Jump to content

Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,546,196 edits
m Signing comment by PhGustaf - "→‎Exceptional Circumstances: new section"
PhGustaf (talk | contribs)
5,805 edits
Line 101: Line 101:


Someone should say what these might be. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PhGustaf|contribs]]) 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Someone should say what these might be. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PhGustaf|contribs]]) 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Sorry for forgetting the tildes. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:32, 29 October 2007

Disruptive editing

Fred, I finally see what you're doing. You want to show that the Oxford Group and AA overlapped in Bill's life. And you believe that AA pretty much stole material from the Oxford Group and remained the Oxford Group just under a different name. You don't read books, so you're taking material from the only source you can find on this — Dick B. — and putting it in without reference. Jeez, you could have said so and I could have helped you — I also would like to add material on this. In the meantime, I will remove your unsourced material about the religious connection until we can get some reliable sources. Kapiche? — DavidMack 02:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with David on this one. Fred/207.232.97.13/207.194.108.93, stop with the edit warring and the uncited material, etc. -- Craigtalbert 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AA and the Oxford Group didn't overlap. I do read books and have been doing research and it becomes very clear, especially in "Pass It On" that Hazard, Ebby , BillW. , Bob Smith all obtained sobriety through the Oxford Group. AA was a movement that grew out of the Oxford Group , with the support of Sam Shoemaker. In fact AA was designed to targe a particular group of people, those who drank or were alcoholic. They incorporated much of what they had learned from the Oxford group and many of the Oxford practices into the AA program, Fact , the early members of AA of about 40 people, were all members of the Oxford group before setting up their own shop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Those insights are interesting. If you can include it in the article with proper references and maybe with a little less disruptive tactics that would be great. (BTW, am I talking to two people at the same acccount? You have distinctive styles.) — DavidMack 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need some references

I went through the "conversions of Thacher and Wilson" section and found that many of the references to Pass it On were false -- likely, again, material from Dick B. I think it was interesting material, but we need to find a good source for it. — DavidMack 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references in Pass It on Were not false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV additions

Fred, what's with the negative material you added, supposedly from the Big Book? It looks like you did not try to summarise the material, but instead extracted just the parts that support your views. — DavidMack 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be pov-pushing and I don't feel it adds much to the article. -- Craigtalbert 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a footnote more than once

Lets condense the references a little bit per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing a footnote more than once. There were ten separate footnotes for Vaillant's 2005 paper. -- Craigtalbert 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for citing books, I'd recommend that we use one reference per chapter, rather than having an arbitrary number of references each page cited. For example, when I was writing the Emotions Anonymous article I needed to cite information from two chapters of Odd man in: societies of deviants in America and made a reference for chapter three and chapter nine. This cleans things up quite and bit. -- Craigtalbert 22:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for all your work cleaning up the references. — DavidMack 17:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you for cleaning up some of the unsourced material. I tried to get the ones that were referenced multiple times and could be condensed. I don't have access to copies of Pass It On or Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age so I don't know what chapters the references are from. -- Craigtalbert 19:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with removing page references. In a contentious article like this one it may important to be able to find the page number of a citation. — DavidMack 19:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be. But when citing journal articles, there is usually very little need for page numbers, and they're usually not more than a few pages long (most book chapters are about the same length) and when they're being cited, the should be summarized -- even though I know many editors of this article are addicted to quote mining. More over, citing one page number of an article in a journal can be misleading and many journal don't "reset" page numbers until the end of a volume. E.g. this content you removed [5] was (supposedly) from a journal article, not a book, and it's only five pages long. Part of the reason I try to include DOIs, PMIDs, ISBNs, OCLCs, etc, is to make it easy for people to get to the article, or at least the abstract -- something which can't be done with incomplete page citations.
At any rate, after re-reading the article, I can tell you the research he presents doesn't support the claim cited by it. If anyone disagrees, email me, and I will send you the PDF. -- Craigtalbert 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See? Fred/13 is already removing referenced material with no page #.— DavidMack 19:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page numbers are cited. -- Craigtalbert 20:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig, I appreciate your hard work and high standards. And you're right that citing many page numbers from an article is superfluous. However Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing a footnote more than once says "Named references are used when there are several cases of repetition of exactly the same reference, including the page number for books." Replacing chapter numbers with page numbers has made the footnotes neater but will make it harder to defend accurate references and to check up on dubious references. — DavidMack 01:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to do? -- Craigtalbert 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project match

