Talk:Alcoholism/Archive 2

message: Mythobeast sez: I'm going to try to break this down into arguments on individual points.  Please try to keep the individual arguments on individual points, and please hold off on name calling and presenting personal opinions as conclusions.
=== Alcoholism is an illness ===
MoP: alcoholism isn't a sickness. It can be interpreted as one, yes, but fundamentally it is a chemical dependence much like tobacco addiction.
Mythobeast: I believe that this one is addressed in this article, and in several portions of the discussion page.  I'm currently looking for someone who can present a list of scientifically supported reasons why it is an illness.  Something more than anecdotal evidence, please.
=== Alcoholism is not an addiction ===
The first sentence in the article states, as if it were fact, that alcoholism is an addicttion. This is what needs to be neutralized. Theyshallsee God 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "spiritual illness"? And of course the "cure" is Jesus or a god of some sort? Mr Christopher 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To and From the authors of this article and from again 

message: The first sentence in the article states, as if it were fact, that alcoholism is an addicttion. This is what needs to be neutralized. Theyshallsee God 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcoholism is not an addiction 

message: MoP: Counselling can help. If it can't, then millions of people have lied to us about how they stopped being alchoholics.
TSSG: I'd like these millions of people to show exactly how it has helped. Counselors like the man said above, are in it for the money. They can 'help' by adding to a person't pile of bills. Theyshallsee God 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking a chemical dependency counselor about alcoholism is about tantamount to asking an illiterate person to teach you how to read. 

message: Mythobeast: Follow up studies of alcoholics from all categories show an extremely high relapse rate.  Most studies, in fact, tend to cite their success on "mean time until first drink" or "mean time until reversion to heavy drinking".  Follow up studies are a common and highly reliable way of "asking a recovered alcoholic".  As a side note, the "pill" I mentioned has a nearly non-existent relaspe rate for those who continue to take their $3 pill before drinking - something like 1% - and the patients typically drink about one or two drinks, once a week.
TSSG: I don't need to read some uninformed article here or anywhere else to know that the solution to alcoholism is in participation in AA, not in paying some hoke-ass counslor all kinds of money, to tell someone they're an alcoholic, after reading a few crapical books. Theyshallsee God 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you want to know about alcoholism ask a recovered alcohlic not a counselor that has read some books. 

message: TSSG: AA has done more than research for 72 years. Theyshallsee God 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA does not claim to have a corner on the treatment of alcoholism. However, it has the greatest success rate of any 

message: MoP: There isn't a cure in the way that you can just pop a pill and be done with it, but the "cure" (so to speak) is getting help from counsellors. See article, and above.
Mythobeast: Master of Puppets, I need to correct you on one point of your response.  As a rule, there is no "take a pill and get better" solution for any disease.  In most cases its "Take a pill and HOPE you get better".  With alcohol, such a cure exists for the neurochemical addiction component of it, which is unaddressed by the majority of treatments in existence.  As I've added to the article, the use of endorphin antagonists coupled with the continuation of normal drinking habits results in the person losing interest in their normal drinking habits, with a roughly 87% success rate.  This technique also addresses the physical addiction.  After these two are handled, the psychological/social factors of addiction can be handled much more effectively by existing methods.  Mythobeast 17:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone said something about a cure to alcoholism. There is none. 

message: TSSG: It isn't a disease, and the solution is mental, not spiritual.
Actually it is a three-fold illness.
# physical
# mental
# spiritual
And mental (pychiatric) approaches to alcoholism have been a phenomenal flop. Theyshallsee God 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "spiritual illness"? And of course the "cure" is Jesus or a god of some sort? Mr Christopher 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcoholsim is a physical disease with a spiritual solution. 

message: No. It does involve getting to coming to believe in and then accepting and then relying on a God of your own understanding. There is no religion forced down your throats. 
There is no known cure. There is a solution. It is in attendance at AA meetings, joining a group, getting a sponsor, and then your sponsor taking you through the steps. This has nothing to do with counselors, or treatment centers, or taking pills. A person who calls himself an AA counselor cannot be trusted. There is NO such thing. AA is made up of sober drunks helping newcomers. It is a totally spiritual solution, no dues to pay, no axes to grind..just altruism..one drunk helping another. It works. Theyshallsee God 09:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The contributors to this article have presented many scientific studies that demonstrate that the information they have presented in this article has factual basis.  Your lack of desire to actually click through the links and study a few of them does not make for a case for removal of these points.  I believe they have adequately argued their case and presented evidence, while you have provided us with nothing except accusations, invectives, and threats.  I believe that the burden of evidence lies on your side. Mythobeast 02:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey 

