Talk:Bill W./Archive 1

Worst Wikipedia Page Ever?

His requesting whiskey on his deathbed, while controversial, merits inclusion.

Interesting. Have some evidence handy? Tribute2jimmyk 05:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[1] [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

It was a ridiculously biased mess so I fixed it to reflect reality.

Bill Wilson and the Alcoholics Anonymous fellowship came to a mutual decision to decrease his involvement because of his extra-traditional activities;such as, promoting niacin as a cure for alcoholism.My source on that is "A.A. comes of Age".Tjc 06:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous3243 13:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)So fix it. I won't be interacting with the page anymore so as to prevent a controversy from erupting.

There is no such thing as a terrible article, just an unfinished one. — DavidMack 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not confuse Bill W and AA: the article is about Bill W, not about AA. There is a difference. His grave marker, for instance, doesn't even mention AA; it mentions his military service above all. Hoserjoe 07:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

With her own resentments about what may have been her father's alcoholism, Susan Cheever's claim is dubious. Also, the author(s) are clearly promoting the "alcoholics victorious" program, a Christian program, in this article.

_______________ It's a very good article. Character assassinating a leader just because you don't like his message may be a common tactic, but it is not a substitute for responsible writing.

70.215.157.190 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Much of Wikipedia is done well; this article is an object lesson in how to everything poorly.

The article is hopelessly non-NPOV: it reads like AA literature, and was clearly written by a "true believer." One without a modicum of writing talent.

But more importantly, there are vast swaths of the article without a footnote, a citation, any kind of referential support whatsoever. I realize the writer just copied most of the drivel write of an AA pamphlet or their "Big Book." But couldn't somebody find a citation or two?

For what claims to be an encyclopedia this is laughably bad. And how could you possibly completely omit the massive amounts of criticism leveled at AA by the therapeutic community?

There are countless scholarly journals containing similar criticisms of Bill Wilson's organization. They don't merit a single mention?

Worst. Article. Ever. Agree. This is another wikipedia low where interests win out over fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.128.178 (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A Picture Should Be Added

His full name is given (which is fine because he is dead and therefore anonymity need no longer apply). Plus he was never able to have the anonymity that he safeguarded for others. So why not add a photograph?

70.215.157.190 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Susan Cheevers Quotes under the Man and His legacy

No offense but putting down a Cheever Quote on Bill Wilson is as bias. I am sure if I put in an Orange or Ragge quote on Wilson is would be deleted as a result of bias.

Here goes on Cheevers:

Book Review Critics on Susan Cheevers Bio of Bill Wilson and alcoholics anonymous

http://www.danielasarose.com/reviews-cheever.html

http://www.powells.com/review/2004_06_27.html

http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/books/reviews/n_9880/

From the New York Magazine

"My Name Is Bill is both more and less than a biography (and Wilson deserves a better one); it?s the life of a saint, written by a disciple. Cheever, the author of a powerful memoir of alcoholism, Note Found in a Bottle, is forever looking for lessons and parables and original sources in the life of the holy man, admiring his simple goodness, marveling at his ability to accomplish so much while suffering from his crushing depression. She?s more forgiving than Lois. This may be because she had her own alcoholic, sex-addicted, brilliant man in the family: The book is dedicated to her father, John Cheever. "

From Powell Book Review: Susan Cheever is firmly of the "It Works!" party. She too has written her "drunkalog" (Note Found in a Bottle).

"But her justification for plucking AA's co-founder from anonymity is that he matters too much to be left there. "Bill Wilson's ideas", she asserts, "have entered the common consciousness and changed how we define being human in a way certainly as powerful as the ideas of Sigmund Freud or Thomas Jefferson." "Susan Cheever's final judgement is unblinking but forgiving: "Bill Wilson never held himself up as a model: he only hoped to help other people by sharing his own experience, strength and hope. He insisted again and again that he was just an ordinary man". An ordinary man who nonetheless did one extraordinary thing."

From Daniel Rosa:

"God knows, I’m not agitating for a cheesy tell-all. But it’s hard to avoid the sense that Ms. Cheever’s first allegiance is not to the reader but to the legend of Bill Wilson, Inc. Some parts of his life, including his sex life, are still officially secret, she duly notes. Says who? Anyone not under the sway of A.A. would plow ahead and bust those secrets—either that, or risk the charge that she not so much breaks the contract with the reader as never commits to it in the first place".

Dear anonymous contributor (Please sign your name next time.) Thanks for this information; it's very relevant. We obviously need to include other sources besides Cheever. — DavidMack 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the article's information regarding Bill W's personal life relies still on Cheever as the sole source, including some claims that seem important in light of Bill's role in Alcoholics Anonymous. Is information on Bill W.'s life really so scarce that only one source exists outside of AA's official channels? Depaderico (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Occult

Was 151.205.71.71 confusing Alcholics Anonymous with the A∴A∴? Anyway, the Occultists category tag is now gone. Puck 07:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Compulsive Behavior" Description in Opening

I removed this description of Bill during his years of sobriety from the opening section because it has no supporting citation. I considered removing "bouts of depression" too because there also is no citation. Although his occasional spells of depression in sobriety are very widely known about, so I am leaving that for now although it should also get a citation to comply with Wikipedia standards.

70.215.157.190 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Physician heal thyself

I realized after sober [sic] reflection that in the article I LIBELED Susan Cheever by speculating that she was an adult child of an alcoholic John Cheever. The only basis I had for speculating that John Cheever was a drunk and that Susan is an adult child was Cheever's fiction, which may not constitute a roman a clef, and the seeming anger in Susan's bio, which may or may not have a Freudian content.

I have removed my speculation and I apologize if I have given any offense to the Cheever family or violated wikipedia's rules. And as always my text is Powerless over emendation.

Anonymous3243 11:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Critique

Wilson never claimed that popping LSD was the peak spiritual experience of his life. It may have been the peak spiritual experience of the life of the clown who posted that claim, but Wilson clearly states that an experience he had while recovering from a bout before his trip to Akron was the key or peak spiritual experience of his life. This is confirmed both inside and outside authorized AA literature.

Wilson's debt to the Oxford group was exagerrated, and it had nothing to do with Christianity. Instead, he seems to have realized that their humility, not their faith in God, needed to be incorporated into AA.

