Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 4

message: If anyone gets a chance to fill it, there is a 4-year gap between "A new program for recovery" and "The "Big Book" sections—about the break from the Oxford group and early recovery meetings. — DavidMack 16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gap in history section

message: I have create a third archive page per 3O recommendation. I have also added  and  templates to the beginning of the article. I believe it is important that we all follow WP:FORUM and WP:TALK guidelines on the talk page as distractions and heated discussion will prevent us from doing useful work on the article. Looking through the talk pages archives I see a lot of discussion not about the article, rather about pro- and anti-AA debate. This talk page is not the place for that. Lets do are best to keep things on topic. If there are disagreements among editors, they maybe more appropriately addressed in the editor's talk pages or through a request for comment and/or arbitration. — Craigtalbert 16:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi craig.  Strange use of the archiveing facility (to remove comments one does not like....).  I suggest we do it when debates are fully "thrashed out" and the page is getting full. Seems to be the norm, but I can't find any wiki guidance on this.  82.19.66.37 15:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like I said archiving was recommended in response to the request for a third opinion. I generally agree with you that talk pages should be archived when discussion is "thrashed out." But we also need to keep with WP:TALK and not let discussion on the talk page devolve in to personal attacks against other editors, and to prevent it from being used like a forum, which I believe it was. Either way, I will stop removing comments I think are disruptive and will either refactor them or use them as evidence against editors that are generally off topic, disruptive, and uncivil. I would also advise editors who feel that they are being attacked, treated uncivilly, or provoked, not to feed the trolls. Those of you who edit anonymously should consider the benefits of having a username. Now, lets get back to making this a good encyclopedic article on Alcoholics Anonymous. — Craigtalbert 22:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created New Archive and Reminder 

message: User 82.19.66.37, thanks for the material. Do you think you could add some pros to your cons to create a Neutral point of view? — DavidMack 20:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? I don't understand your apparent sarcasm. Neutrality is a core policy. Both sides of an issue need to be represented. — DavidMack 04:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The section is entitled "Criticism and controversy", and every entry needs to have a neutral point of view, e.g. "AA has been criticized for this ..." (with reference), however "AA or other researchers say this ..." (with reference). — DavidMack 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I did originally remove the link to that article. I do still believe it's poor quality, but if someone wants to include in the text with citations then so be it. We just need to balance out the "Cult" section with some pros and cons. — DavidMack 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ill be adding material within a month if no one else does. — DavidMack 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: re latest change, the conclusion does not make any sense without the rest of the article summarized within it.  This information are some of the headings from the rest of the article, and are categorically not POV.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.19.66.37 (talk)  
Schaler's states that his essay is a "commentary based principally on the his personal (rather than clinical) experiences". That's POV then, no? I've adjusted the paragraph to include these points and retained your parenthesis. This section needs attention as it is very POV.
Mr Miles 22:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone moved the citation needed tag away from Mitchell K's "intelligent analysis".  They also moved the reference from the Arthur H Cain quote, and added in a Citation needed tag.  This is pretty childish.  don't know who did it, and cant be bothered to look.  I think I will remove the Mitchell K stuff very soon, unless someone is planning some really good referencing of this material. 82.19.66.37 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Have removed this material, as someone removed the citation needed tag again.  Honestly, if you look for it, I understand that there are definately recoginised experts with a lot to say about AA not being a cult.  I think that Margaret Thaler Singer believed this (according to Orange, who pretty much adores her!).  Please, if there are reference-able sources out there, go look for them.  I have to, for everything that I try to put into this article, so I guess the door should swing both ways?  82.19.66.37 22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "[[Alcoholics Anonymous#Accusations of Cult Practice|Accusations of Cult Practice]]" section