I know this isn't a "proper source", but http://www.morerevealed.com/articles/match.jsp seems to imply that project match was never a test of AA, per se, but was actually a test of TSF (something quite differnt from AA...). SHould this article be up there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.206.215 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TSF = Twelve-Step Facilitation therapy [6], as it currently says in the section on project MATCH. At any rate, Schaler's essay you linked too is arguing that TSF is very much like AA. -- Craigtalbert 01:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I understand what TSF is, but it's kind of different from AA. It's done by professionals, apparently, and the essay features a quote from someone on MATCH, arguing that Match never tested AA at all. Regardless of what schaler says (he has been disallowed as a proper source before), I just dont see what's so great about project MATCH anyway. It hardly says anything positive about TSF(let alone AA). Or negative either. I say ditch it. 82.0.206.215 17:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MATCH simply concludes that TSF is as effective as other methods — an important conclusion. MATCH is quoted in some texts on AA. It was a high-quality study. Because of the inherent limitations of research on AA (discussed in the article), you either get a direct study of AA that is vague with suggested results, or you get an indirect study of something similar to AA that may give high quality results. The MATCH study is the latter type. — DavidMack 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with David on this one. A neutral result is still a result. Adding something to explain the difference between TSF and AA would be fine. -- Craigtalbert 21:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point - I wasn't contesting the quality of the study of MATCH, rather the outcome. It simply didn't say much of interest (it doesn't matter what treatemnt you get...)

But it is a good idea to put something in about the difference between TSF and AA. I'll do that. 82.0.206.215 13:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


How It works has been vandalized and removed. it appears a user is an editing war.one user has decided to eliminate some posts without disussion. Ph Gustaf take note. 207.232.97.13Fred207.232.97.13 19:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The HOw it Works section does add to the ariticle is how it works. A number of keypoints have been taken from the chapter yet you say the points are POV. How is that. GOD it mentioned a innumerable times , and is vital to the recovery process , yet you want it deleted. You don;t add to it or question it you just delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk • contribs) 28 October 2007, 19:57 (UTC)

Why did you add this information to the article? -- Craigtalbert 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because I read How it Works for the First Time , It is a chapter written by Bill Wilson describing how it works. Common sense applies if there is a chapter detailing and describing how the program works then it should have a summary. The CHAPTER goes into great description and detail on the role of God in recovery , for example: "faith did for us what we could not do for ourselves," "we hope you are convinced God can remove whatever self will has blocked you off from him, "we earnestly pray for guidance", Let God be the final judge." "we are now on the basis of trusting and relying on god" , there are at least 2 pages devoted to the issue of sex which I condensed down to one statement.

207.232.97.13 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Fred207.232.97.13 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I thought you were trying to over-emphasize the religious nature of the program, and I was right. As you have admitted to your POV pushing, I'm going to delete the section. -- Craigtalbert 23:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No you were wrong. I did not write the chapter on How It works I just summarized it. I You have decided to label it point of view. An ommission of the material is your point of view. The entire Chapter on How it works concerns the relationship of the alchoholic/s with God or god of ones understanding. It is specific on how it works. I am adding it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's so crucial to have a summary of this chapter in the article, and in particular your summary, and only your summary? -- Craigtalbert 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, while we're discussing the topic, why don't you take a little more care when editing? Like this: [7]. Why did you leave the spurious <ref in the citation? Even when you moved the information around, you still didn't fix it: [8]. Even this, what's with the "IBSN" [9]? You sign your comments maybe one out of four times. It's like you just don't care. Do you take any pride in your work? -- Craigtalbert 04:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional Circumstances

Someone should say what these might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhGustaf (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for forgetting the tildes. PhGustaf 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous&oldid=167948180"