Susan Cheever IS an adult child, and to the best of my knowledge, her Dad was a drunk who messed up her life, and then had the nerve to write about it. Her "documentation" is an adult child's cry of pain that her Daddy loved the bottle more than her, because she's confusing Cheever with Wilson. Furthermore, Bill W. is not the only recovered alcoholic to make, after twenty years off the sauce, a beeline for the bar, only to be saved at the last minute, whether by a spiritual thought or (it seems in the case of the incident Cheever uses to libel Wilson) Big Nurse.

Wikipedia doesn't have to be AA approved literature, but it needs to keep its facts straight. I have done major surgery on this article and the patient is recovering nicely.

Anonymous3243 11:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

patient recovering nicely??? You sound rather angry. AA recovery personified. You are bitter because you are locked into a cult that has a zero success rate. Why aren't the rooms filled with 20+ years of sobriety?? People leave, because after a while they catch on and or drink.

A photograph?

Could we perhaps put a photo of Bill on the page?

Pb1 02:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Done — DavidMack 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

More Bill W assertions

I'm in the club. I've read Susan's book and felt it had an objective tone, not hostile. I was startled by the events discribed on Bill's deathbed but I won't drink over it. It reinforced his humanity. One thing though. Did Bill receive royalties from the Big Book (capitalizing like the Bible for reverential effect)? If so, how do you sanction that with the tradition accounting his struggle with "a laborer is worthy of his hire" and making money out of AA?Bostoneire 15:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Bill made royalties from the Big Book. He would become a wealthy man from his AA writings and I believe Lois and one of Bill's mistresses split an inheritance of around a million dollars. Mr Christopher 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the article is typical AA propoganda. Bill Wilson had a serious character defect, he took LSD 20 years into sobriety. The LSD experiments were intended for drunks initial phase of drying out. To add insult to injury, AA literature comments that Wilson advocated the drug enthusiastically. The operative word here is enthusiastic. Coming from a recovering guru, you would have to think very seriously before turning your will over to this program. Also, the OxFord groups Buchman was a vocal admirer of Heinrich Himmler and Buchman was on the cover of Time featured, "Cultist Buchman". AA is a cult. This article personifies condesending tone of AA propoganda and will not objectively call a spade a spade. The recovery rate after 10 years in AA is less than 5 %. That is not a successful program, that is an absolute failure rate. Would you want a batter at the plate pinch-hitting in the World Series with a batting average of 50 ?????? That batter would be looking for a new career.160.136.109.109 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if your numbers are right or wrong, but I sense that you don't believe A.A. works. OK, good luck to you in a pursuit of recovery somewhere else. I've been successful in A.A., so if its OK with you, I'll stay.Bostoneire 15:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bill W had lots of character defects. That's the whole point of trying to improve himself. If the guy didn't have any defects, the whole issue would be totally pointless Hoserjoe 07:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

yo, can you please amend your edits with references? thats how it works around here. Fullmetaljacuzzi 22:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the word "cult" is only a pejorative term used to describe a religious group that one wants to disparage. I could equally well state that I considered any religious group to be "cult." I personally am in another 12 step fellowship. Someone once asked me if my 12 step group was a "cult." I said, "Yes, but it's *my* cult." I still stick with that -- and I'm free of my particular addictive behavior now for 4 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.225.14 (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing is needed to make a balanced bio

This article sounds more like a history of AA than a bio of Bill. Bill was a great man, leader, and thinker, and also a man with deep flaws; that's what makes him interesting. The Cheever book seems to me to be fairly balanced and a good source for a better bio. — DavidMack 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Information on the Occult's influence on Bill W.

Controversial text removed: diff. I question the neutrality of this information as it seems like quote mining to overstate the importance of the "occult" in Bill W's life. While I recognize it's importance of WP:AGF, it's worth noting that this information appears to have been lifted from orange-papers.org (an anti-AA site) [2], [3]. The people originally posting this on orange-papers.org do not have a neutral point of view on the subject. At the very least, this information needs to be condensed, edited, spell checked, and properly wikifed. -- Craigtalbert 10:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the information was posted on Fox news, Cnn, or the Orange Papers is not the basis to delete information.

It is not for you to determine that the source for information influences a view as neutral or not.

Certainly the fact that the files are sealed speaks volumes in itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.108.93 18:16, 30 March 2007 207.194.108.93

Anonymous ip guy, the way the article reads now is purely POV pushing and original research. You'd do well to learn how to make quality edits, especially if you want to inject this sort of material. It's all relevant and belongs but the way it is written is awful and conflicts with several Wiki policies. I do not have time to clean up your awful edits to this article, perhaps someone else does. Mr Christopher 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick taking out of the garbage in the occult section. i think it is slightly less POV and original research now. Mr Christopher 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

orange-papers.org is not considered to be a reliable source (see WP:RS). It's not only the bias, it's the poor quality of the writing, research, information and overstating it's importance (this information could easily be condensed in to about a three sentence paragraph). If you can do the necessary copy editing to bring it up to standards, I don't have a problem with it. But as you've currently written it, "The Importance of The Occult" is the largest section in this article. If that's not a violation of WP:NPOV, at the very least it's an overstatement. -- Craigtalbert 20:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Craig, even calling that section "the importance of the occult" is major POV/original research. I changed the title and deleted some of the obvious nonsense and you are correct, that section should be cut by at least 50%. Mr Christopher 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we should probably edit it down to two sentences and then link to a new article about Bill's interest in spiritualism and the occult that anonymous ip guy can write. Mr Christopher 20:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just got the Cheever book "My Name is Bill W." out of the library, so I will be adding sourced information about the occult to Bill W. within the next few days. — DavidMack 21:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> David, I believe Nan Robertson's Getting Better:Life Inside Alcoholics Anonymous and Ernest Kurtz's Not God:A History Of Alcoholics Anonymous touches on these subjects as well. Mr Christopher 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the most recent edits I made, and let me know what you think. It's very short, but gets the point across without the elaborate quotations and "leading." -- Craigtalbert 21:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed the Father Dowling Letter, an important Point. The letter should be added back in as the source material is not as ready available in some Libraries.

