Talk:Rational Recovery/Archive 1

message: The edits by Wikinatas were focused on defending AA and critisising RR from their POV. The language was altogether too biased, and the text was not particularly well written.  "It's" for "its" and so on.  
RR appears to be a group that exists to help people beat addictions, not a group that exists to criticize 12 Step programs. While some more critical commentary of RR might be appropriate in the article, this is not a forum for ax-grinding.Yesno 04:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Recent Opinion by user "Wikinatas" 

message: The entire last paragraph seems to be about defending AA, and therefore not relevant to the RR article, and also POV. -- Nike 07:44, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA 

message: <deleted>
:What does any of this have to do with the article?  As it says on the Wikipedia:Talk page:
::Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject.
I have read through some talk page guidelines , and I think it can be deleted. --Nike 23:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed opinion 

message: It looks much better. : ) It needs to have some critisism from mainstream religous, legal, psycological, and medical organizations. Also needs to discuss their aggressive attack of the disease model. FloNight talk 15:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Christopher, we can use general criticism of non-12 step programs, too. Being a former RN, I know MD and RN substance abuse recovery programs that addicted practitioners must follow to retain their licence are a combination of pure 12-step plus the medical treatment model. The rate of return to practice is high for MDs and RNs. Avoidance of 12-step or medical model is a major hinderence toward keeping a licence or getting it back if it was revoked. I know that I've seen discussion about RNs and MDs using self help programs to avoid peer review and assessment by medical professionals specializing in addiction.  I have 20-30 bookmarks related to health care professionals and substance abuse. Six months ago, I reviewed this topic as it relates to medical malpractice. I need some time to go through them. FloNight talk 20:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FloNight talk that sounds like fascinating reading.  Whether it fits in the article or not, would you mind sending some of those links my way via this article or my own talk page?  Mr Christopher 20:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: At Alcoholism article, I was thinking about making a subpage to put this kind of stuff. Since you are interested, I'll do it there in the next few days.  FloNight talk 20:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I reorganized the flow of the article in a more logical manner.  I also changed the phrasing of the "How the RR Prgram Works" because I know at one time they had a slogan to the affect of "RR does not work, YOU do" which was a play on the AA slogan "It works!" So I thought describing how the RR program works (when they would insist the RR program does not work) would not be the best description. Mr Christopher 18:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reorganization looks good. FloNight talk 20:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorg 

message: Why is the wikipedia entry for Rational Recovery an AA document? It looks like there's been very little discussion of this deplorably inaccurate entry. If anyone should care to obtain more information on the very simple concepts of Rational Recovery there are a couple web pages that I would recommend: Critique of Wikipedia entry Explains why AA members modify this wikipedia entry. Alternative presentation of Rational Recovery concepts Very well written web page. What a shame that in this day and age, even in a supposed neutral repository of information such as wikipedia, there can be such brutal misinformation. That's all I have to say, I'm out of here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmj54729 (talk • contribs).
: You may want to take a look at the welcome message on your talk page. Anyone can edit wikipedia, including you. There are, however, a few rules to ensure the quality of articles. For instance, links to blog entries that could be integrated in to articles are not permitted in the external links guidelines. Feel free to leave a message for me on on my talk page if you have any questions.  Additionally you can add  to you talk page, and someone will come to assist you with editing and answer questions. There is also a helpdesk take can be used for the same purpose. Best of luck! -- Craigtalbert 02:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This wikipedia entry makes a sham of the online encyclopedia. 

message: Did a little clean-up of the article, in response to some of the criticisms pointed out by Jack Trimpey in his recent blog post (see above). -- Craigtalbert 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Craig, you improved the Rational Recovery article. One suggestion: Why not send a note to Jack Trimpey and simply ask for his input? What I saw, before your latest editing, was deplorable, but you have noticeably improved the material. But who better than the author of the concepts to offer a concise definition? Even the history of RR from its initial formulation to the much simplified yet elegant one of today would be best from the person who really knows. If the material in the wikihow link I previously posted could somehow be incorporated into the RR info it would be informative. It is a very good presentation of the basic concept of RR without the terminology of RR. There is the evolution, with simplification, of the RR concepts, but there has also been a conflict between supporters of AA and RR. While AA supporters refer to their approach as "spiritual", the origin of AA as an outgrowth of the Oxford Movement, is really fundamental Christianity with all the guilt, sin, moral failing, powerlessness, confession, and proselytizing. While this approach may help those with a religious bent, it is distasteful if not anathema to many others. Unfortunately AA has attained a critical mass that gives it the edge and criticism of AA is even summarily rejected. My personal feeling is that the simplicity and elegance of the RR approach is harmed to some degree by side issues that show a revulsion for AA. I think RR easily stands on its own merits, and RR is really the easy way out of a drinking problem. There is no lifelong recovery; the cure is immediate. RR present the concepts and the tools. Trimpey's $12 book at Barnes & Noble is all it takes. The cost of the 4-day seminar that Jack Trimpey conducts is very small compared to a $20,000 rehab bill, but, frankly, the book is all one really needs. But write Mr. Trimpey and solicit a contribution here. Like Trimpey I cringe when I hear the frequent references to AA in the media, but that is only because I know there is a real alternative that works. --Pmj54729 05:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the kind words. I did leave a comment in Jack's blog, and I'm here to help with editing, etc. I don't want to take sides with AA/RR. Everyone is biased, but you've got to do your best to drop them after you click "edit." I don't see any reason why there should be animosity between AA and RR. The relationship between the two reminds me a little bit of the difference between Emotions Anonymous and Recovery, Inc. (A Twelve Step approach vs. a Will-training approach, that I think is not unlike RR). In fact, GROW successfully integrated the two approaches. I'm supportive of anything people do to regain or maintain their sobriety, healthy, etc. I believe that's an appropriate and neutral attitude to bring when editing articles like this. — Craigtalbert 05:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up/POV 

message: I removed the POV that said "RR remains neutral" and changed it to "RR claims to remain neutral," and believe the edit should stand unless someone can provide a source by someone other than the founder of the organization stating that they remain neutral on such matters.  The quote above from the founder regarding court filings they have made as the "conscientious objectors" suggests that the organization is not neutral on the issue; other quotes from the founder demonstrate outright hostility towards the concept of the combination of sobriety and religiosity in recovery.Lucida.ann (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality on Religiousity and Sobriety 

message: A review of the recent edits indicates that the following three phrases have been proposed:
*RR remains neutral on the subject of religiosity and sobriety.
*RR states that the organization remains neutral on the subject of religiosity and sobriety.
*RR claims to remain neutral on the subject of religiosity and sobriety.  
Of the three, the phrase "RR states that the organization remains neutral" is preferable. As noted above, the phrase "RR remains neutral" implys that wikipedia is making the statement and taking a position in the neutrality of RR. Similarly, the phrase "RR claims to remain neutral" implies that wikipedia is making the statement and taking a position on the neutrality of RR. Only the phrase "RR states that the organization remains neutral" makes it clear that this is the position maintained by the RR organization.  Mmyotis ^^o^^ 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion