Talk:Rational Recovery/Archive 1

Deleted Recent Opinion by user "Wikinatas"

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)

AA

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)

Yeah, I just noticed that as well, and have deleted it. If anyone wants to give it another shot, they should feel free. Vorpal Suds 3 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)

Removed opinion

<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 [1], and I think it can be deleted. --Nike 23:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted an editors personal opinion about RR that does not belong on the talk pages. Mr Christopher 17:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RR/AA Comparisons

I clarified "While RR and AA seek the same end, the programs use opposite strategies" to they both promote abstenance. If you read RR literature (RET and post RET influence) it is clear RR and AA do NOT seek the same end though they do both promote abstenance. Mr Christopher 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the primary goal of both programs was abstinence. The RR FAQ says, "Rational Recovery® is the exclusive, worldwide source of counseling, guidance, and direct instruction on self-recovery from addiction to alcohol and other drugs through planned, permanent abstinence." (emphasis added) AA Tradition 5 says, "Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety", and we can interpret "sober" and "sobriety" to mean abstinence. So they do seek the same end, but they promote different means to obtain it. --Nike 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nike you are very correct and I was not clear. What I meant was AA suggest the problem drinker has an incurable "disease" and is morally "defective" and promotes the idea that recovery consists of lifelong AA attendances, that they come to believe in a "higher power" (which they come to call "god" as you understand him), that they do endless moral inventories and they are to proslytize ("carry the message to other alcoholics")as a means of staying sober. RR promotes the idea that people can and do overcome their drinking problem and get on with their lives (not spend all eternity in "recovery"). So, although both programs promote abstanence their end state vision form the problem drinker has little in common. I was wanting to clarify that point. Mr Christopher 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the two programs are completely "opposite", just different. The word "opposite" seems to imply a false dichotomy. For instance, the opposite of endorsing religion or spirituality would be to reject it, or be "anti-religious", but RR claims to be neutral on the subject, which is different but not "opposite". Some features might accurately be described as "opposite", but not all aspects are diametrically opposed.

I just looked at the paragraph in question, and noted a glaring error. It states, "The RR program is based on cognitive behaviour therapy..." This may have once been true, but as Trimpey states, "AVRT is incompatible with cognitive-behavioral therapy, and is not similar to it."[2] It's also stated clearly in the RR FAQ. (In spite of the fact that some find apparent similarities between AVRT and CBT.) I do not know what Trimpey thinks of the characterization of "dissociation from addictive impulses", as this is not used on the RR web site, but I think it may be a fair, if incomplete, description of RR's method. A more precise description used by RR, itself, would be "recognition of the addictive voice." (BTW, RR frequently uses the acronym "AVRT", but it does not appear in the article.)

As for spending 'all eternity in "recovery"', this idea seems to be controversial within AA, itself. It is apparently not supported by AA's literature, and is often directly contradicted by many oldtimers, even though other members accept the idea. It is often characterized as the "recoverED vs. recoverING" controversy. --Nike 02:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nike, "recognition of the addictive voice" should be in the article if it is not already. And RR was originally based on RET (rational emotive therapy) and the addictive voice thing. It is all in the original RR book The Small Book. I believe that book has been rewritten now but I am not certain. They used RET as a foundation for years but later abandoned it. I know this to be a fact but I cannot find anything to support it to make it article worthy and not "original research". The reasons they changed their program were written about in the Journal Of Rational Recovery but I do not subscribe so I have nothing to cite.

And you are correct, AA literature does not state you have to go to meetings the rest of your life. The subtle message a member gets at a meeting is a different story. Something like that in the article would obviously need to be supported well. Mr Christopher 13:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is mention of Addictive Voice Recognition Technique in the "how RR works" section. I added AVRT in parentheses, since the acronym is used a lot in RR literature.