What needs to be included in the reference section along with Susan Cheever's work is Pass it On Pages 275 to 280 as they do describe the actual seances in particular page Bill's encounters with dead people p.276 and a detailed account a session with the ouiji board.Page 278

Or you could simply add that Bill encountered entity's from the other world P. 276 User--207.194.108.93 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Every book you referenced was included and listed in the reference section. The quotations are overkill. There's no reason to include more than this. -- Craigtalbert 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Qoutations Overkill

I disagree...quotes are used in numerous occassions. Quoatations and leading. I mean we are quoting Pass It On How AA message reached the world so how can that be leading. It is out of AA own resource material.

Not only that but the AA pass it on is not in the reference section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.108.93 00:26, 31 March 2007

It is, it's the second reference, take a look: Bill_W.#References. The number of times the quotes have been used, that their source is official A.A. literature, etc, is not a reason to include them. This has all ready been discussed. -- Craigtalbert 00:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill's Conversion

The article claims:

Thatcher had been sober for several weeks under the guidance of the Oxford Group, an evangelical society that among other pursuits, sought to help drunkards achieve sobriety.

From what I have read the Oxford group was primarily interested in converting well to do folks and did not have a prusuit of getting drunks sober. This is a myth about the Oxford folks that is told at AA meetings. Unless we can get a reliable source (not an anonymous one) we should strike the "that among other pursuits, sought to help drunkards achieve sobriety" part I think. Opinions? Mr Christopher 11:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think whoever wrote the majority article was probably someone who had heard the Bill W. story and read about it in several different books and then kind of wrote it from memory. I would be good to have direct citations for all the pieces of the story. -- Craigtalbert 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The above claim was accurate, only missing a reference. There's more than enough information of the Oxford Group, including its own WP page. Reference is now attached to the item. Hoserjoe 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe Ken Ragge has addressed this issue: http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_21.jsp

Ebby Thatcher did not maintain a sober lifestyle. It would be worthwhile looking at what happened to Ebby after the Oxford group and AA.

It should be noted in Alcoholics anonymous that the need for member to maintain anonminity was a result of the Firestone conversion.

In writing the 12 x 12 it should be noted during this time Bill W. suffered from a disabling depression. Ken Ragge notes the irony of a man who could not manage his own life writing a text advising others how to obtain happiness.

How is this much different from great comedians who suffered from chronic disabling depression, such as Richard Pryor, John Cleese, etc. This isn't ironic, it's just real life. Hoserjoe 06:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The 11 year depression should be noted in the Bio along with the fact he suffered from what was called Disomania at the time of joining the Oxford Group. He was hospitalized and treated with a mixture of drugs that included Bella donna. It was while taking these hallugenic drugs that he had his spirtual awakening.

I think, anonymous contributor, that you mean "dipsomania", i.e. the affliction of drinking too much booze and getting drunk and falling on your ass. BTW, can you please sign your messages so we know who's talking? Hoserjoe 07:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Tweak

The article read: "...unconventional cures for alcoholism such as niacin".

1. There have never been "conventional cures", or "cures" at all, for alcoholism; hence "unconventional cure" is meaningless.

2. No one has ever touted niacin as a "cure" for alcoholism. Some have used niacin in attempted management with (reportedly) gratifying results -- but no one has ever claimed a "cure".

The phrase has been replaced with "novel treatments for alcoholism such as niacin".

Cheerio.

Alan2012 15:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Aldous Huxley

The "greatest architect of the 20th century" quote is being discussed on Orange Papers atm (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters89.html about 3 letters down, continuing for most of the page). As people have already discussed the possible bias of Cheever, perhaps we could look into getting the Aldous Huxley claim verified by another secondary source? Or even better, find a primary one where Huxley states this. 82.19.66.37 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

other woman

This section keeps getting added, and I am really wondering why? I am not contesting that Bill W. womanised, but how is that relevent to this article? I see it as the equivelent of puting a "Fucault was gay" section in the fucault article, and eleberating on it. its true, but it dosn't add to the article. I don't want to start a revert war with MrAlbert, but I do want some justification for its addition to this article other than "well its true."Coffeepusher 02:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am removing this section because it appears irelivent to the article as a whole, and because I havn't been given a good reason not to do so...if you would like it included, I would like to see the reason it contributes to the article as a whole.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

here is the section that was deleted, so people can comment:

Bill's womanizing was common knowledge in New York AA circles. His interest in younger women intensified with age, which caused Barry Leach and other friends of Bill to form a "Founders Watch". People were assigned to keep an eye on Bill during the socializing that follows AA functions and to separate and steer away young women who caught Bill's interest. Bill's behavior was painful and may have had a detrimental effect on some of the women with whom he became involved. In the mid 1950s he began a long time affair with one woman by the name of Helen Wyn, "in duration, intensity and scope" this was different from his other affairs. Bill at one point considered divorcing Lois to marry Helen. Bill renegotiated his royalty agreements with the AA trustees in 1963 whereby in his estate he left 10% of his book royalties to Helen and the other 90% to his wife Lois. In 1968 with Bill's illness making it harder for them to spend time together, Helen bought a house in Ireland.

Coffeepusher (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill's womanizing was a source of great disturbance among those who attended AA, some left because of it. He became so involved with one woman she ended up with some of the Big Book royalites upon his death. It was important enough that both Cheevers and Hartigan included it in their bios of Bill Wilson, hence it remains. It is part of his history and part of his character. I suggest you do your research and read the biographies before attacking and vandalizing the web page.

Hartigan was both a director of the AA-related Stepping Stone Foundation and the longtime secretary and confidant to Bill Wilson's wife, Lois. I am resubmitting it.

Now now now...I was not vandalizing the page and we both know that so get your [insert proper article of clothing] out of such a tizzy. pour yourself up a nice cup of coffee and cool down...better...good. I asked why it was there. this is a proper question. I waited over 36 hrs. with no reply (which is well within the period that you check wikipedia...according to your edit logs) and no response. you saw my post and you ignored it...so either the other woman section wasn't important enough for you to defend, or you don't care about my opinion. I gave you a good faith character decision and thought that your silence meant that you obviously agreed with me (because otherwise you where insulting me) and made the edit...being careful to copy the deleted post to the talk page in order to discuss its value.

now you accuse me of vandalism...and I gave you every courtesy for your work. I gave you more good will than you have ever given anyone you disagreed with. please be careful of the titles you throw around, they really do smark.

I didn't question if it happened...it did. I have done my research (another hasty attack on your behalf...wow, your character isn't looking good) and understand that all the facts in this post are true...I have never questioned that...take another sip of that coffee....are we still cool (if this is slightly condescending, imagine being called a unrestricting vandal after a hard day at work and you will understand the sarcasm in the light that it exists from)

but how exactly is it applicable. Thomas Jefferson broke his leg jumping out of the British ambassadors wife’s window in France, and that isn't on his wiki page...Foucault died of Aids after engaging in Sexual rebellion to support his theories of power and sex (which he wrote extensively about) and that isn't on his page...Ginsburg slept with a new young boy at every poetry reading after his fame (lets see, nope it isn't there)...Socrates engaged in sex with boys, that was the context of "love" that he wrote from (nope)...

so again, why is this important. Just because in 2 books there is about 15 pages dedicated to his affairs, why should it take up 1/6th of his wiki article. This is an appropriate question, and I would like a response pleaseCoffeepusher (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There are also at least 4 other editors who have "vandalized" this page by questioning the authanticity of this section. you seem to be the only editor who supports this section.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mabie you can explain why this is a summery of the Agen Orange piece entitled "other women" in 7 pages you guys seem to pick the exact same sentances and summery's, with little to no modification. it is a long piece, however it is the same stuff...almost word for word and the structure isn't changed at all. http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-otherwomen.html#ftnt01 in case you are interested. I will remove it again, not to be vengefull, but because it is a copyright violation.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a a citation taken from Francis Haritigan not Agent Orange, rather than vandilizing the aritcle I suggest you get a copy of the book. It is a good faith edit and for some particular unsubstantiated reason of your own you choose to delete it. Your reasoning is irrational and biased! If I wanted to expand on the article I could quote from Haritigans Book he also bragged about his womanizing while attending the Oxford group and he was checked on his behaviour with woman as well as his smoking. Right now you have elected to engage in an edit war . My advice to you is instead of being so lazy get a copy of Cheevers and Hartigan and read it yourself as I and others have. I am restoring it. I am going to be reporting you ongoing vandalism to this page. 207.194.108.93 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)the library

actualy this isn't an edit war, I have been trying to engage in discussion, every time I change the article I post on the discussion page with reasons why...and you come back with personal attacks (calls of vandalism...lazyness...lack of reserch...reporting of vandalism...) the fact remains that between the two of us, I have been activly trying to engage in discussion of the article...and you are trying to intimidate me into leaving "your page" alone. now I am still not against discussion, but can you please...pritty please... let me know why this is relevent information for the page. as a fellow editior it is not an unreasonable question.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A discussion on the article. I advise you to read both Cheevers, Haritigan and do your own work rather than you would have something to discuss. The best you have done is pull up the Orange Papers. Even he has done more research than you. The issue with Bill's womanizing, deserved an entire chapter in Hartigans book. It was also described in detail in Cheevers book. Hartigan had even sourced a member from the Oxford group who cited that Bill bragged about his conquests and Hartigan also noted Bill was constantly checked within the Oxford group for both his smoking and his behaviour with women. I can go on and elaborate on how his behavior with woman caused problems with certain members and go into much more detail, however for the purpose of this the orignally posted summarized source was good enough. 13th stepping had much of its origins with the founder on the group. In fact I will put it under 13th stepping. How is that/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

first off, you did cut and paste from agen orange (as you have done in the past) or it is a really freaky coinsidence. you even changed the wording around after I called you out on it. now again "how is that valuble" you seem to be under the impression that I think it didn't happen, or that your source is bad (which are the usual argument that you get into...and you have defended both well) but that isn't what I said. how does that constitute a place in the wikipedia page. now you are just lashing out, and making the whole bill W page in your image to get back at the fact that I questioned your post. your behavior is atrocious, and titleing it 13th stepping is not appropriate. please answer the question and become more civil. at no point have I attacked you...but I have endured your attacks for quite long enough. so I am done discussing your lack of civility, answer the question.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not cut and paste. I sourced the original material that is why I know so much more than you. The best you can do is attack a good faith edit and unjustly and unfoundly accuse someone of cut and paste. You have no justification for your editing as you have not sourced the original material. I happen to know , which by the way is not cited in Orange, that Bill W. was checked often for his both his smoking and his womanizing while attending the Oxford group, I also know that he tried on a number of times to quit smoking and failed Hartigan. Hartigan had also sourced an eyewitness accpunt who described how Bill would brag about his womanizing while attending the Oxford group. But then if you had the original material you would not have justification for your foolish edits , would you?

--207.194.108.93 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)The library.

By the way if you had read Hartigans book you would see the chapter called the other woman {note singular} I believe Orange borrowed the "other women" from him. 207.194.108.93 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)the library P.S. another footnote. The Orange papers never mentioned how Wynn and Bill's affair ended. That being as a result of Bills detoriating health , Helen left and bought a house in Ireland. I sourced that along with everything else from Hartigan. But then again if you had read the both Cheever and the Hartigan biographies on Bill Wilson you would have been able to determine this and that Bills 13th stepping was so openly noted and observed and caused such controversy and it deserved a detailed and lengthy account by both biographers in their individual books. Hence it is included on this page in a very summarized form. 207.194.108.93 (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)the library

I read the Chapter 25 in Hartigan. The material is legitimately sourced and in my opinion relevant. A couple of places it needs to be paraphrased to be less of an extract from Hartigan. My complaint is that Hartigan presents a balanced look at Bill's strengths and weaknesses, whereas the material is only about his weaknesses. For example Hartigan says that Bill, like many in his generation, could be sexist, but he was also "capable of treating the women who worked with him with dignity and respect." (p 197). 93, do you think you could summarize the material instead of just picking out the evil bits? Also, in my opinion, the section should not be called "13th stepping" because it's also about Bill's long-term relationships. — DavidMack (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a great parallel between your work and Agent orange, if I was hasty in the accusation you have my appology. Now again, please stop accusing me of not reserching. can I say it (yet again) PLEASE stop accusing me of not reserching, vandalising, attacking you, beeing lazy...all of these are personal attacks. I have done my reserch, and (again and again and again)again I state that the source is good...it happened...what do I have to say to let you know that I agree that this is a valid source...l-o-o-k a-t w-h-a-t I a-m t-y-p-i-n-g... I am asking for its VALITIDY ON THE PAGE..... NOT its validity as a source...

since you are confused about this (based on your responce) please refer to my first few posts where I explain what I mean.

and entitling it as "13th steping" and "bill wilson lived a lie" is definatly point of view and you should probably change that.