message: Someone has edited the section I added on Dr. George Valliant. They have added a lot superfluous information and they have deleted the most important which was the study's success rate. As such I have changed back the section to what it was originally. Considering it is the only known study of AA's success rate conducted by AA I think it should stay as I have put it. The section is now under the heading of "AA's success rate" as it originally was. I would ask kindly that it not be changed.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.106.114 (talk • contribs).
:User 69.158.106.114, I have removed your recent changes. I'm not sure which material you originally added on Vaillant, but this article may have evolved a bit since then. Your cited source was not the book itself, but a selective interpretation of the material from an unreliable source. Especially in a controversial topic like this one, please add material only from reliable sources — academic papers, etc. Thanks. — DavidMack 04:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now the article contains the original material on Vaillant (the first paragraph, which begins with "Dr. George Valliant is a board member...") and the material that has been added over the last few months. The first paragraph has some gaps. It says "He compiled 40 years of clinical studies..." but does not say what those studies concluded and does not give a reference to a reliable source. The paragraph also states "95% of alcoholics who reach AA fail to stay sober", also without a reference to Vaillant's book or to a reliable source. Orange Papers is not a reliable source — it's a personal website. To improve this article, we need references to sources, otherwise the material can't be left there. It's not enough to say you've seen the study with your own eyes, you have to read the material — all of it, not just the pages that Agent Orange gets upset about, and preferably the more recent edition. Then you can say where your material comes from. If there is relevant and reliable Peele material, then put in a sentence about what Peele says, with a reference. For better or for worse, Wikipedia does not care how many people have written personal blogs about AA, it only cares what is written in reliable sources. — DavidMack 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is still a citation needed. The AA material is not the same as Vaillant's study. Also, Agent Orange says that 95% of people coming to AA are gone within a year. That means that if someone goes to an AA meeting and decides not to continue, or decides they don't need AA, Agent Orange claims a "failure". Can you see how Orange might be a wee bit biased, and maybe not the best source of material? Imagine saying "95% of people going to gyms are gone within a year, therefore exercise is not healthy." — DavidMack 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (some off topic - revert if you must...) I like that gym analogy.  I genuinely think you should write to orange with that specific question.  So many AA's write to him with pure abuse, barely attempting to read, let alone analyse, what he has said.  Would be interested to hear his response to that. However, having read the Orange analysis (and, admitedly, not the original...), it seems that Valliant does indeed state that AA had "completely failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism".  I do think this warrants inclusion in the article.  Unfortunately, I have never read the study, which (by wiki guidelines) prohibits me from quoting from a secondary source (unless that source is "reliable"...).  But if anyone can dig out the original....  82.19.66.37 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for putting in the references. I will read the material you referenced, if I can find it. Out of curiosity, did you read the material, or did you rely on Agent Orange's interpretations? — DavidMack 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: After a bit of hunting, I finally found a copy of the document "Comments on A.A.'s Triennial Surveys" (1990) at The Arid Site (PDF here, 2 MB). There is no mention of Vaillant in it, so please remove the reference. Did you make a mistake, or were you being dishonest? — DavidMack 22:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. sorry. — DavidMack 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In the meantime, I have removed the fictitious reference, since Vaillant's work on his test population are completely separate from AA internal surveys. I am doing some more close reading of Vaillant and hope to make some improvements to this section eventually. — DavidMack 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Vaillant was reporting the disappointing results from his clinic in The Natural History of Alcoholism: 95% of his tracked patients relapsed at least once during the 8 years after treatment. By reporting this result he was using very stringent criteria by reporting improved drinkers as failures; i.e. he was being both honest and tough on himself. Research studies usually pay attention to how many drinkers improve, but the point of this closing chapter was to face the hard fact that clinical treament for alcoholism helps, but doesn't cure. The study was of his "multi-modal" clinic -- hospital, detox, AA follow-up, and more -- so the results were not really applicable to AA alone. He cites other studies that suggest that this failure rate is typical of clinical treatment for alcoholism. (See also the statement in Newsweek: "A year after completing a rehab program, about a third of alcoholics are sober, an additional 40 percent are substantially improved but still drink heavily on occasion, and a quarter have completely relapsed." -- and this was after only one year.) In other words, there still is no "cure". This leads to a discussion of what can we do to help? There is a ton of discussion and many tables in the book on AA and what it did and didn't do for people, it's just that AOrange et al. like to focus on the negative results. Anyway, I believe most anti-Vaillant entries are from people who have not read the material, and I'm continuing my reading. — DavidMack 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think if you read the book you'd likely agree that Vaillant's analysis is objective,  transparent, and fair. How come you'd rather trust Peele than read the actual book? — DavidMack 00:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we should get the religion/non-religion issue in. It was
attempted in the past, but degenerated into an edit war. However this
article is getting more balanced as time passes. I can get to it within
a month, unless anyone else can do it sooner. —
DavidMack 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Assuming that all of the various elements of the AA "movement" cited above include the mandate to surrender oneself to a supreme being and deny that one has any control over one's own addiction (and arguably, by extension, one's own life), yeah, a cultic analogy is a fair one. 209.77.79.7 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. George Valliant

message: People may like to know that Vaillant's 400+ page book Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited, actually has a summary chapter at the end that references the key graphs and data. So you can understand the book without having to slave over it for a month and without having to take Agent Orange's word for it! I'll be adding and clarifying Vaillant material as time goes on. — DavidMack 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vaillant was reporting the disappointing results from his clinic in The Natural History of Alcoholism: 95% of his tracked patients relapsed at least once during the 8 years after treatment. By reporting this result he was using very stringent criteria by reporting improved drinkers as failures; i.e. he was being both honest and tough on himself. Research studies usually pay attention to how many drinkers improve, but the point of this closing chapter was to face the hard fact that clinical treament for alcoholism helps, but doesn't cure. The study was of his "multi-modal" clinic -- hospital, detox, AA follow-up, and more -- so the results were not really applicable to AA alone. He cites other studies that suggest that this failure rate is typical of clinical treatment for alcoholism. (See also the statement in Newsweek: "A year after completing a rehab program, about a third of alcoholics are sober, an additional 40 percent are substantially improved but still drink heavily on occasion, and a quarter have completely relapsed." -- and this was after only one year.) In other words, there still is no "cure". This leads to a discussion of what can we do to help? There is a ton of discussion and many tables in the book on AA and what it did and didn't do for people, it's just that AOrange et al. like to focus on the negative results. Anyway, I believe most anti-Vaillant entries are from people who have not read the material, and I'm continuing my reading. — DavidMack 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think if you read the book you'd likely agree that Vaillant's analysis is objective,  transparent, and fair. How come you'd rather trust Peele than read the actual book? — DavidMack 00:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we should get the religion/non-religion issue in. It was
attempted in the past, but degenerated into an edit war. However this
article is getting more balanced as time passes. I can get to it within
a month, unless anyone else can do it sooner. —
DavidMack 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Assuming that all of the various elements of the AA "movement" cited above include the mandate to surrender oneself to a supreme being and deny that one has any control over one's own addiction (and arguably, by extension, one's own life), yeah, a cultic analogy is a fair one. 209.77.79.7 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: News flash on Vaillant

message: Could be a new section.  Think it would add to the article.  With 95% of US rehabs being 12 step based, this could hardly be underestimated.  Being me, I would like some sort of neutrality in the section, if anyone else decides to do it.  If and when I get the time, I may do it myself.  What do people  think? 82.19.66.37 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA influence on US addiction treatment 

message: I'm sure some of you have noticed WP:TRIVIA and the templates that keep getting dumped on some pages.  Do you think it would be good to ditch the popular culture section completely? 82.19.66.37 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "popular culture" section can be interesting if it is written as a commentary that focuses on key examples. E.g. see Alcoholism: Stereotypes. — DavidMack 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA in popular culture 

message: As Nancy Shute wrote in U.S. News & World Report, "When AA works, it works extraordinarily well: The testimonies of lives saved by AA are legion. But it's not for everyone."[65]
This is irrelevent to the topic.  66.120.181.218 20:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this doing under the heading about moderation vs. abstinance? 