As for RET, that is what originally attracted me to RR, but after SMART Recovery split away, RR disavowed RET. Since that was over a decade ago, RET and CBT have no bearing on RR today. RR claims that AVRT is not based upon RET or CBT. I think that the RR name may have been derived from RET, but I don't recall that being stated anywhere, and it is ironic that Rational Recovery now advocates a method that RR itself says is irrational.[3]

As for TSB, that has been superceded by more recent books, and Trimpey has called it his "albatross". Just read the comments on the Amazon review. Read also The Shortcomings of RET.

As for AA, it seems that the article spends more time talking about it than about RR, itself. I know that this has been a defining aspect of RR, as evidenced by TSB, but I think that the RR web site and books now talk a lot more about what RR is than what it is not. --Nike 13:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

POV edits

Mr Christopher, some of your edits seems pov. Let's talk about them, okay? --FloNight ^talk 08:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? --Nike 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nike I cannot speak for Flo but I bet this entry of mine may be at least part of what she is referring to

"RR views ones religious beliefs as personal and private and unlike AA, the problem drinker is not expected to analyze or change their existing spiritual and religious beliefs or adopt new ones and that a person's religion is none of RR's business"

I have the supporting documentation and I am short on time at the moment but I'll clean that piece up soon. Mr Christopher 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nike, I left a more indepth comment on Mr Christopher talk page. So he knows what I mean. Sorry, don't have time today to go into more detail. FloNight ^talk 23:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I hated to leave the pov tag on. I did some re-writng and removed some text that needs cites. FloNight ^talk 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I just reworked a bunch of my initial attempts. Opinions anyone? Also, I am in desperate need of stylistic guidance. I have read numerous Wiki style pages on using citations and it all looks like Unix code to me (the code I can handle, it's the instructions that are giving me hives)  :-) If someone who is cite savvy would bail me out (or give me better instrcutions/examples) by formating my cites I will look at the code you produce and see exactly how you did it. As you can see I made two book cites from the same book. Page 247, chapter 12 Some Common Objections to Rational Recovery Mr Christopher 07:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be very careful about citing TSB. This book is obsolete and has been superceded by Rational Recovery: The New Cure for Substance Addiction and "is no longer recommended as the introduction to Rational Recovery."[4] Trimpey calls it his "literary albatross"[5]. Many things in TSB are no longer part of RR, including self-help meetings, RET, etc. It's difficult to determine what parts of TSB are still valid. For instance, one of the quotes you use is seriously incorrect, since it refers to "Some of our professional advisors", which RR not only does not have, but is critical of[6]. If you don't have access to any other RR literature, you can simply cite RR's web site; it's all there:

...the exclusive source of information on AVRT-based recovery, which is this website. — Jack Trimpey, LCSW

--Nike 09:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nike, I know that RR has reformed and rejected the RET component and other pieces of their previous existance (an over simplification). Additionally, I think that fact belongs but how do we write about the history of their transformation? I'm sure they discussed this transofrmation in their Journal Of Rational Recovery but I am not interested in it enough to go and buy a copy. But somehow the transformation and rejection of many of their previous practices belongs (I just can't speak to those details at least yet).

I quoted TSB twice and I read their FAQ again and you bring up a good point about the one that includes professional advisors. I agree with you and I'll simply remove it. Even though TSB is a resource they no longer actively promote (it is still sold) I think the quotes I used about their religious neutrality is still relevant. I don't think they reject their former non-treatment/method related opinions, just primarily the most everything having to do with staying sober (a time saving over simplification). So I think using TSB as a source for their response to the criticism of them being anti-religious is relevant. Let me know if you disagree Mr Christopher 14:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And...Nike why don't you put some of the stuff you wrote above in the article? Mr Christopher 15:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

RR and the Courts - Establishment Clause

We have a lot on their court action, which I think is relevant but in my opinion it probably belongs at or near the end of the article. I don't think supporting efforts that challenge mandated 12 step attendance is their primary focus. I'm out of breath now so I'll let someone else suggest how best to arrange what we now have. Mr Christopher 07:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Also...I have plans to start stubs on the AA related court cases that are in red but that might take me a while. If the red is distracting I can remove the brackets, but maybe someone else will see them and start it themselves? What is the actual protocol for red ink? Mr Christopher 07:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that obscure court cases are notable enough for their own encyclopedia articles. However, you can use single brackets to link them to offsite info. ---Nike 09:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

NP, I'll remove the brackets. Mr Christopher

Criticism

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)

There was some criticism of RR many years ago in a couple of AA inspired professional counselor journals but I did a search on one online archive and found nothing. The "version" of RR (RET/cognitive psychology based) they were criticizing no longer exists (RR dropped kicked RET and cognitive psychology years ago). I'm not sure if anyone in the professional community is paying much attention to RR nowadays.