I am sorry I got you worked up, I am again only trying to talk.

but future lashing outs will not be responded toCoffeepusher (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted 2 parts of this section. the first part said "bill wilson lived a lie" the second section stated "his behavior MAY have caused other women harm" both of these sentances where cited, however they did express a value judgement and opinion. the deletion of those sentances didn't take away from the content of the article, it only allowed the reader to come to their own conclusions from the information presented.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted the powells comments as blockquote as they were done originally a few months back, the early quote was taken out of context which demonostrated a POV, putting back in as a blockquote as done a few months back is in keeping with a more balanced view and less one sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterAlbert (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the quote, and don't see how this gives any additional information other than to say "Powells opinion of bill wilson is such and such." all the actuall information contained in the quote is already in the article, the only thing we left out was the opinion.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Alcoholics Anonymous

Users are continously being blocked from posting information. The most recent block has been the result of informtion being added from Powells Book Review. Mr. Miles has constantly being deleting entire sections of both the AA history and and Bill W. sections along with other and even at one point deleted the discussion section. This appears to be persecutory towards a particular user. Inforamtion recently deleted was pertaining to the death of Bill Wilson and a balanced view of quote taken out of context. See Below:

"Anyway you look at it", Wilson wrote in 1951, "it's a problem world." His most troublesome problem was sex . He was serially unfaithful to his long-suffering wife, Lois — a woman whose complaisance, as Cheever says, "seemed to constitute a disease of its own". Despite his programme's insistence on "rigorous honesty", Bill W. lived a lie. He had innumerable affairs and a long-term mistress with whom he contemplated eloping to Ireland (the scandal would probably have destroyed Alcoholics Anonymous). Susan Cheever's final judgement is unblinking but forgiving: "Bill Wilson never held himself up as a model: he only hoped to help other people by sharing his own experience, strength and hope. He insisted again and again that he was just an ordinary man". An ordinary man who nonetheless did one extraordinary thing." [4]

Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to where the entire discussion was deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Have added Bills last desire to drink in as per discussion on discussion page Alcoholics Anonymous. the library--207.194.108.93 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Have deleted Bills last desire to drink because discussion happened on different page...try and add it there since you went to get consensus there.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another piece of information that keeps being deleted:

Though he had nothing to drink for the last 35 years he always craved the stuff and on his death bed demanded whiskey which his attendants refused him. The reference: John Sutherland, http://www.powells.com/review/2004_06_27.html Spirit against spirits (review of My Name is Bill by Susan Cheevers), Times Literary Supplement, June 27, 2004.</ref>

This account can also be found in the Susan Cheevers bio My name is Bill, regarding Bill Wilson death bed requests, the accounts have survived due to meticulous record by one of Wilson's attendants.

Please comment. I will attempt to add back in , check history section against the page. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments from previously uninvolved users

Could someone please state clearly on this page the question on which comment is sought. If it is about the status of a website as a source, then it would be helpful to have a summary of how the website was established and how it is maintained. Thanks, and I look forward to coming back to you with an opinion on the issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "Fred et. al." feels that he is unjustly beeing persicuted by a few other editors, he wants to add the paragraph above, which is a qotation from a book review, of a book that covers bill w's life. you can read the paragraph, and draw your conclusions...thats as far as I got with this whole feasco.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. You've framed the question in terms of user conduct not in terms of how the article can be improved. That makes it more difficult for outsiders to help out. I could read the paragraph but before that I have some questions to everyone. Is the source reliable? Is it quoted/summarised accurately (we assume yes)? Is the addition relevant or does it create WP:Undue weight? Would be interested to read answers from both sides. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference is from a source that certainly qualifies as reliable (Sutherland, John. "My Name Is Bill: Bill Wilson--His Life and the Creation of Alcoholics Anonymous" (book review). The Times Literary Supplement, June 27, 2004.) In my opinion the quotation near the top of this section is a balanced statement that gives an overview of Wilson's strengths, weaknesses, problems and achievements. I would expect it to satisfy AA supporters and critics alike.

As for the point on personal conduct, the user who posted the request tends to extract information critical of AA from otherwise balanced sources and paste it in. The request for comment is indicative of his writing style.

Lastly, if you're up for some riot control we could use your comments at Alcoholics Anonymous and History of Alcoholics Anonymous.

— DavidMack (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(cut and pasted from above)(begins with now redundant introduction)I just want to put my view of the book review quote...however since I am not a outside source, I thought I might express my view above the section, as not to unjustly influence the pov. after checking wp:source I found it to be a questionable source...because it is a book review, it relies heavily on opinion...it is not as if the reviewer was an expert on AA and checked all the sources, he just gave his opinion on the book. I believe the book is valid; however the book review is not. Coffeepusher(talk)23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to follow up on that one with the question of why we are using a "book review" or a "published personal opinion of a book" for our article when the book itself is avalible? does that really qualify as an encyclopedic source? It would qualify if this page was on that book, but it is on the topic of that book.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I put the material in, properly referenced this time. I see your point that the source is about the book, not Bill W., but it seems to me to be an excellent summary. What do you think? — DavidMack (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think it isnt' a proper source for wikipedia. I really want to let the group bring their opinion, but I am still sceptical...it does flow well and is an interesting capstone for this page...so kutos on that.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Now I've understood the question my opinion is include. If the idea that the subject asked for whisky on his deathbed originates from Cheever, then that is a good source and should be cited. Sutherland's review of Cheever can stand until the page reference in Cheever is found. Should it turn out that the point is not in Cheever, then leave it in sourced to Sutherland while you consult more sources. If it eventually turns out that only Sutherland states the point as a fact, then you should probably leave it out.