message: The disease model of alcoholism is widely rejected by scientists. Anyone not completely blinded by ideology can recognize this fact. See, for example,  the section titled "Conflict Between the Disease Theory and Social Science Research" in "The Cultural Context...," a scholarly article first published in The American Psychologist and reprinted in the book, Alcoholism  See also
::*Supreme Court 
::*World Health Organization (WHO) 
::*From the medical journal, Lancet: Disease theory is controversial 
::*Med Help International 
::*American Heritage dictionary 
::*Dictionary definition 
::*Webster's Collegiate dictionary, 10th ed. 
::*Depression Dictionary 
::*Havard Medical 
::*National GAINS Center 
::*Health Science Center 
::*Nature of Alcoholism 
::*Biology Online 
::*Presbyterian Health Plans 
::*Online Learning Center 
::*Black Women's Health 
::*Datasync 
::*What is Alcohol? 
::*Johns Hopkins University  
::*Genetics Topics Dictionary 
::*Family Health Guide 
::*Addiction Center 
::*Rosemary Hennessey 
::*e-Medicine  
::*Dr. Ann Reyes 
::*Dr. Jeffrey Schaler 
::*Dr. Mark Lender  (posted from above)Medical Man 02:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alcoholism is clearly '''not''' a disease

message: It's nonsense like this
</blockquote>Of importance is that frequency and quantity of alcohol use are not related to the presence of the disease (definition, as per 1992 JAMA article cited below); that is, individuals can drink a great deal without necessarily being alcoholic, and alcoholics may drink minimally and/or infrequently.</blockquote>
that makes this article so pathetic (in places) and makes the motives of the AA doctors and counselors here so transparent.  What the good AA doctor is suggesting is that minimal and/or infrequesnt drinking is also a sign of this mysterious, unproven disease.  This is complete nonsense when the medical community tells you that very little drinking is also a sign of alcoholism.  So, if you drink alot you may be a alcoholic and need life time treatment, if you drink every little you may be an alcoholic and need life time treatment.  They pretty much cover the bases so pretty much everyone on the planet is a candidate for life time treatment.  Treatment of course is handing over your money, talking alot, and being subject to religious indoctrination and instruction.
How can I invest in this multi-billion dollar racket?  The fact that the introduction that was the result of editor consensus continues to be changed to reflect the POV of the AA based treatment industry.   
When it comes to alcohol related problems the AMA and APA are not exactly neutral parties when it comes to embracing the AA vision and ideology.  Are you guys aware of how deep the AA influence is in the medical community and the AMA specifically? Any doc who has an alcohol problem is forced to attend AA meetings or have their license taken away.  They can go to AA or NA and those are their only choices.  Find a higher power or lose your medical license is the course of "treatment".  It's called the State Physician Impairment programs.  You can find the specifics for each state here http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/6020.html.  Yes Virginia, under the threat of having their license taken away, the American Medical Association forces its own members with alcohol problems to go to AA or NA.  So it is no surprise that our local AA doc and "treatment" expert wants us to promote the AMA POV in this article.  He's admitted he'd like the editorship limited to "treatment" folks.  That would be the most effective way of limiting the article to the AMA/APA pro A.A. POV. Mr Christopher 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not nonsense, but fact. Not controversial fact, just fact. Frequency of alcohol intake and quantity of intake are not related to the presence of disease. I know it might seem counterintuitive, but realize that you can have diabetes with a glucose of 100 (normal). You can have hypertension with no subjective symptoms at all. That's the way diseases work. Alcoholics are still alcoholics even when they're not drinking. And some folks (look at any college) drink a great deal without having any substance use disorder. That's just the way it is, and you may not like it (for whatever reason) but that doesn't change anything. I'm not suggesting that minimal and/or infrequent drinking is a sign of the disease, and if you re-read the topic you'll see that. I'm simply saying that alcohol intake quantity and frequency is not germane to making a diagnosis. By the way, the AMA doesn't force anything upon its members - the state physician impairment programs are run by the state boards at the behest of the state populations - the AMA has kindly posted the information at their site but they don't run, oversee, or in any way regulate these programs. I've also said next to nothing in any of my content about AA. This article is about alcoholism, not AA, so I'm unsure why you refer to me as an "AA Doc." As for promoting the AMA POV within the article, that would be reasonable. The AMA as the voice of American Medicine is a reasonable standard to use for incorporating medical information within any encyclopedia of content. Not doing that would leave the entry without any firm scientific basis. 68.9.164.90 20:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Promoting the AMA POV here is innapropriate.  The article should be NPOV and the AMA is one of many views.  And your analogy about alcoholism and diabetes is absurd if not insulting.  Mr Christopher 20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you don't understand. My analogy of alcoholism with diabetes is neither absurd nor insulting, and there is published literature that uses the exact analogy (Run a PubMed lit search on alcohol and diabetes and you'll find it). Drgitlow 21:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Using the AMA/APA POV for this article