I can dig up some data on what they have to say on the disease subject within a week or two. Mr Christopher 18:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I found an online copy of the issue of The Journal Of Rational Recovery that sheds some historical light on their change in approach (including dropping the RET component), a criticism of cognitive therapy as a treatment for alcohol addiction, and comments about TSB ("albatross"). This Google translated copy of the pdf file (which includes a link to the source pdf file) can be found here. When I get some time I'll try and add some to the article. Obviously jump right in anyone, there is some good history here. Mr Christopher 06:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but remember that it's Trimpey's POV, and may differ in some aspects from others' accounts. Read Stanton Peele's analysis of RR, AVRT and SMART's split with RR. See also the brief statement on the SMART FAQ. A lot of the history was documented on ADDICT-L, but the archives only go back to December of 1995, a little too late. --Nike 09:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorg

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)

Reorganization looks good. FloNight ^talk 20:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This wikipedia entry makes a sham of the online encyclopedia.

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 {{helpme}} 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)

Clean-up/POV

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)

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)

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)

What RR is based on

The article reads

"The RR program is based on cognitive behaviour therapy and dissociation from addictive impulses. While RR and AA promote abstinence, the programs use opposite strategies."

RR is NOT based on cognitive behaviour therapy, it used to be. What if we changed the sentence above to:

The RR program is based on recognizing what they call the "addictive voice" (losely translated internal thoughts that support self-intoxication) and dissociation from addictive impulses

And then we can elaborate as needed? Mr Christopher 13:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The "RR program" is AVRT, so perhaps that should be mentioned here. And wouldn't RR be an "it", rather than a "they"? Or perhaps a "he"...

BTW, what's with the "See also" section? It's a reference to an offline periodical that would probably be difficult for most people to find. According to Wikipedia guidelines, this section should have "in a bulleted list, other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one." --Nike 13:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Trimpey is not a "pioneer" in the management of alcoholism and other drug abuse problems as stated. That is only HIS claim. Further, RR was based on REBT as one finds by reading his first book, but when he stopped supporting FREE self-help groups and started charging for his AVRT to which he holds a copyright, then RR became linked only to AVRT and AVRT which started as a useful technique (see the first book: RR: The Small Book) and became the center piece of his program dressed up in a pseudo-science of brain physiology (many references to the "reptile brain" which is an over simplification used by Carl Sagan in his Dragons of Eden book, but never really supported in hard physiology. As a one time RR volunteer, before it went commercial, and a one time friend of the Trimpey's before they turned on everyone who wouldn't follow them, I strongly object to Wikipedia giving RR and Trimpey space, but denying it to all of the secular (SOS, LifeRing) and secular/science-based programs run by volunteers (just like Wikipedia; Moderation Management and SMART Recovery). Henrysteinberger (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definitions of notability, and how it is demonstrated, is different from what many new editors expect (it certainly was in my case). But there are probably enough reliable sources for these organizations to write articles on them (with the exception of, maybe, LifeRing Secular Recovery), see the Google Scholar results for: Secular Organizations for Sobriety, LifeRing Secular Recovery, Moderation Management and SMART Recovery. You'll just need to re-create the articles and write them using and citing those kinds of sources.