If you'll permit me to make a more general point, it is that you need to agree on a to-do list to move the article forward. You have no less than four biographies listed: Thomsen, Hartigan, Raphael and Cheever, all from good publishers (at first sight anyway). That puts you in an excellent position to write a GA or even an FA. The article should be written up from these bios, reflecting the balance that their authors have taken the trouble to achieve.

It is actually turning into a decent article. Wow. However due to the approach of one or two contributors here, putting up a list of things to do creates an open invitation for a mass spam pasting. Personally I'll just contribute when I get the time. — DavidMack (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest you go back to the RfC page, add a further message saying that you've described the point at issue more clearly and you'd like some more opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the information sourced from Hartigan and Sutherland came from a number of users, other than Coffeepusher, who has yet to source and add anything of value to the article. It is very biased indeed to state that the poster who asked for assistance in overviewing this article on the history of Bill W is completely anti AA. It would fair to say he is more more in favor of an accurate account, which is constantly being deleted by the pro AA group who can't seem to come to terms with the factual historical or account of this man's life. The fact remain's that the Poweel Book review provides a balanced assesmentand takes into account both the pros and cons of this man's life and contributions and was an acceptable source as it was previously quoted and included in this section prior to the Pro aa group deleting it. As I have pointed out , some editors have taken considerable time to resource and read the orignal source material , only to be accused by the pro AA individual, who is constantly attacking and underming the efforts of other editors, by falsely accusing them of cutting and pasting. A postion the pro AAers would not be able to uphold had they themselves taken the time and energy to do the the research themsleves. As you will note their arguments are irrational and they are grabbing at straws in an attempt to control the information posted here.

By the way David the article is coming together very well and we appreciate your contributions. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure if everyone can assume good faith and resolve to leave the personal disagreements behind the article can progress more quickly. There are many editors around who understand the NPOV policy and will intervene if necessary to uphold it. If you can possibly avoid attach labels such as "pro AA" or "anti AA" that will also help. Best of luck. I will keep the page on watch but only come back again if it is needed, and I don't think it will be. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Emotions Anonymous

I discovered this page via a wikilink from the Emotions Anonymous article and think that this article is nicely written. However, I was puzzled that it doesn't appear to contain any information about Bill W's role in the creation of Emotions Anonymous, an organization that, according to the article, has 1100 chapters and is therefore not insignificant. Can some mention of that be integrated into this article? I'm not knowledgable enough about either subject to make much of a contribution myself. Cruzin07 (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. I re-read the history of EA in that article and after further review it looks as though Bill W's actual role in the creation of that group is a bit overblown. Cruzin07 (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

one minor change

I switched the link to spiritualism to spirituality. To my knowledge, as an anon by choice former AA member, Wilson's personal believes are not the "the foundation of AA principles" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.61.139 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

edited by author

AA had a spiritual basis, but Bill's private interest was in spiritualism, or communicating with the spirits of the dead. This article is about Bill the man, not AA principles. — DavidMack (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wilision vs. Bil vs. Bill W.

Since it is clear that Bill him self just prefered Bill or Bill W. and such naming is standard within AA shouldn't we use that instead of "Wilson" when using a single word for his name? --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Unless I'm having a really bad day, this sentence makes no sense as written - I don't want to edit/change, though, because I'm not exactly sure what is intended by its author. Perhaps someone else an help?

"Despite his victory over drink, Wilson remained incurably addictive and despite his program's insistence on "rigorous honesty", Bill W. lived a lie. He had innumerable affairs and a long-term mistress with whom he contemplated eloping to Ireland the scandal would probably have destroyed Alcoholics Anonymous.[30]" LAEsquire (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)LAEsquire

I don't blame you. This is all from a review, if you have followed it. A bit WP:POV though, I suspect neutral and maybe admissible on that score. Alas, it seems accurate. Can it be reworded? I would think. But the essential points the author is trying to make are these: Bill was still compulsive (as are most addictives), he had compulsive affairs, compulsive smoker, etc. The author, like most materialists, expects people who suggest a life of perfection, to be perfect themselves. This is unachievable, which both materialists and spiritualists understand. There is just a disconnect on attainment. So that part is perhaps worded WP:POV. Not easy to correct since the original editor did a pretty fair job.

The statement "would probably have destroyed AA" is clearly WP:CRYSTAL unless a quote. I don't think this quoted author has the credentials to be quoted, so maybe that clause can be removed. Student7 (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "living a lie" is also unnecessarily WP:POV. A reader can figure out for himself that Bill was a womanizer and married at the same time, and draw their own conclusions.

If the column is by John Sutherland (author) and I wonder, then he is sort of "reliable" I guess. But not for any other Sutherland. Nor can I figure out the roots of the website which is .com and selling books. Maybe not reliable at all.

IMO, serial affairs probably needs to be in here, if true, smoking himself "to death". The rest seems unnecessarily pejorative and opinionated.Student7 (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this a quotation? It is from a review of a Book on Bill W. Was he "incurably" addictive? Is a "contemplation" of his going to Ireland worthy of mention? The man probably contemplated quite a few things. "Bill W. lived a lie" is an opinion. Are we right to assume that the scandal would probably have destroyed Alcoholics Anonymous? More likely than not, AA would have "survived" in one form or another. "Wilson eloped with a mistress? Well let's shut off the lights and go have a drink..." Matter of fact, the whole section is unnecessary and POV, the only thing perhaps worthy of mention is his long-term mistress, as that is surely verifiable and a significant part of his life. Oh, and does ANY of this belong under the heading "Legacy?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susuberry (talk • contribs) 10:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

His legacy might include the worldwide growth of AA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susuberry (talk • contribs) 10:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheever has no source for the Huxley "greatest social architect" quote, nor does anyone else. I've checked and I know others have as well. Without a source there is no available context, and I would not be surprised if the author of "Brave New World" was actually needling Bill when he said it, assuming that he in fact did say it. The "quote" doesn't belong here. I agree with the previous poster that, for good or for ill, Bill's legacy was AA. It would be better to say that in fewer words than this section now has. There is too much synthesis and too much weight to Cheever. Actually, the entire article is overly dependent on Cheever, it seems to me. She has novelized Bill's life and made it into her own parable. Vacillation between mystical adoration and muckraking does not constitute objectivity.Rose bartram (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the usual purpose of a biographical article?

