Talk:Bill W.

Worst Wikipedia Page Ever?

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? For a layman's level perspective, see e.g. http://www.orange-papers.org/.

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

Worst. Article. Ever.

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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 of pure bullshit

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 goddamn 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 fucked up her life, and then had the nerve (as do many alcoholics, to pay the rent and support the ungrateful little brats, like Cheever and Ray Carver) 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?166.68.134.175 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)

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

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.

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.

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)