Feel free to leave a message for me on on my talk page if you have any questions. Additionally you can add {{helpme}} 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 (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious conversion

I think that I can support this term using AA's own literature, but this article is not about AA, so I don't see the need for a revert war, complicated circumlocutions or finding cites. How about just removing everything in the paragraph before "with one exception"? --Nike 08:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Nike, to understrand what gitlow is up to mosey over to alcoholism. We have an AA counselor out of control so to speak. Anyhow I am not going to participate in a edit war with him over here. He's pushing the AMA/APA and AA POV and removing any cited reference he doesn't like, this is one such case. In the ordinary world what AA calls a "spiritual awakening" is in fact a religious conversion experience. But gitlow wants weasle words because he works at an AA treatment hospital. Anyhow, I'll avoid escalating him here. He's been completely disruptive at the [alcoholism]] article, forcing it to read from the AA biased AMA/APA POV and he is kind of obsessed with me personally, this is why he came to the RR article in the first place. AA counselors get testy when you don't go with the AA line of thinking. It's nutty. Mr Christopher 12:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Nike. Chris thinks I'm an AA counselor. I'm not. He also seems to think that I work at an AA treatment hospital. I don't. I've been to as many RR meetings as an observer as I have AA over the years and feel that RR has likely helped many people. The RR entry is no place, though, for making statements about AA that are untrue. AA's spiritual awakening issue is not in fact a religious conversion experience, at least not here in the northeast. What I tell my patients is that the higher power referred to at AA is whatever they would like it to be; should they choose to perceive it as a religious issue, they are welcome to do so. Should they choose not to, they are welcome to do that as well. If you want a religious experience, there are many places to obtain such activity. But defining AA in those terms makes no sense in this entry. What Chris doesn't realize is that a lot of people get testy when he spouts off about stuff while using his personal perspective rather than evidence-based knowledge. Drgitlow 18:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In point of fact, there are places in AA's own literature which talk about "conversion", and the founders were heavily influenced in this concept by William James's Varieties of Religious Experience, as they, themselves, stated. Claiming that coming to believe in God is not a religious conversion is disingenuous. Nevertheless, this article is not about AA, so I think that in this particular case, it is unnecessary to characterize AA. We can state RR's view on religion without mentioning AA. RR acts like it has an inferiority complex towards AA, when it cannot talk about itself without comparing itself to AA. --Nike 20:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Nike. If someone comes to believe in God, this would be a religious conversion. I don't mean to say that this doesn't happen at times at AA meetings, or that the origins of AA (back when our community as a whole was more religious) aren't based in some very religious sounding prose. I only mean to say that AA isn't based on the Higher Power being God. I heard an AA participant once refer to G.O.D. as standing for Group of Drunks, not in an inappropriate manner, but simply to indicate that the higher power can be thought of as simply the group. I think for AA to work, the participant simply has to agree that the Higher Power represents some power other than him or herself, but not for it to necessarily be a religious construct.

Well, at A.A. meetings, they generally open with a "Serenity Prayer", and close with a "Lord's Prayer", the 2nd and 3rd steps talk about acknowledging God and turning our life and wills over to that God. Originally the 12th step spoke of making "conscience contact" with God. Bill had to soften it up to "spiritual awakening", but coming for a guy who was hooked on communicating with spirits via Oujia boards, it makes perfect sense. Sounds pretty religious to me. Now, A.A. itself may not name the God, and each person in a given group no doubt has varying ideas about God, but rarely have I met anyone who plugs "group of drunks" into that term. Are they praying to a group of drunks? Are they turning their life and wills over to a group of drunks? God, I sure hope not. Anyway, face the reality, A.A. is a religious outfit. It was started by religious people using the Bible as their source. And they close every meeting (I've ever been to, and that's a lot) with a prayer taught by Jesus Christ. Not religious? Sure, sure. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.17.53 (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know more of the history of RR. Was it started in response to a perceived or actual failure of AA? Or was it started simply to provide an alternative and equally useful perspective? Can an historic explanation be made part of the article? As someone who tends to stay far away from traditional faith-based activities, I find the RR approach very interesting, but I'm puzzled by the hostility toward AA evident in some of the RR followers. I was hoping an historic perspective would shed some light on that (which is why I came looking over here in the first place). Drgitlow 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If AA is not talking about God, then they need to change all their literature. Anyway, this article is not about AA. As for the history of RR, according to Jack Trimpey, "The history of Rational Recovery, since 1988, is chronicled in The Journal of Rational Recovery."[7] You can also find some RR history in its literature, such as TSB. I don't remember most of the details, myself. I am not an "RR follower", although I've been to RR meetings and read the books a long time ago. Nor do I have hostility towards AA, even though I don't believe in supernatural higher powers, although it seems that a lot of people are hostile towards AA, so it's good that they have alternatives. IMHO, RR would do better to define itself in its own terms rather than always comparing itself to AA and obsessing about AA, and AAs should apply rule 62. --Nike 05:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be some history about the split between RR and SMART recovery. RR used to have face to face meetings, but since the split, Trimpey seems to have decided that meetings are bad. I find it ironic that as a responce to the dogmaticism of AA, Trimpey started the only recovery organization even more dogmatic than AA. [kevin, November 2006]