Or, for that matter, a biographical volume? We have a handful of pretty solid biographies of Bill W., as well as a few accounts of the history of Alcoholics Anonymous that can be agreed upon to be fact-driven and well-balanced. It was suggested earlier that these sources be mirrored in the amount of attention given to different aspects of Wilson's life, legacy, and historical significance. Or, we could decide for ourselves what we think is important to include, depending on some kind of collective point of view.... (Yes, that is tongue-in-cheek). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susuberry (talk • contribs) 08:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your pov. Many bios, however, tend to err on the side of laudatory. Another bunch are scurrilous attacks on the individual. So we will have to show some balance between the two - not editing out "mistakes" the person made, but neither focusing on them either. There is a reason that Bill W. is notable and that point should not be lost in the bio. This bio is actually a bit easier than most since Bill started a program where people could admit to being less than perfect. What better a place to state his documented imperfections! Try that in a politician's bio and see where that gets you!  :) Student7 (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Need to Attack Famous People Actually a Symptom of Several Disorders

It should be noted that there are several mental illnesses that include in their symptoms the need to attack famous people. These include: borderline personality disorder, some patterns of passive-aggressive disorder, some types of delusional disorder, not to mention some people still wrapped up in their addictions.

70.215.249.139 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What Balance really Is

Balance in writing about a person doesn't mean giving equal time to every fringe criticism or crank. Criticism that is well documented in its claims and beyond reasonable dispute has a place. However the known and documented accomplishments and contributions of the article subject deserve a primary place because the subject of the article is the main topic and not his or her critics. Otherwise you have an article about the opinions of critics and not the person who is the subject of the article.

70.215.157.190 (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A Note on Perspective

It should also be noted that it is impossible to lead a world-wide self-help organization, or an organization of any sort, without drawing personal attacks. Writing about such attacks as if they, by themselves, are evidence of something is not balanced writing either.

70.215.157.190 (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The criticism has to be duly cited by a credible (WP:RELY) source. If it isn't editors can remove it. Bill never claimed to be perfect. Quite the opposite in fact. His lack of perfection is not a problem. Uncited criticism or from unreliable sources, however, can be reverted. Student7 (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please fix refs

I don't care if the Cheever biography is reliable or not, but an article needs to have minium usability. The first reference to this source is "<...>Cheever, p 25.</...> which doesn't actually cite it. Is there a way to automatically make a first reference a full cite? 71.191.171.250 (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

When did he start smoking?

Does anyone know if he started smoking once he stopped drinking, or if he was already a smoker? 65.14.229.26 (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Time magazine recognition: Puffery??

The following sourced description of recognition by Time magazine is in the article: "In 1999 Time Magazine declared Wilson to be in the top 20 of the Time 100: Heroes and Icons who exemplified 'courage, selflessness, exuberance, superhuman ability and amazing grace' in the 20th century". A user has removed the quoted part ("courage, selflessness ..."), calling it "puffery". I disagree. I would appreciate other's opinions. Cresix (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If the dubious preference for silly hyperbole from Time is to be insisted on as somehow essential to the lead, I'll never understand the poor taste and lack of judgement involved. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comments and opinions about the content in this issue are welcome, The Artist, but your personal comments about "poor taste and lack of judgment" are out of line. If you need a warning about personal attacks (toward me or anyone), consider this your first warning. Now, I hope others can feel free to express their opinions for or against the quotation without concern about a personal attack. Cresix (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Time said "courage, selflessness, exuberance, superhuman ability and amazing grace." Besides being the worst writing of the lowest order (poor taste), none of it should be in the lead or is in any way helps the reader better understand BW (bad judgement). Besides being embarrassing, it is hagiography and nothing more and we should know better than to pass it on. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue. Let's see if anyone else considers it "embarrassing" or "hagiography". Cresix (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good Maybe they could explain, if you can, why "superhuman" well describes BW. Or why that shouldn't make him blush or cringe. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Time seems neutral IMO. And broadly circulated. And sufficiently limited to the people selected. "Top twenty" are going to have rather elaborate adjectives, aren't they? Anyway, that is one npov observation. I suppose it doesn't have to be in the lead. But it should be somewhere in the article. Student7 (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree that Time is neutral. I have never known Time (or the other major news magazines, such as Newsweek) to engage in "hagiography", "puffery", or "worst writing of the lowest order (poor taste)". I don't think a list that included Mother Teresa or Anne Frank is prone to "puffery". Cresix (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I should have read more closely. "As a class.."? Doesn't necessarily apply to Bill W, alas. I no longer think it should be in the lead, given that qualifier. Okay for body of article. Sorry for not reading it more closely earlier. His selection in the top twenty could still be there, just not the maybe disqualifying adjectives IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits

Edit summaries are not the place to address other editors. Anyone want to defend the hagiographic content just restored? There are many who do not regard his legacy as a positive one and we are obliged to include them as well if we let the sentimental obituary level stuff back in. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries are quite acceptable places to address disputed edits, then it goes to the talk page. You're the one trying to remove sourced information. Please justify your removals of sourced information here, and please: without the prejudgmental, weasel pronouncements of "hagiography". Beyond that (now overused) word, what specifically is wrong with the information you removed? Not what might be wrong with future additions; what is wrong with the article right now? Cresix (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you don't talk directly to other editors, particularly to scold them, not that I'm all that butthurt,, via edit summaries. Hagiographic not specific enough? I admire Bill but it made me wanna puke. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Dude" if you can only complain about edit summaries and how an article makes you want to puke, then there is no discussion. And if you refuse to discuss, then please do not remove the information again without an adequate rationale, here on this talk page. Article content is not determined by how much it makes one editor "want to puke". Cresix (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny about how - and from where - the word "complain" came into all of this <:-'. First, I assume your retreat on the edit summary issue is an admittance that I was correct; and second, you have hardly addressed the whole of what I said, but have made it seem that you did. If needed, I could post a definition of the word hagiographic for yuh por nada. In the meantime, try not to get personal and then in turn take stuff waaay to personally. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not "retreated" from anything, but if your ego is so fragile as to require that you always feel like you're right and smarter than everyone, I'll simply say that you made a good faith mistake in misinterpreting my edit summary. I have not "addressed the whole of what you said"??? Let's see ... "made ... me ... want ... to ... puke". Which of aspects of such stellar vocabulary that have I not addressed? Thanks for your consdescending but totally ineffective offer to define hagiography. If you need to copy and paste it to make yourself feel superior, I can tolerate that even though it won't add to my understanding of the word. In the mean time, try not to get personal and then in turn take stuff waaay to [sic] personally. Cresix (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)\

It looks like my argument on edit summaries has prevailed due to abandonment of the contrary position. Of course, I would be glad to produce a definition of "hagiographic" for your benefit; it was my main point.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"It looks like my argument on edit summaries prevailed": In my line of works as a psychiatrist (and for that matter, as understood by most of the population), we call that "delusional ideation".

