Talk:Washingtonian movement

message: In the second to last paragraph it says that the founders of AA had never heard of the Washingtonians and had learned from their mistakes. Which is true? Or are both? Someone needs to clarify this.
Rawilson52 (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! Thanks for posting this info on the Washingtonian Movement. Do you have more primary or secondary sources you can cite for this article? I'd like to read more about the topic. Also, the easiest, and most common way of distinguishing between the Republican Party and republican ideals (and the Democratic Party and democratic ideals, for that matter) is by varying capitalization, and perhaps pointing out that capitalization. eg "only their morals and 'small r' republican ideals". I hope this was helpful! :-)--Nosimplehiway 12:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

message: In his "Sons of Temperance: a brief History" (<1861) Frederick A. Fickardt, "Most Worthy Scribe of the National Division Sons Of Temperance of North America" gives the names of the six founding members of the Washingtonian Temperance Society as:
William K. Mitchell, John T. Hoss, David Anderson, George Steers, James McCurley, and Archibald Campbell.
The Washingtonian Pledge and rules was drawn up in March 1840, but was not ratified until April 5, 1840 because one of the six was on a "spree".
Source: Frederick Fickardt was a Washingtonian and later joined the Sons of Temperance. He wrote "A Brief History of The Sons of Temperance" which includes an account of the temperance movement in the U.S. from around 1800. There are two chapters about the Washingtonian movement-history, purpose, and reason for it's decline. 
My source book has no date but there is an inscription on the first page dated 1861. For more info on this "history" contact me at cokoamojo@hotmail.com with the subject "Washingtonian information please"
Cokoamojo (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct names and date of origin 

message: At end of following paragraph/
Washingtonians at their peak numbered in the tens of thousands, possibly as high as 600,000.[1] However, in the space of just a few years, this society all but disappeared because they became fragmented in their primary purpose, becoming involved with all manner of controversial social reforms including prohibition, sectarian religion, politics and abolition of slavery. It is believed that Abraham Lincoln attended and spoke at one of the great revivals, presumably not for treatment, but out of interest in various issues being discussed.<refname=chuckwhite></ref>
Sorry I don't know how to correct this but I draw attention to those who do. Tolkny (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking Error - I suspect. 

message: This entry is hopelessly biased, as The Washingtonians are seen not objectively, but through the eyes of A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous). A clear indication exists in the use of the phrase, "Primary Purpose," a phrase that appears twice in A.A.'s Twelve Traditions (Traditions Five and Six). The passage beginning "In the late 1940's..." and continuing up to "... singleness of purpose" tells the reader something about A.A., but nothing objective about The Washingtonians. A sentence such as "The Washingtonians failed as they dispersed their energies in projects other than relief from alcoholism." would be quite adequate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.16.189 (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A.A. Bias 

message: So you used two arguments in your revert summary:
# I changed the meaning
# I made the article worse
The second argument is merely a simple implication of the first one, and only if the new meaning reflects the source material less accurately. So the changed meaning can make the article better as well. In other words, every time you accuse somebody of changing the intended meaning you assume that the new meaning is further from the intended one. But what if it is closer? The very idea of creating Wikipedia articles is describing something based on what was written in sources. But editors cannot do it by a simple copy and paste operation, they describe something by using their own words, which means an inevitable subjective interpretation. And the initial word may be chosen randomly from many synonyms, even by the same editor. 
It is never the same original meaning, but it should be as close as possible to the original. So, at most you can only try to prove that the new meaning is further from the original. The only way to do so is compare both versions with the source. You did not do it. You did not even explain the difference between "all but disappeared" and "almost disappeared". Maybe you think that "all but" is the stronger version of "almost". And indeed, the Longman dictionary defines it as "almost completely", but the rest of the most prestigious dictionaries define it as "almost". So, probably the Longman is wrong. If you are convicted that the intended meaning was "almost completely" then change it to "almost completely", but "all but" is the worst choice. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You, personally, are unable to properly understand why one would choose to say "all but" instead of "almost". That is not because of any inherent problem with the phrase; it is because of your level of English. We do not dumb down the English Wikipedia for the sake of non-native speakers; Simple English Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia in your native language, are available for you. 86.187.173.125 (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "all but disappeared" or "almost disappeared"?