This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Criticism Section

I just deleted most of the "Criticism" section--most of what was there was not criticism of Stanton Peele or his work. It was random criticisms made by Stanton Peele of other random unrelated people. Perhaps someone was confused by the section heading? This section should be for criticism OF stanton peele and his work. -Paul 96.41.70.207 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— This might not be the best place for this but, I would like to refer to some of his work. In 2010 Stanton Peele wrote an opinion piece in Addiction and Theory. I would suggest having a quick read, it is what has lead me here. It was poorly written and confusing.

Stanton Peele (2010) Alcohol as evil – Temperance and policy, Addiction Research & Theory, 18:4, 374-382, DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2010.487953  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.38.109 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Article

Lacks cites. While researching Peele for another article I thought I'd add some of that information to this one. I plan to contribute more when I have time. Mr Christopher 20:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also everything below the entry I just added lacks cites and probably either needs to be referenced or removed. Mr Christopher 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Hi, Chris...I see you're working on this page. Would you be amenable to altering this paragraph from the entry...

Dr. Peele's belief that addictions are not diseases is opposed by many professionals as well as non-professional support and other groups. Although many medical and pyschological associations define problematic drinking as a disease there is currently no scientific or medical procedure to determine whether one has the so-called disease of alcoholism (or addiction) nor is there any research that proves the disease theory.

The first sentence is fine. The second isn't right though...many medical and psychological associations don't define problematic drinking as a disease; rather they define a specific set of symptoms that are related to alcohol use as a disease. The "...currently no scientific or medical procedure to determine..." phrase is irrelevant since that's true for many diseases. And saying there's no research proving the disease theory is simply untrue. There is a great deal of such research.

Perhaps the paragraph could be replaced with:

"Dr. Peele's belief that addictions are not diseases is opposed by many professionals as well as non-professional support and other groups. Although many medical and pyschological associations define alcoholism as a disease, there is still significant controversy regarding this point."

Drgitlow 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, I am currently buried in work and out of town so my thoughts and efforts here are minimal right now. I could be wrong but I think using terms like "Dr" or "doctor" does not conform to the Wiki Manual of Style (I could be wrong so let's double check). This article has alot of POV to it and mostly lacks cites (including everything I contributed here months ago) and needs to be fixed or simply removed.

What you have written (the latter) looks pretty good. What do you think of this tweak:

"Peele's belief that alcoholism and addictions are not biological based diseases is opposed by many in the alcoholism treatment, education, and prevention fields. Although most medical and pyschological associations define alcoholism as a disease, there is still significant controversy regarding this point."

I think when it comes to writing about controversial people and subjects we need good references, even when we are talking about what to many (such as you and I in this case) are obviously true. Even without immediate cites it is 1000% better than what you are suggesting we repalce it with. But I think this is good and useable now but let's plan on finding some simple and useful cites/sources to support these ideas soon. Mr Christopher 07:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your tweak looks great. Which part do you want cites for? Drgitlow 23:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I have repeatedly removed an external link to the alcoholics anonymous web page. The alcoholics anonymous web page does not contain information regarding Stanton Peele, so it has no place in this article. I know it is tempting to provide a counterpoint to Peele's philosophy, but this is better done through the article itself. --Elplatt 01:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify

Can someone clarify a key sentence? It reads:

According to Dr. Peele's experential/environmental approach, addictions are negative patterns of behavior that result from an overattachment people form to experiences generated from a range of involvements.

I'd like to understand this better and how it is different from conventional notions of addiction. Thanks, —DavidMack 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Sections

I am removing the following sections as they have no references, are inflammatory, and/or add nothing to a scholarly article about Dr. Peele:

Views on 12-step programs In his book Resisting 12 step Coercion he offers guidance for the one million-plus Americans per year who face coerced religious indoctrination in the guise of alcohol or drug treatment. The book outlines legal strategies and existing court decisions, and argues that 12-step treatment is useless and sometimes harmful. The book also describes the routine violation of standard medical ethics by providers of addiction treatment.

[edit] In Popular Culture The Red Hot Chili Peppers referenced Stanton Peele in their hit song "Cruisin' for a Boozin'":

"Spent the night drivin' behind the wheel got more alcohol than Stanton Peele."

[edit] Criticism In a review of The Meaning of Addiction, Addiction specialist Griffith Edwards described his ambivalence to Peele's work:

"With these and other issues treated in cavalier fashion, with referencing highly incomplete and crucial work often ignored, one begins to feel that this is a book where polemic and scholarship have become inextricably and unhappily mixed. ... Peele is not only a psychologist of distinction, but someone who can make use of sociological and biological ideas. ... So there's the dilemma."

—Griffith Edwards, Review of The Meaning of Addiction.[12]

Desoto10 (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also deleted a book ad in External References. Desoto10 (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added more award material as per sourced referenced, removed the above statement, it is POV as it has no reference.

Information posted not congruent with sourced reference=

This last award, however, is often attributed to Cold War hysteria, and is no longer recognized by most alcohol governing bodies. This material has not appeared in the reference. It is Misleading to the reader. Added more award material as per sourced referenced, removed the above statement, it is POV as it has no reference.

" Attempts to " is POV have improved with the word "challenges" , in keeping with Wiki Neutrality.

Reverting POV edits and missourced unsourced statements

Mr. Miles your continutal edits to revert the page to POV wording and a statements that have no reference has been noted. Suggesting that and editor should be banned for reverting the POV is not in keeping with Wiki policy. It is very aggressive on your part.

wording "attempts to debunk " is POV ... it has been changed to challenges.

The statement This last award, however, is often attributed to Cold War hysteria, and is no longer recognized by most alcohol governing bodies. If you check the reference you have repoosted in your reverts, no such statement exists. This is certainly POV and appears to be an attempt to diminish the Peele's creditentials. It is certainly POV. http://www.peele.net/aab/keller.html

In the process of deletion you have removed other achievements, that were posted on Peeles wiki page.

Is there a reason that you do not want these acheivements acknowledged?

05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

--Fred Woofy (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MisterAlbert (sockpuppet account Fred Woofy now has a permanent block), my response:

"Suggesting that and editor should be banned for reverting the POV is not in keeping with Wiki policy"

It is in keeping with Wiki policy and you have been banned.

The phrase "attempts to debunk", I didn't construct. I just changed the line "In his vast online library he continues onward debunking" to "attempts to debunk" to make it more NPOV. The original and completely POV line was ironically added by your IP address here: [[1]]

The line "This last award, however, is often attributed to Cold War hysteria, and is no longer recognized by most alcohol governing bodies.", I didn't add either!

"Is there a reason that you do not want these acheivements acknowledged?" - yes, it's very boring for the Wiki reader to trawl through a list of pretty minor awards. Is there a reason you're attempting to promote Peele? You have just copied verbatim from his CV!

I'm done. Mr Miles (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]