Talk:Rational Recovery
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rational Recovery article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Journal?
edithttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26524365 -- Scarpy (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Court-mandated 12-step program attendance
editWhat is Stanton Peele's relationship with Rational Recovery? Has Rational Recovery supported these court efforts? Have they responded to or celebrated these court efforts? What do these court decisions mean for Rational Recovery as a movement and an organization? Right now, it's not clear that this section is connected to Rational Recovery. Let's make these connections explicit. Daask (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Please revert (rewrite?) this article to npov and LOCK
editFrom the second paragraph: " Some assistance is free; a "teaser, if you will. Then, though, this "bait and switch" approach..." No. Uh uh. That's not neutral.
From the third: "Trimpey conjurs this opinion and sells it as fact"
A little further along: "Trimpley is widely dismissed, however he has established a loyal spate of desperate minions."
Are you joking? There's no place for this invective in an encyclopedia article, accurate or not. The colloquial nature alone makes those turns of phrase unacceptable.
I know the last thing this article needs is another anon jumping in the fray, so this clearly requires admin. intervention. Reduction to a stub & locked would be preferable at this point. Embarrassingly bad text here, this is the sort of thing that gets WP made fun of. Fix it.
97.90.241.210 (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Charlatan?
edit"Trimpey is a controversial figure [...] widely dismissed as a charlatan or cult head figure."
The statement above appears in article with nothing to back it up. Statements such as this:
- need supporting citation(s);
- reflect a bias that may indicate violation of Wikipedia's NPOV rules; and
- are potentially libelous if statement is made about living person(s), and may be removed
Please familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia rules to avoid making the above mistakes, one of which exposes Wikipedia to civil liability and damages (!). Kinkyturnip (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Kinkyturnip: I was surprised to see this on your user page:
Pet peeve: Leaving messages on entries' talk pages saying "somebody should fix these errors". Well, you found them, so why not show some initiative and fix them yourself?
- It was a simple revert of an IP to fix this. Daask (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Link is broken.
editI don't know about any controversy about this program; all I know is that the link is broken. I'm removing it for now. Twin Bird (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)