I volunteered to lead RR groups from 1991 until the split, then I continued as a volunteer facilitator for SMART Recovery (for which Trimpey, who recruited me as a psychologist and REBT therapist, has never forgiven me or any of us who left RR when it became HIS money maker). It's not so much that he is dogmatic, though he is that too, but he is seeking to make money and unfortunately Wikipedia is giving him advertising space for his business, coached as notability for a secular alternatgive to AA which, without free self-help groups, it is NOT. It is not secular, but anti-theist. SMART Recovery in its "Purpsoes and Methods" document makes clear that religion (and so too spirituality) is a personal matter left to the individual, so SMART Recovery is "secular" but Mr. Trimpey is an outspoken anti-theist (not just a respectful free thinker, but someone who baits the religious). So I again ask that RR be dropped from the wikipedia and SMART Recovery take the notable place of the secular and science-based "addiction recovery group". ALSO, Craigtalebert, why won't you allow the addiction recovery group page to be organized and sorted on the meaningful division between 12-step spirituality and the secular groups??Henrysteinberger (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Henry, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read the notability requirements for articles. Click on this: WP:N, then read the page that comes up. PRETTY PRETTY PLEASE?

Notability on wikipedia is NOT about an opinion, it's about the number of reliable sources documenting particular topics, groups, etc. This is now the third time I'm explaining this to you. For instance, if you look at the Google Scholar results for all of the addiction related groups in question you'll see the following:

• Rational Recovery has 489 results
• Secular Organizations for Sobriety has 92 results
• LifeRing Secular Recovery has 22 results
• Moderation Management has 240 results
• SMART Recovery has 244 results

I'm not saying the other organizations are non-notable, but Rational Recovery is clearly very present in the peer reviewed literature.

You say you're a psychologist? You must have written literature reviews before -- that's pretty much all wikipedia articles are, and all they should be. Do the research, write the articles. Stop getting angry with people for not doing the work that you could be doing right now. You're wasting everyone's time. Stop. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Craig - I have read and re-read the "notability" requirements for articles (though I guess you'll not believe me) and I think I have shown you that SMART Recovery is cited in many secondary sources. That RR has the most Google scholar hits may say more about 1. that RR has been out there longer than SMART Recovery 2. That Jack Trimpey is a master of Public Relations as I've seen him work. I helped get many of those "RR articles" into local newspapers (here in Madison WI, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, etc.) and I can tell you that one reason that Jack get's lots of RR coverage is his outragious attacks on AA and religion. That leads to news coverage. It's the old, if it bleeds it leads formula. The only way to get more PR than attacking religion would be to get some folks (one know what they'd look like) to remove their tops in public (two women did that at an anti-Reagan rally in Wisconsin and it was covered in every newspaper in the country - and their photos are still circulating through the internet - whether they like it or not). So I would say that scholar Google is not a clear sign of notability unless you examine the citations. Please, please, note the coverage SMART Recovery has gotten that is more than newspaper notority. And let's admit that notority is different from notability. Perhaps that should be factored into the statement on notability.Henrysteinberger (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar doesn't index newspapers, it's for searching scholarly journals (though sometimes it includes less-than-scholarly material, but that's rare).