message: Qualitative Research of occasions of abuse at meetings:
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/rfhorror/rfhorror.jsp A reference
is required for statements that are likely to be contested, hence the
citation needed tag. 82.19.66.37 11:09, 1
September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that the statement that "No
research has been undertaken to determine if Alcoholics Anonymous
carries more or less risk of abuse" is likely to be contested? If so,
please explain why.
Mr Miles 12:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is abuse worse in AA than anywhere?

message: This needs to be in the article.  A program, working the steps of AA, (which no doubt included AA meetings) with that much abuse BELONGS in this article, as well as the Straight article.  I should probably mention Synanon (the precursor to straight, started by an AA member and based on AA) and all the straight off-shoots as well.  In fact, when I get the time to research properly, I will.  213.235.24.138 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe this is relevant to an article on AA. It's like criticizing Britain for US policy because the US originally 'came from' Britain. — DavidMack 17:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I read some web material on Straight Inc. and can't see any relevance to AA. Straight Inc. apparently used forced incarceration, for months at a time for some individuals. It is a fascinating and horrifying story, but belongs maybe under cults or abuse or fascist groups or something. With all due respect, I am removing that material (or would if it hadn't already been removed). — DavidMack 19:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Straight, Incorporated|Straight, Inc]] 

message: I think that the NY Court of Appeals bit should go back to the
court-mandated AA attendence section, because it fits there much better
than where it is now. That paragraph has everything to do with forced
attendance and nothing to do with Christianity. I agree with
82.19.66.37 that, at least as far as what is published, AA does not
adhere to any typeical Christian denomination, but I am the last person
to write a section about that--any theologists out there? And yes,
interestingly, many AA meetings end with The Lord's Prayer.
Sorry, that bit above was me Desoto10 03:16, 2
September 2007 (UTC)
Okay that's fine by me. This Court Mandate bit is not particularly very
controversial really is it?! The bit about breaking tradition 3 should
also be removed if all court mandates are sent to 'open meetings' - the
tradition 3 rule doesn't apply to 'open meetings' Mr Miles 10:06, 3
September 2007 (UTC)
Well, court mandated AA is actually really controversial. Stanton Peele
has written exstensively on coerced AA treatment and how to fight it.
As someone who works in drug treatment in the UK (which is currently
going very much in the direction of coercion, but not towards 12
steps), I can assure you that there are some very real ethical issues
before you even factor in the "spiritual/religious" aspect. These are
"external controversies". There are also people who would say that it
certainly does fly in the face of trad 3, could affect AA as a whole
(and thus extends beyond individual meeting autonomy), tries to carry a
message to people who may not be or don't admit to being alcoholic,
lends the AA name to outside organisations, is certainly not based on
the idea of "attraction rather than promotion" and does not lend itself
to anonymity. Certainly these were the arguments I put forward when we
had a group conscience about it in my home-group 2 years ago.
213.235.24.138 15:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court-mandated AA attendance 

message: The information on the case Grandberg v. Ashland County is unverifiable.  I have access to two legal databases, and could not only not find the case in the Seventh Circuit, but could not find it in any published federal or state court nationwide.  A search for the quote provided similarly yielded no results.  Can someone please provide the correct citation for this, or in the alternative simply delete the reference and "quote"?  Islavin2001 14:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cases listed under "Court mandated AA attendance" 

message: The whole "pre AA understanding" section is total nonsense.  POV stuff about Silkworth (published by Hazledon, no less!), combined with some nonsense about New Thought/Emmanuel.  This stuff really needs to be removed.  I would just remove the passages that are POV/are irrelevant, but the rest of the article makes no sense without the proper context.  Unless someone cleans up this section very soon, I will simply remove it.  82.19.66.37 09:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AA history

