Talk:History of Alcoholics Anonymous
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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It helps to read the historical references Mr.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)
Contents |
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
