement about how the article should be written. I've been hoping for a longtime someone would take an active interest in it, and on the whole our collaboration has been good for the article so far. There's a lot that's known about the organization, and we could could do a better job of giving it an encyclopedic treatment. -- Scarpy (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me try one more thing before we go to RfC. If you don't mind, please answer these questions:

• Is it part of the OA program (without reference to the dissertation author's opinion) to say "start with a somewhat rigid plan that becomes increasingly more flexible"?
• If I did a scientifically valid interview of 200 OA members who are on Atkins and concluded, based on a significant weight loss of those 200 OA members, that severe carbohydrate restriction is the best way to approach a food plan for OA; and I then published that finding in a peer-reviewed journal, would it be acceptable to add this to the Wikipedia article: "It is recommended that a good food plan would be very low levels of carbohydrate intake."?
• If I repeated the above interview process with another 200 OA members on the sugar-busters diet, concluded that sugar restriction was effective, published it etc., would it be acceptable to also add this to the Wikipedia article: "It is recommended that a good food plan would be very low levels of refined sugars."?
• If I repeated the above interview process with ten other groups of 200 OA members on Jenny Craig, Dynamatrix, etc. etc. (other professional plans), concluded that following Jenny Craig, Dynatmatrix, etc. etc. (other professional plans) was effective, published it etc., would it be acceptable to also add a similar statement about recommending each of those other professional weight loss plans?

I hope you will answer forthrightly and not try to skirt the issue here with trivial matters, such as the particular scientific methods used, sample selection techniques,etc. I'll see how you reply. We may be in agreement on some things, but I think on a critical issue or two (e.g., the article is on OA; the article should not include recommendations that are not part of OA) we are miles apart. Ward3001 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They authors of the study in question didn't measure the effectiveness of using food plans with decreasing flexibility, they found it was a strategy used by OA members bulimia nervosa in their sample. So, to all four of the questions I would answer if research found common trends in food plans of OA members (particularly if it was more prevalent among certain demographics than others) that would be an interesting result and worth including.

In terms language that clearly describes these results, you have a very valid point. And your suggestions about clarification of the results in the study in question have been very valuable. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"if research found common trends in food plans of OA members (particularly if it was more prevalent among certain demographics than others) that would be an interesting result and worth including": So, given your assumption of common trends, the article could include dozens, even hundreds of recommended food plans (again, assuming they're supported by research), that are not endorsed by OA, even though OA specifically makes a point of not endorsing diets or food plans, and even if inclusion of those dozens or hundreds of food plans made up a substantial portion of the Wikipedia article. Am I correct that you feel these could be included? Ward3001 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Like you've very correctly pointed out, we should be careful about using language like "recommended" to make sure people know it's not something officially recommended in the OA program. But if there's enough scholarly information on patterns in OA food plans, we'd add it to the section until it started to get to large, and then we'd do what's been done with the Effectiveness and History sections in the Alcoholics Anonymous article (see History of Alcoholics Anonymous and Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous) and create an article like Food plans in Overeaters Anonymous. If there's that much information on it, than it's definitely a notable topic.

Full disclosure here, I don't have a horse in this race as far food plans goes. What worries me is that if references to scholarly research on OA are removed, someone will come along and whack the article again on the basis of not showing it's WP:N. About 9 months ago that was exactly what happened and I ended up rewriting several twelve-step articles because of it. I didn't write this article to be a definitive article on OA, I wrote it primarily to pass WP:N. There are several places it could be improved, but I'd rather see information added than removed. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please bear in mind, I'm not trying to get rid of any of the sources. In fact, I think they are good sources. Right now I'm simply trying to get rid of diet plan recommendations that are not consistent with OA.
There should never be an article on Food plans in Overeaters Anonymous (except the historical information) because OA itself does not have food plans. Each individual member has his/her food plan. Ward3001 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The notability of a topic is determined by the number of third party reliable sources that have written about it. If there is enough sources about how food plans are used by Overeaters Anonymous members, then there's no reason not to have an article on it, and it looks like there are a few. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a different topic. That would be entitled Food plans used by members of Overeaters Anonymous, not Food plans in Overeaters Anonymous. That may appear to be a minor difference, but philosophically it's a huge difference.

I'm thinking about a suggested rewrite of the issue we have been discussing. Could you please tell me a specific page number and the wording of the recommendation in either Wasson (2004) or Kriz (2002) about starting with a rigid food plan.? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kriz discusses food plans, and included adherence to them in her analysis, but there's nothing in her thesis about rigidity.It's free to download. The section I quoted previously from Wasson's paper is on page 349. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitions Section

I'm concerned by the use of what appears to be non-OA sources to reference something identified as an OA position. Is there evidence for "inner hunger" as an OA concept... and how does that relate to "eating down feelings" which is not referenced? --Dakinijones (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Both of these phrases are only used once in the article, in the same sentence, and there is a reference right at the end of it: Lerner, Helen; R., Helene (1989). Take It Off and Keep It Off. McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 0809244934. OCLC 19887525.

The book does promote itself as being "Based on the Successful Methods of Overeaters Anonymous." But, you are correct that it is not official OA literature. I do, however, think it is a reasonably reliable source for the information cited in the article. I'm not attached to it, but I would like to reiterate the advice I gave to User:Ward3001, that if you're planning on making changes to the article, it would be much wiser to add cited information to it than to remove cited information from it. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree better not to lose a citation... maybe clarify source? --Dakinijones (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The inner hunger bit is not OA literature and does not describe OA's beliefs or practices. The author's claim to some alignment with OA does not make it OA practice or belief. In short it has no place here.

Citations for compulsion and chronicity

This information is all in Kriz's dissertation. But I did some digging to find a couple of better citations for you. In addition to the citation in the article, this information is on serveral oa related websites: [3], [4], [5]. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Vagueness of abstinence

A sentence says that abstinence is vague when compared with AA. However, OA (along with all other 12-step groups) discourages the consumption of alcohol, because drinking even small amounts loosens inhibitions and threatens whatever abstinence is for that individual (and that program BTW). So in abstaining from alcohol it is not vague IMO. Student7 (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence, second paragraph

I'd like to work on some of the same hard-earned consensuses (consensi, what the plural is) that have been established in other twelve-step articles. For instance, I believe that we should avoid "AA-speak" or Twelver-speak in the articles unless it is defining that language (e.g. phrases like "work the steps") that are common in the fellowships but not in the rest of the world. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OA mission

An editor has twice inserted the WP:MISSION statement of OA. This is undesirable because it is WP:SPAMy and pov. We can report what OA attempts to do. But reporting it as fact is specious. Particularly since it does not work for everyone. Student7 (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

How to improve

The article is partly correct and partly riddled with errors. Its also precisely the sort of topic that wiki consistently fails to achieve clarity on. Someone somewhere needs to come up with an acceptable way forward with such articles.

I say this as a caution to anyone finding out about OA as much as raising a key question for Wikipedia.