message: Circa 1991, AA discontinued use of the circle and triangle as a logo or official symbol. 
Since AA has no rules, there is nothing to stop individual AA members, groups, intergroups & central offices, districts & others from using the circle and triangle. A review of the website of AA's General Service Office (the G.S.O.) website at www.aa.org will not show any version of the circle and triangle, nor will current editions of any AA World Services or G.S.O. literature.
Accordingly, I suggest the "logo" image at the top of the article should be deleted.
If necessary, I suppose I can dig up some verification, but an e-mail addressed to the CPC desk at AA -- CPC@aa.org (Cooperation with the Professional Community) is probably the most expedient and authoritative way to get the facts.
Don@Karabelnikoff.net 08:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   AA Logo - the circle and triangle 

message: This article contains an eclectic collection of items relating to the broad topic of alcoholism.
This article purportedly addresses Alcoholics Anonymous, a fellowship of men and women who say they have recovered from alcoholism by adopting a "design for living" that begins with by doing what is suggested in a twelve-step program of action. 
I became a member and student of this fellowship more than four years ago after a long career as a professional, a consultant, and as a public servant -- on a private foundation and on several public boards and commissions. I understand the difference between reporting facts and offering opinions; I have been paid to do both.
It seems to me this article contains many relevant facts and much extraneous material best presented under a seprate topic. The prevailing view of alcoholism in the U.S. prior to the formation of the AA fellowship in June 1935 is not part of Alcoholics Anonymous. Likewise, the range of treatment modalities and scientific research are beyond the purview of AA's "singleness of purpose". 
I'd be willing to collaborate with others, especially those who are knowlegable and experienced in the development and enhancement of Wikipedia. 
I have research material on hand, familiarity with the subject, and a willingness to contribute to the Wikipedia project. How, then, shall we proceed?
//Don K
Anchorage, Alaska
dgk@route164.net  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don@Karabelnikoff.net (talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The background history shows how AA introduced new concepts. The view of AA from the inside does need to be supplemented with external views from reliable sources. Is there a way you feel you can improve on the quality of the article? — DavidMack 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove/Move items not relevant to "Alcoholics Anonymous" 

message: More Revealed (discussed before here) is a very poor piece of work that likely would not have been published outside of the small, cause-driven presses. I argue it is unreliable for the following reasons:
*It is poor quality because Ragge did little new investigation, usually repeating material from others like Peele. 
:So you're slating it because it compounded several different arguments against AA?  For quoting "experts"?  This is a bad thing?
* It is not research, it is polemic (one-sided, ignoring contrary evidence).
** One reviewer noted that the book said absolutely nothing positive about AA, even though it is obvious that AA has been a positive influence for many (Addiction Aug93, Vol. 88 Issue 8, p1150-1152).
:Many believe that AA is clearly a bad thing, and would argue that an organisation which makes wildly outlandish positive claims about itself needs a source like "more revealed" to offer the negative as well as the positive.
** Ragge makes unreferenced over-generalisations such as:
*** "There apparently have been no controlled studies done of AA against other treatment in a non-coercive environment." (p 30) This is simply not true; there is tons of academic research on AA.
:OK, you have a point here.
***"Belief and environmental effects are more important than the chemical effects of alcohol." (p 42) Again, there is tons of research pro and con; Ragge ignores opposing research.
:Well, my understanding is that belief and environmental factors are more important than the chemical effects.  I don't think that is doubted by many.  What is doubted is that whether or not one is "born an alcoholic" or not...
***"The membership of different groups varies widely. ... In wealthier neighborhoods ... the membership is wealthier, in poor neighborhoods, poorer." There is much research on the demographics of AA that Ragge could have quoted, most of it observing the wide variation of socio-economic backgrounds within groups.
:So what you're saying is that Ragge has agreed with the research?  I don't see where the discrepancy is here...
***"There are also many exclusive meetings in private homes where an invitation is necessary and “undesirables” ... are not invited." (p 98). Ragge does not quote references, sources, or methods for arriving at this conclusion. Did he do a survey? Visit AA groups for a year? More likely, he simply enjoys speaking badly of AA.
:I've seen it.
* Ragge's language is one-sided and unacademic, for example on page 31 he quotes only a small fraction of Vaillant's discussion on AA, out of context, and rather than actually discussing the issues he concludes that Vaillant must be "God-controlled". He also misquotes Vaillant's conclusions on clinic treatment as applying to AA.
:I don't think that language such as "god-controlled" would ever be misplaced in a discussion on AA.
:In conclusion, why would we want to refer to Ragge? There are excellent histories of AA out there like AA: The Story by Ernest Kurtz and balanced reviews of AA like The treatment of alcoholism by Edgar P. Nace. You just have to go to a library instead of relying only on the web. — DavidMack 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are some excellent sources on AA and yes I should get to a library.  But I don't see why we shouldn't use "more revealed" as a source.  82.19.66.37 11:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''More Revealed'' re-rehashed again