We're talking passed each other here. My points, hopefully stated more clearly, are as follows...

(1) I agree with you that based on the notability guidelines (that you must be intimately familiar with now), there is more than enough information for articles on all of the organizations you mentioned (maybe with the exception of LifeRing).

(2) Many of the articles for these organizations were deleted previously because they didn't cite reliable sources making them original research -- that stuff gets deleted. The Rational Recovery article did cite reliable sources, so it wasn't deleted along with the rest of them.

(3) You're a psychologist, so you are probably good at writing and researching. This makes you a perfect candidate to write these articles. Your time would better spent doing this rather than talking trash about Rational Recovery. Anyone can write for wikipedia, you just have to follow WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

I'd be more than happy to help you and answer questions, but you have to realize there is no wikipedia conspiracy to keep this material out and other material in, either articles follow these guidelines or they don't -- it's that simple. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality on Religiousity and Sobriety

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)

Actually, I believe the RR position is that the compelled participation in a religious program is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of religion. That position has regularly triumphed in court, where AA's claim that it is "spiritual, not religious" has faired very poorly. I do not see how you can say that there is a suggestion that that position somehow makes them "not neutral". Were I an agnostic, atheist, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, a follower of Shinto, or Eastern Orthodox practicioner, I would NOT want to be compelled to attend a group whose main writings are clearly a self-styled form of Protestantism, and be repeatedly told there that I had to conform or I would likely die. Would a Christian like to be compelled to attend recovery meetings at a radical fundamentalist Islamic program and be told that? RR's position is neutral due to the fact that individuals of all religious persuasion (including secular) receive equal respect for their choice (in that the matter just does not come up as a part of the RR approach). RR's filings are in support of freedom of religion (you know, that thing in the Constitution) as opposed to mandatory Protestantism. And I believe the onus is on you to prove that RR has not proven neutral on religion when in fact their actions prove them in defense of freedom of religion. The "claims to" is thusly removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.145.141 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by the organization's founder have expressed outright contempt for the combination of religiousity and sobriety. The statement contains POV and is not sourced. I think the best resolution, rather than a revert war, is to put the argument up for mediation and let more experienced editors weigh in. I am sure you would want the best outcome and the most accurate article possible. Again, I am not asking the article to state that RR is hostile towards religion and sobriety, but simply to remove the bias and instead write "RR claims to remain neutral" rather than "RR remains neutral." There is a difference.Lucida.ann (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote that is being used to support the claim that "RR is neutral on the issue of religiosity and sobriety" is: "RR founder Jack Trimpey explains, '...RR is not interested in having people give up any of their religious beliefs; it's just none of our business what people believe about gods and saints. The only exception here, of course, is when one is 'depending' on a rescuing deity in order to remain sober. If that is one's preference, then AA is an ideal program.'" That quote demonstrates implicit hostility towards the combination of religiosity and sobriety - for more accurate reference, the statement "the only exception here of course is when one is depending on a rescuing deity in order to remain sober. If that is one's preference, then AA is an ideal program." That says "anyone who depends upon a god for sobriety is not welcome in our program." That is not neutrality on religiosity and sobriety. Maybe someone can find another quote without outright hostility towards the concept, to support inclusion of such a statement.Lucida.ann (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Lucinda, why do you keep editing this article when you repeatedly prove that you do not understand RR at all, and that you are just another hostile AA member with a resentment? You wrongfully put these words into RR's mouth: "anyone who depends upon a god for sobriety is not welcome in our program." Those are YOUR words, not RR's, and they reveal that you do not understand RR at all. Not welcome? There are no meetings, no sponsors, nobody to answer to, no human contact (with one exception). Where is there anyplace to be be welcome or not welcome? The system is self-reliant - you believe we do not welcome ourselves? The majority of people do not do the seminar, the only place a welcome is possible, and even there, do you really believe Jack makes paying clients unwelcome by saying what you misbelieve he says? Look, a struggling alcoholic or addict looking for help who already believes that they need to "depend upon a god for sobriety" will go to a church-based program (like Johnny Cash did) or AA. The reality is that the vast majority of people looking for help have no idea what will work or they would have already done it on their own, and when they get to AA, the religion is slowly but persistently forced on them. That is fine for some people, but it runs out a great many who could be helped, and most will not have heard of other systems, or if they did, heard arrogant AA members criticize them despite a total lack of experience. Look, church-based programs, SMART, and LifeRing all have the same success rate that AA has, but just try saying you are interested in those at an AA meeting and just listen what AAers say about that idea! Please, Lucinda, please stop inserting your interpretations, which are POV by the way, into the article. Your "is not welcome in our program" makes no sense at all to an RR practitioner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.51.237 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

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)

I like that edit - and I agree with the rationale behind it. Lucida.ann (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

POV

Hey Ark, I appreciate the addition of this article but it kinda reads more like an ad than an encyclopedia article. Could you maybe bring this entry closer to NPOV (you know, that pesky policy we have around here). I know this is hard sometimes, but it does make for better articles. Happy hacking! --maveric149

Probably because it started as an ad, which I brutally hacked into something I thought resembled an entry. The sum total of what I knew about RR before I saw the AA page was that it exists and has a lower recividism rate than AA. I'll try to hack it further; you're welcome to join in btw.-- Ark

I will give you a chance to hack it first and I will get to it later myself -- sounds interesting, I never heard of them before (and have always personally despised AA for its unnecessary religiosity -- but that's just my personal opinion and I will try to not let that get in the way). --maveric149

Thanks for the compliment. I hacked it a lot more and I think it's close to NPOV but I better leave the fine-tuning to someone else. Personally, I've despised AA for submission to authority. Of course, religiosity practically implies hierarchical power. -- Ark

Ark - If you despise AA, could you please see to it that all of the secular groups get the same standing on Wikipedia as does AA, please. I don't "despise" AA. It works for those for whom it works. But for those low in religiosity, according to the resent Walsh Group Survey, they will not go to AA and the secular groups help people every bit as much as the AA support groups do according to that study. So how about reinstating the SMART Recovery page, the SOS and LifeRing pages and the Moderation Management page so that everyone can know about all of the options. This is supposed to be encyclopedic, but it seems to only cover AA and other 12-Step groups which are all free, and RR which is a for profit corporation run by JackTrimpey and Louis Trimpey. AND yes, of course the Trimpey page should be incorporated into the RR page, if you keep the RR page which is advertising for a private for profit that is not really proven to work (see Handbook of Alcholism Treatment Approaches: Effective Alternatives 3rd edition by Reid K. Hester and William R Miller, 2003) which reviews What Works in chapter 2 based on a meta-analysis of the current research and offers a review of all the self-help groups and not just AA.Henrysteinberger 05:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Henrysteinberger

I read the first version of the article and since that version everything I had issues with you have removed. The article now reads as being factual and comprehensive (again I don't know anything about this so I can't say if this stuff is actually factual -- it just reads as being written from a neutral point of view). The only thing missing now is some mention of any significant skepticism that others have for this group and its practices. But that can come later -- I'm sure somebody from AA will do that eventually. --maveric149

---

I put in a note about non-religious AAers. Relevance is tangential; I won't fight if others think it's irrelevant or out of context here. Vicki Rosenzweig

---

What about the costs of RR? The site offers rather expensive online subscriptions [8], videos and a course. "RR-Live!, a set of ten videos (12 hours) showing AVRT-based recovery with a live subject, will be a prerequisite to enroll in AVRT: The Course." [9] In the wikipedia article I'd expect more details about the approach, the history, a sponsoring organisation (is there one?), the relationship to the non-profit spin-off SMART [10],... -- 145.254.53.235 14:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty much hate all authority, especially religious authority. I used to be an anarcho-capitalist (libertarian), but I grew wary of the lack of humanitarian and environmental concern, so now I'm a liberal (leftist)---not because of a sudden rash of altruism, but because I wish to be as objectively egoistic as possible. From what I've read, RR reminds me ALOT of very hyper-individualist, secular capitalist (libertarian) groups like Scientology and Neo-Tech who seem to see relentless criticism, badgering, and beating-up on oneself as essential to recovery. Not all atheists or rationalists are rugged individualists, and not all individualists need to be rationalists or capitalists. Shanoman 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if they do charge significant fees, any inclusion of that fact in the Wikipedia article should also reflect that RR writings contain a clear tone of ridicule toward addicted individuals. Here's an example from their homepage: "There are no Rational Recovery groups anywhere in the world! Your desire for 'support' is nothing more than a plan to get loaded in the absence of support." Also see the "...200-word description of AVRT [Addictive Voice Recognition Technique], providing enough information for you to end your addiction, right now" (here). Vorpal Suds 4 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that RR quote that suggests anyone is being ridiculed. RR is NOT AA so the AA people would do well to stop freaking out that RR does not resemble AA in any way. There is nothing immoral or wrong about charging money nor is there anything wrong with RR not having free meetings. RR would be the first ones to say if you want AA then go to AA. We need to keep the AA bias out of this article. Mr Christopher 21:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ridicule is subjective, and I don't see how this would fit into an encyclopedia article. It certainly is a criticism of support groups, but it's no secret that the present-day RR opposes support groups, especially AA. --Nike 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ridicule is indeed subjective, which is why it would be a very good idea to put this quotation in the article, in place of the IMO highly irrelevant one on the subject of capital punishment. If RR opposes support groups, that is worth mentioning. --Townmouse 21:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This deserves research, so I have done some.[11] RR (i.e. Trimpey) actually does not oppose "support groups", because he makes a distinction between "recovery groups" and "support groups". The latter are OK, so long as they're not 12-step and don't have long-term membership. The former he characterizes as "dependency groups" or "cults". On RR's home page it states, "AVRT has made recovery groups obsolete." Since RR's opposition to recovery groups is so often stated, it should be mentioned in the article, IMHO.

The entire section just added titled Criticism is irrelevent IMO also, as well as POV and unsourced, and should be reverted. --Nike 11:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nike. Yeah a good, supported and cited criticism section would be appropriate but what you removed did not fit that criteria. Mr Christopher 15:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

---

If RR were antithetical to AA in every regard then they would be actively encouraging alcoholics to drink. I changed the wording. Fire Star 05:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the RR article reads like an ad with repetion of the organization's name throughout. Further, the article uses primary sources like the RR FAQs rather than secondary sources. Finally this article's notability is based on citations from before 1992 when RR still offered free self-help groups (which they now condemn) and based its program on REBT which Jack himself used to stop his own drinking problems leading him to start the RR program as a reaction to AA which he as an atheist (and I'd say anti-theist which is OK by me) could not abide. The research cited as supporting RR (Gallantner's one big study) didn't support RR as it exists today but the the proto-SMART Recovery which was RR from its founding in 1986 until it dropped the groups in the mid 1990's when they could not be sold as a franchise operation (which is not noted to my knowledge in any of the RR literature, but was well known to all who were approached by Jack at that time).

How can I see that this comment is taken seriously and leads to a change in the RR article? Where is the proper site for this discussion? My big kvetch is that RR and AA are treated differntly than SMART Recovery and I think I've made the point clear here that they are allowed to use advertising formats and even more unfairly, RR gains its notability based on its early, proto-SMART Recovery, history when its methods and program were what SMART Recovery assumed and what RR (which kept the name RR ceded by the BoD that resigned to not waste resources) now entirely rejects and condemns.Henrysteinberger (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the helpme tag, as they are for use on user talk pages. However, to answer your question, you should read through WP:RFC#Request comment on articles and WP:PR and chose the option that best fits your request. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Henry - I'm not sure why you're afraid to edit articles, or expect other people do to it for you. The best thing to do is to collect sources that support your points, edit the article, and cite said sources when you do. You can do this not only with the Rational Recovery article, but also with the SMART Recovery article.

At any rate, questionable sources, such as the RR faq, are allowed under some circumstances. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)