message: We need to rework the introduction (again) and go back to a NPOV one.  We should cite the AMA (and whomever else) but not make the introduction and definition the AMA POV.  I'm tired right now so maybe someone else can throw some ideas together here and we can get some consensus again.  What we had before was much less POV than what we have now.  As difficult as it is for the AA treatment people here to understand, Wiki article is not supposed to reflect a POV.  The AMA is a source, an extreemly biased source, but a source nonetheless, and not the final authority on this article.  Mr Christopher 20:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro Redo III

message: We had diagnostic entries in the alcoholism as a disease category, and disease info in the diagnostic category.  I tried to move each entry to their logical place.  Mr Christopher 20:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I'll work on obtaining some of the citations this evening. It looks as though some of the footnotes aren't present. Some citations were obviously made at some point in the past but the footnotes have since been deleted or never added. I'll see if I can find them as well. This may take a few days.Drgitlow 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you also cite some of the quoted definitions and ideally provide a link or something where the reader can go directly to the source? I think most of the APA/AMA/et al definitions can be found online.  I need to look at the manual of style again because I think there is a specific format we should be using when quoting a person or organization and I forget whether we are supposed to use italics or just "quotes" or blockquotes...Mr Christopher 21:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logical Moves

message: I've made a formal request for mediation. Mr Christopher 13:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks, Mr. Christopher.Medical Man 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any editor here who wants to participate (or not) in the mediation process can agree or disagree to that process here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Alcoholism Mr Christopher 16:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: The article needs to reflect as completely as possible all aspects of alcoholism. This means that each verifiable aspect of alcoholism should be written about in a neutral point of view using reliable sources. Every major and significant minor theory should be included. You all are doing a pretty good job of staying focused on the content and not dwelling on the editor. Mediation is a good idea if you cannot agree. Settling a content dispute is hard work and can be time consuming. Do not expect that everything will fall into place immediately. If you keep working toward agreement eventually it will. Keep up the good work. FloNight talk 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for these reminders, FloNight talk, especially the neutral point of view link.  Mr Christopher 20:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encouragement

message: In his Counselor journal article, "Addiction disease concept: Advocates and critics," (William White describes the rise of the disease concept in the early 18th century, its later fall, "its resurrection in the mid-20th century, and the subsequent growing debate in the late 20th century regarding its scientific validity and personal and social usefulness." 
There clearly is no consensus regarding whether or not alcoholism is a disease and the encyclopedia article must reflect that fact.Medical Man 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a regular columnist in Counselor magazine, I know the editor and understand that she likes to make sure all perspectives are given a voice. Note that the magazine is not a scientific journal, but simply a magazine. And despite your argument, there is indeed a consensus. Drgitlow 22:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a fantastic policy they have there at Counselor Magazine, perhaps we should try and abide by the Wiki policy of assuming a NPOV and making sure all perspectives are given a voice.  Especially since Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and not a scientific journal.  What do you think, s gitlow?  That way we can allow those who are not a part of your imaginary consensus to voice their ideas. You see, you keep deleting all the comments that do not support your consensus myth.  There is a Wiki policy which forbids this, s gitlow.  Mr Christopher 22:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously you've set yourself up as the chief bottle washer here. Luckily, the rest of us can ignore you and get the job done, even if it means we have to do it repetitively.Drgitlow 22:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, you can keep saying that there is no consensus even though there is. I suppose since YOU disagree with the scientific community, there is indeed no consensus. I agree that we should be more specific. The scientific communty has consensus. Drgitlow 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no consensus

message: gitlow, before you start removing ideas in this article that you personally do not like, please follow the liks left here by FloNight.  She is an admin here and when its wise to listen when any admin speaks of Wiki standards.  Please familiarize yourself with the the Wiki links she provided before you make any more changes or deletions to the article.  This will show a good faith effort on your part to work with your peers here.  I think if you learn more about Wiki standards and policies we'll be able to work much more effeciently in the immediate future.  Thank you for your cooporation.   Mr Christopher 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Christopher, please refrain from altering a scientific article further until you share with us the basis upon which you make the wild claims that you've made.Drgitlow 22:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read our policies. Verifiability comes first, credentials mean nothing. Ronabop 06:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paging Doctor S Gitlow