Since you have said absolutely nothing of substance here, this discussion is finished. Please follow policy by not removing sourced information from the article without an adequate explanation on this talk page. This article remains on my watchlist, so any additional attempts to sneak in your changes under the radar will not be effective. Have a great day. Cresix (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it's understood that edit summaries are not where you call out editors. I'm still noticing nothing said in response in regards to the "hagiographic" content in the Legacy section. I'm puzzle as to how a medical degree have anything to do with either, or the angry tone, but oh well. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you please quarrel on your own talk pages, not here? And confine your comments here to article improvements? And "Dude" clearly violates WP:NPA. Please stop it! Student7 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Political beliefs

I suppose that there is nothing wrong with stating his political beliefs.

One or more editors appear to be trying to say that Wilson was a hypocrite for a) saying AA should not be itself active in politics. b) that Wilson was a conservative who opposed the New Deal and c)That he was a beneficiary of the New Deal.

For one thing, Wilson never meant to suggest that no one should ever participate individually in the political process. Just that AA should not be involved. It is not hypocritical for him to participate. It is responsible.

This is also like saying that a Libertarian is opposed to all government, yet made use of the roads outside his house!

Tying all of these ideas together may be WP:OR. They might be separate. Not sure that the "mortgage moratorium" statement belongs under "political beliefs" any more than "use of roads" would.

BTW, the mortagage moratorium for non-farm homeowners is not well documented. The farm moratorium has an article. If the home moratorium was so vastly important, why is there no article to link? Maybe not true? Student7 (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I never saw the contradiction and no hypocrisy is attributed to the facts, what are are presented without POV. Unless there is a RS to add nuance or contradict the source, the edit will have to stay unless consensus is against it. It is indeed exactly like saying "This is also like saying that a Libertarian is opposed to all government, yet made use of the roads outside his house". But so what? Bill's situation is either notable or not. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is a form of Tu quoque logical fallacy. If the proposer can prove hypocrisy, then the point is proven.

I think that taking advantage of the moratorium should be in the article. Not sure a reliable source has been found since there seems to be no documentation of it. It was one thing to prevent famine by forestalling foreclosure on farms, but to do so for every homeowner in America sounds crazy when you are trying to prop up, not undermine the banking system.

I suppose his political beliefs can be in the article too, but just not in the same subsection. That is WP:OR no matter where it was documented.

There is no one that can't be proved a "hypocrite" at this tiny level. The liberal may object to the military or police, but s/he is still protected by them! The list for everyone is endless. If he were considered a political figure, this might be worth researching in articles, but he wasn't. His positions were not well-known at all.

His writing a letter opposing the New Deal seems trivia. If he had been a well-known figure at the time, well, possibly. What did he sign the letter: "Bill W?"  :) Student7 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Bill's personal political beliefs never influenced his conduct in AA, and he adamant that no one eles's would. That's significant. Also, we have not idea if his general opposition to the New Deal included the moratorium. I'd like to see the letter myself. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's suppose a copy of the letter was retained. Let's say it contained a diatribe against socialism and the New Deal. The problem we are dealing with here is that the letter was not treated as "significant" either by the White House (!) and probably only as a temporary vent for Wilson. He gets back a letter (maybe) that reads (like all letters then and now), "the President has asked me to respond to your letter of the 26th instant. He agrees with you that the government should act fiscally responsible and not waste money nor resources. He will be exploring better ways to save taxpayer money and putting people to work who are now idle, through no fault of their own. Thank you for taking the time to write us and give us your opinion. The president is taking this advice seriously...."

Just a routine response addressed to a routine complaint. Like if I wrote a nasty letter to the Electric Utility. No matter what I said and it might all be correct- what one of us could NOT write a nasty letter to their utility?), I would not stop using electricity! If I were "famous" as far as the utility goes (I am not), maybe the letter would deserve mention in my bio (when written!  :), but I am not, and Bill Wilson was not. His politics are relevant, the letter isn't. Just a meaningless letting off steam from a nonentity who latter became famous. Student7 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but who the hell are you? We care about Bill's beliefs because he's Bill, and not Joe Blow editing a Wiki page. And who cares what the White House thought of Bill's views? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, it doesn't matter who any of us are, we are all Joe/Jane blow...secondly this edit is WP:SYNTH thus WP:OR. Unless we can find a single source that ties the mortgage AND this letter together someone is combining two separate sources together to draw a single conclusion (which is demonstrated in the reference to this section).Coffeepusher (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

thirdly the "letter" section is not specific enough. What part of the New Deal was he denouncing? If you read the letters to Roosevelt then you will find out that people had various opinions to the hundreds of policies enacted during the New Deal...if Bill was writing to say that "giving money to private homeowners so they can keep their houses is WRONG" then there may be a point to be made...however if he was writing to say "the government should stop this work relief" then the entire section becomes completely misleading. Simply stating "he denounced the New Deal" is really way to broad to give us any real information about Bills political views.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I trust and defer to Coffeepush's arguments in their entirety. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Summer house

I certainly agree that we shouldn't be inserting stuff in this mature article that is uncited. Having said that, as a famous person, if (and only if) the editor can come up with a reliable citation, the place where he resided seems tolerable and of interest as "personal life" or whatever. In some terse fashion. For example, he would (technically) be a "notable" resident of that place. Whatever that means for an supposedly anonymous person! Student7 (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Billw2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Billw2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Billw2.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)