message: several points - as the consensus changes on this article, you may find yourself becoming somewhat annoyed with some of the changes.  Please keep a cool head and try to adhere to wiki guidelines.  Your recent edits suggest that your commitment to creating a balanced article is somewhat slanted by your membership of alcoholics anonymous and your desire to portray that organisation in a good light.  A quick rundown of some of your recent edits to show why I have come to this conclusion.
:"Commentaries on Alcoholics Anonymous have different meanings and relevancies depending on whether they refer to AA the Fellowship of individuals, AA the Program of Recovery (as outlined in the literature) or AA the business entity, incorporated boards and publishing company. A suggestion that some AA members exhibit cult-like behaviors and attitudes may or may not mean the organization as a whole meets a cult criteria."  
The constant adding in of this unsourced comment is not improving the article.  As per wiki verifiability policies, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.  This is a completely unsourced statement, placed there in the face of overwhelming evidence to suggest that AA can and often does function as a cult (from the sources in the article through to Valiiant).  If you can find someone published to add NPOV, please do.  But keep your original research to yourself.  That has no place in wiki.
:"Accusations of cult practice - this section shouldn't even be in an encyclopedia, if it is to stay, it needs a NPOV intro - or some reliable citations"
Why shouldn't that section be in an encyclopeida?  Please explain your resoning.  Please feel free to add some NPOV material that has been published.  Please explain why any sources are not reliable (all published works...).
:"No model of a recovered person - unreliable source"
Please explain the problem with the source.  Seems to be a PHd addiction counsellor - something wrong with this?
:"Court mandated AA attendance - please don't revert a sensible edit without giving reasons"
Seems to be a sensible piece of material to have in the article.  Why remove that one?  It is a true and fair summary of current US court policy towards enforced AA attendance.  
:"AA's definition of alcoholism - removed unpublished opinion"
Looks like it was published by Counsellor Magazine to me.  Periodicals are an established source on Wiki.
:Removing others talk page contributions
It contravenes wiki guidelines, unless that contribution is vandalism.  It also is contrary to the spirit of wiki talk pages, where arguments for and against the articles content can be thrashed out, as the argumemt starts to look a bit one sided.  213.235.24.138 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't get much out of your list of Mr Miles' contributions. Seems to me he's on the level and making positive contributions to the quality of this article. This is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article, not for personal criticisms. Unless there is more to discuss, I think we should remove this section. — DavidMack 22:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Attn of Mr Miles 

message: I put in some accurate, referenced text from Edward Griffith (editor in chief of the journal Addict) and it was erased. The comment that it was 'original research', which was not true. I'm putting the text back, and please discuss referenced material before you erase it. — DavidMack 14:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edwards said "in other words..."?  If so, I apologise for saying it is original research.  Seems extraneous and unencyclopedic in tone and repeats previous sentence - why a second summary?  I would reccomend it be removed.  213.235.24.138 15:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted text from Edwards