message: I'm not tied to having anything about Benjamin Rush in here. There have been repeated attempts to add material about Benjamin Rush to this article rather than simply referring viewers to the Benjamin Rush article. While I've removed the material multiple times, it keeps being returned. If you have something of value to say about Dr. Rush, say it on the entry about him.Drgitlow 23:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's revealingvery . Apparently you believe the alcoholism page is yours and that you get to decide on your own what stays and what goes!Medical Man 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not mine. But not yours either. Are you and Mr. Christopher one and the same? I note that you both are always here more or less simultaneously.Drgitlow 01:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Benjamin Rush edit 

message: There have been repeated arguments within this discussion that the alcoholism article is presenting an AMA or APA or AA point of view. If we had an article on Apollo 11 and its voyage to the moon, some would likely argue that the article presents a NASA or government point of view, when reality is that we never really went to the moon and the entire thing was simply designed to draw attention away from Vietnam. Does that belong in the Apollo 11 article. Yes, as a one sentence statement indicating that there are some individuals who disagree with reality. The same holds true here. The standard of care in the nation is based upon alcoholism's recognition as a disease by government, physicians, insurance companies, and scientists. There are a few people out there, who like the Apollo 11 nonbelievers, are trying to refute what is already an accepted scientific consensus. They deserve a few sentences at the close of an otherwise scientifically-based article about a medical illness.Drgitlow 23:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters I would encourage you to read the links provided by an admin earlier today. This will help you understand what constitutes POV vs NPOV as well as broaden your understanding of what Wiki is and is not.  Sorry this is been such a challenge for you, gitlow.  I can tell your getting frustrated.  We all are but the sooner you invest some time actually understanding what Wiki is the sooner we can work together improving this article.  Mr Christopher 01:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You speak as if you've been here at Wiki longer than the rest of us. That's actually not the case - perhaps you should take your own advice. You're right, however, that I'm frustrated. I've not run into this type of problem in my work on other entries. You should closely read what the admin wrote about using reliable sources. Again, if you don't understand this, you should review what I wrote about Apollo 11. A quotation from a pundit does not mean you've used a reliable source as a basis of an entry on a scientific subject. And NPOV doesn't mean one should bring up all the junk that exists on the topic or we'd have a worthless encyclopedia. Drgitlow 01:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's start with this, I am not one of your students, I am not one of your patients, I am not one of your children, the sooner you drop these infantile analogies the sooner we can have an adult conversation and then get down to the business of improving this article.  If you want to discuss Apollo 11 please do so on the Apollo 11 article, do you understand me? And every single cited reference that you continue to delete will be going right back in this article.  But not on a Friday night, I have far better things to do at the moment.  The night is young!  :-) Mr Christopher 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're just trying to be petty and to argue. We'll pick this up when you've cooled down. Drgitlow 04:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Arguments 

message: MedicalMan, your latest edits look good. I added the need for a citation to one of your statements in the Disease-Con section where you say the medical research community is not in agreement with respect to alcoholism as a disease. Could you cite an example within the article of a reliable and respected research organization that does not concur? Drgitlow 02:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MedicalMan Edits 

message: Pundit: An expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public (according to my computer's dictionary). My use of this term to refer to such individuals was removed. Did someone think it meant something else? Drgitlow 03:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's a pundit? 

message: The folks writing the ADHD article have been where we are at now. Take a look at how it was handled there. They've done two things: a) they've set up a separate entry for Controversies about ADHD, and b) they incorporated an overview of the controversies into a segment of the ADHD entry itself. That seems to be a reasonable and rational approach. Do others agree that this would be a reasonable course of action to take, perhaps not yet, but at some point in the future if we continue to have significant disagreement regarding content? Drgitlow 02:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look at that article. Mr Christopher 15:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with this approach.  It's also the approach taken on the War on Drugs / Arguments for and against drug prohibition entry, and it seems to work well there. Robert Rapplean 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps we should copy the ADHD approach 

