Talk:History of Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 1

Dispute regarding Rockerfeller, number of steps, anonymity

Regarding Changes to the History Section Of Alcholics Anonymous. Mr. Miles keeps reverting the page to an earlier page, a page that has grave mistakes contained within it.

For example: In the matter of Rockerfeller: John D. Rockerfeller did not agree to $50,000 , if you check Bill Pittman AA the way it began and Pass It On it on you will see that both accounts agree with each other. The individual who originally posted the account of a $50,000 contribution made an error in his interpretation of the story. The person with whom Rockerfeller agreed with was a Mr.Stotts. Rockerfeller agreed money would spoil things. John D. Rockerfeller did consent to $5000 to to help Bill Wilson and Bob Smith with personal expenses. He went on to say "don't ask for anything more". Nelson Rockerfeller's {John's son} contribution was stating that AA should be self supporting in the matter of money.

It helps to read the historical references Mr. Miles before you choose to delete.

Now in the matter of steps, why was there 12 steps, and not some other number? Well the reason is given in Pass It On {AA's own history}. The author of the twelve steps, Bill Wilson , in his telling of the story decided that 12 would be the right number and his reasoning for this was he thought of the 12 apostles and thus made his decision. An important point in the story.

In the Matter of Early Literature:

AA historian Bill Pittman did the research and provided what the early AA'ers were reading prior to a Big Book. An Interesting Point. It answers what preceded the Big Book. It also reveals that it was not only the Bible they were relying on.

In the Matter of Anonymity. Why the need for anonymity? Where did that come from? Well in Pass It On there is a lengthy description on this very subject. They outline the why there was a need for anonymity , clairify anonymity does not apply to the message, why anonymity is needed at the level of media and later decribed problems as a result of early members breaking with anonymity. Since anonymity is expressed in the name "Alcoholics Anonymous" and in the traditions and forms such an important part and prinicple in this society , could you explain why this small condensed explaination is continually being deleted? It makes no sense to delete it.

MisterAlbert--MisterAlbert (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

MrMiles, it's disingenuous at best for you to revert material critical of yourself as "vandalism". You might try either addressing his points or ignoring them. You don't get to throw them away.

Meanwhile, you're involved in yet another revert war. They are never productive; they're tests of persistence rather than value. Find a better approach. PhGustaf 01:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Again Mr. Miles you keep attacking the Anonymity Section and giving a water down version of the facts, if you check with the source material the details are covered in two pages. I wonder why your need to keep attacking and blocking the other editors. At first you delete entire sections of the history and now you keep altering factual accounts?

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Big book 2nd edition.jpg

Image:Big book 2nd edition.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding June 2008 edits

Correcting Information, errors of ommission , information left out, adding it in is not POV but in keeping with referenced sources.

How is providing information POV, they are from the same reference sources for earlier material. If you have a problem with information taken from Pittman, Hartigan and Cheevers state why. It is more information from already quoted sources. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Fred

Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob did not maintain sobriety after his first meeting with Bill Wilson. Check Reference Susan Cheevers "My name is Bill" p. 137, Bill Stayed with the Smiths , laid plans for sober forever and Bob and Bill planned to take their program on the road, however Bob Attended a medical convention in Atlantic City and got drunk again. Bill Wilson and Anne had to bring him home again and detox him.

The inforamtion provided on this page has been a little misleading by what has been omitted.

--Fred Woofy (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Varities of Relgious Experiences

" in a review of emmanuel and oxford group literature William James VRE is the most quoted book"

"Wilson quoted James as saying deflation of depth" James does not say deflation at depth. he states transforming experiences are based on calamity. See Pittman , Bill AA the way it began p. 170 and 171.

--Fred Woofy (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Some details

on how the relgious conversion experience worked and requirements for attending meetings in early AA. See Cheevers. susan. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Belladonna

"While at Towns hospital under Silkworths care, Wilson was administered a drug cure concocted by Charles B. Towns. The formula for the cure contained the deliriants Belladonna and Hyoscyamus niger which cause the patient to have hallucinations. It was while undegoing this treatment Wilson experienced his "Hot Flash" spiritual conversion."

The line above is making a connection between Wilson's treatment and his spiritual experience. Personally I don't believe in a supernatural spiritual experience and think all events of this kind are brain created (which is full of natural chemicals anyway), however that is just my opinion and not relevant to Wiki. Does the source (Pittman) make that connection between Belladonna and Bill's 'hot flash' or is a Wiki editor making it?

Mr Miles (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The connection is made in days. Bill underwent this experience either on his second or third day in the hospital. Not at the end of the his treatment but at the beginning.

--Fred Woofy (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MyNameIsBillWPoster.jpg

The image Image:MyNameIsBillWPoster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sin as a disease

It might be better to remove this little section. The point is bit too theoretical for a concise summary of AA history, as this article ought to be. It is also an issue where dispute are common, so may lead to back-and-forth editing which tends to make articles worse. For example, I would dispute the idea that the Oxford Group concept of sin included the idea that it could be overcome once and for all. The best approach might be to state only that there was a relationship between the OG understanding of sin and the AA understanding of disease, and not as a separate section.Rose bartram (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I was forced to remove my reference after the paragraph was screwed up, which is a shame because it's a pretty good source. Oh well.Rose bartram (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Aversion to Reversion

I had thought this respected media documentary to be relevant to the article.

• "The Spirituality of Addiction and Recovery", Speaking of Faith, Public Radio program, May 15, 2008, American Public Media

However, User:Scarpy, without discussion, reverted it out under WP:EL. I still think it deserves merit. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

its placement alone under a subsection provides undue weight of a non-notable documentary (that has not produced any secondary sources). why is this link so important to you? you have placed the same link under numerous articles in 3 different formats without modifying the content of the article otherwise. That radio show originally aired in 2006, more than enough time for secondary sources to pick it up, however since that time it has not been referenced by any scholar in the addiction community.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We disagree, although I read your points. The documentary is -- as you queried "why is this link so important to you?" -- in my opinion, is an excellent, useful, encompassing, conscientious, and from well-respected sources. But there is other work to do. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to this on my talk page. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Failure to Pick Up Diploma

The statement that "Bill Wilson ... failed to graduate from law school because he was too drunk to pick up his diploma" lacks credibility. It sounds like one of those cutesy little things that people inject into their speeches or books to get a little chuckle out of the audience/reader. Think about it: After several years of hard work and study, a law school refuses to let a student graduate because they didn't come pick up their diploma. Really? I wonder what that particular law school would have to say about that? Perhaps something like: "Bill Wilson failed to graduate from law school because he was too drunk to complete the requirements of the degree" would be closer to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.147.8 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Works Publishing

The sentence "Using principles he had learned from the Oxford Group, Wilson tried to remain cordial and supportive to both men" is not neutral and may not even be true, though there is no way to prove it.

If he said he tried to remain cordial and supportive, then that is his word, which, considering the point in question (the money from book sales), should not just be taken at face value.

The words "cordial" and "supportive" (especially "supportive") are so ambiguous, that even measurable observation is open to fallacy.

"Cordiality" is quite irrelevant in the question of financial fraud. If someone stole a bunch of your money, and they were polite about it, would that make them any less of a thief?

The sentence also implies that Hank and Clarence were soliciting support, which is not the case in this context. They wanted the truth (at least, Clarence did, so the evidence overwhelmingly shows), and slanting the story toward Bill's highly questionable version, simply obscures the truth, even today.

I recommend deleting that sentence entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.106.175 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Relationship to Oxford movement

There are a number of issues with the page Oxford_Group#Relationship_to_Alcoholics_Anonymous. I thought folks here might have expertise and could help edit it. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)