not a good article
I don't have any experience or anything more than a passing interest in the topic. However, it is obviously highly biased and worse, it doesn't cite any sources. I hope an interested person, whether they be pro and anti intervention, goes to work to make this a presentable unbiased article. A first step: seperate critism of intervention with description of intervention. Make a section at the end called "criticisms."
- This will suffice, for now. I'll be watching.SonoftheMorning 10:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the article has swung too far back in the other direction. Just saying that it's not universally accepted isn't enough.220.127.116.11 03:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I must say i have NEVER heard of an intervention concerning smoking tobacco. This sounds ridiculous. Remove it? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC) you're retarded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
--excuse me, I might remark that consumption of tabacco can cause a lot of problems
e.g.: Illness till death Severe financial problems (poor Pers. spends lots of money on tabacco) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a really bad article!!
External Links placed in this article for for-profit business.
The "Intervention Center" is a for-profit business, is it not? Why, then, do they have a link here? It's not an "unbias source," it's a circular link!
Re: "Addiction Intervention Guide for Families"
I added the line "(from a conservative Protestant perspective)" to the link "Addiction Intervention Guide for Families". After reading, it clearly exhibits strong conservative Christian and, I suspect, particularly Protestant influences which may not mesh with the mainstream of intervention theory or be appropriate for all people. See, e.g., "These thoughts are often Satanic, for once you accept the responsibility, and ask for forgiveness you are under no condemnation." Ex. 1 and "The first step in breaking the bondage of this most destructive lifestyle is accepting the Truth, which is Jesus Christ." Ex. 2 Comments welcome. --George (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Controversy section is not NPOV
The controversy section basically arguesw for the effectiveness of interventions rather then presenting both sides fairly. It first talks about a study on that seems to dispute the value to interventions then argues why the study is flawed without attributing said argument to any reliable source. It's not proper for a Wikipedia article to argue in the voice of the author for or against anything where there is dispute. Rather, such arguments should come from reliable sources instead. Unless someone comes up with a reliable source that agrees with the argument made in the controversy section that can be sited, then the rebuttal argument should be removed, and maybe the section retitled to something like "Effectiveness", where the study can be discussed and later opposing points of view can be added so long as they can be cited. --Cab88 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as this article has existed for nearly 5 years without many, if any sources should, at some point, the non-sourced info be taken down? I'm neither interested enough nor knowledgable enough to start researching sources but it would seem if through as many versions as this article has had that no sources have been found/added eventually the info should go(or be srouced)? I'm not going to start blanking but we need some direction from admins/editors here. This is a real issue. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)