message: I have a suggestion.  We might establish a venue where those who wish to debate the disease theory can openly do so.  Seriously and I'm not being cute.  Much like how the Intelligent Design editors will often guide people to the Evolution Talk pages (sorry I don't have a link handy) where they can engage in lively debate about the evidence for and against evolution and intelligent design.  That way those who want to debate the subject can enjoy the back and forth and meanwhile on the talk page here we could focus our attention on how to improve this article.  
I don't want to silence the debate here at all, but it is difficult to sort through it when you're in the mood to work on the article.  Can someone establish something where such a debate/discussion could occur? I don't feel up to participating myself but I would imagine others might.  Anyhow, the talk page is growing exponentially so I think it might be a way to make things more effective and manageable. Mr Christopher 05:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another reason to give the Disease theory of alcoholism it's own page, so this could be argued on THAT talk page instead of THIS one. Robert Rapplean 22:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Debate

message: Despite the difficulties that we've had of late, the entry is coming together nicely. I'm looking over the EFFECTS section, which has a good deal of information on alcohol itself, and the impact of alcohol USE. It is difficult to tease out the effects of alcoholism versus the effects of alcohol. The effects of alcoholism when an alcoholic is in recovery, for example, would be different from the effects of alcoholism while an individual is drinking on a daily basis. (This is similar, of course, to the situation with other diseases - the effects of diabetes when an individual has well-controlled blood glucoses are different from the effects of untreated diabetes). Nevertheless, I wonder whether the entire section would be more appropriately found in the alcohol article rather than here in the alcoholism article. Can we build a consensus regarding this area? Drgitlow 05:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved Effects section (Reposted comment from archive) 

message: ==Working through content disputes==
The editors of this article need to resolve the their article content disputes using WP:Consensus and Dispute resolution. It is time consuming to do this but necessary according to Wikipedia policy. Since this article is controversial every non-minor edit probably needs to be discussed on the talk page. This includes putting information in the article and taking it out. 
Since material is included in the article based on Wikipedia policies instead of the qualifications of the contributor, I'm going to insist that that you stop speculating about why an editor is contributing any specific material. This type of discussion never helps the situation. At best it draws your attention away from the proper criteria for inclusion, and at worst it increases the conflict and tension in the dispute.
It is my belief that all Wikipedia users have a responsibility to try and resolve their conflicts with other editors in the least disruptive way possible. This means that every editor needs to try and work with the other editors by assuming good faith. WP:AGF is a cornerstone Wikipedia policy. 
If there is a particlular passage of text, external link,  or some other content that is objected to by one or more editors it needs to talk out on the article talk page. If the editors can not come to an argreement then the steps for dispute resolution need to be followed. As a first step, getting the input of a larger number of editors is probably a good idea. This can be done by asking for other editors to give an opinion. I'll ask a few editors to stop by and give their opinion. Please list a few specific areas of conflict so that outside editors can understand the issues.
Last but not least remember our important new official policy decree Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man I'm an offical member of the Rouge admin cabal and will enforse this policy decree as needed to keep the editors of this article safe. FloNight talk 03:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone have any links that provides a road map or guidelines for getting consensus amongst editors? Mr Christopher 16:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation content archived after mediation has been removed

message: The editors of this article need to resolve the their article content disputes using WP:Consensus and Dispute resolution. It is time consuming to do this but necessary according to Wikipedia policy. Since this article is controversial every non-minor edit probably needs to be discussed on the talk page. This includes putting information in the article and taking it out. 
Since material is included in the article based on Wikipedia policies instead of the qualifications of the contributor, I'm going to insist that that you stop speculating about why an editor is contributing any specific material. This type of discussion never helps the situation. At best it draws your attention away from the proper criteria for inclusion, and at worst it increases the conflict and tension in the dispute.
It is my belief that all Wikipedia users have a responsibility to try and resolve their conflicts with other editors in the least disruptive way possible. This means that every editor needs to try and work with the other editors by assuming good faith. WP:AGF is a cornerstone Wikipedia policy. 
If there is a particlular passage of text, external link,  or some other content that is objected to by one or more editors it needs to talk out on the article talk page. If the editors can not come to an argreement then the steps for dispute resolution need to be followed. As a first step, getting the input of a larger number of editors is probably a good idea. This can be done by asking for other editors to give an opinion. I'll ask a few editors to stop by and give their opinion. Please list a few specific areas of conflict so that outside editors can understand the issues.
Last but not least remember our important new official policy decree Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man I'm an offical member of the Rouge admin cabal and will enforse this policy decree as needed to keep the editors of this article safe. FloNight talk 03:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Working through content disputes

message: The editors of this article are having garden-variety content dispute. Instead of proving that the other editor is a biased knuckle head intent on ruining Wikipedia, let’s assume good faith and focus on consensus editing the article. FloNight talk 14:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone have any links that provides a road map or guidelines for getting consensus amongst editors? Mr Christopher 16:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Garden-variety content dispute