Talk:Debtors Anonymous/Archive 1

Notability
There are reliable sources discussing Debtors Anonymous. See,. As such, I'm removing the notability template. &mdash; Craigtalbert 09:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal experience
Found two points in this article out of synch with my experience with DA/BDA:

a) People are generally not interrupted during their shares (pitches). Although there might be a meeting format somewhere that allowed for this, I would think that it is either outdated or not typical.

b) Although some people might consider the lack of literature to be a factor in their decision to join or not join the program, the article fails to point out that 1)DA, DA/BDA considers all AA literature to be appropriate for use in the DA, DA/BDA program, and is the backbone of the spiritual recovery that many deem to be the most important aspect of the program and 2) There are a number of pamphlets and booklets created by the Fellowship that play a large role in the program. Abreit01 (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Find some reliable sources, as wikipedia defines them, that document this. Then be bold and update the article. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Opening Sentence of Article is Not Easy for Someone Seeking Help to Understand
Once you are in DA you learn after a while what 'solvency' is (and how important it is). But for a person seeking help who has never heard of DA before to only say that DA is for people who want solvency is confusing and doesn't really communicate.

The opening sentence should instead describe the problem that Debtors Anonymous is there to solve (and should be inclusive enough to enumerate some of the variations on that problem like compulsive under-earning and credit card addiction [clearly placed within the context of compulsive debting of course]).

As it stands the opening sentence is narrow (miserly?) and vague in its meaning to the average newcomer.

The opening needs a revamp and should take a more generous approach to explaining what DA is.

Here is the current (and I suggest problematic) opening sentence: "Debtors Anonymous (DA) is a twelve-step program for people who share a common desire to maintain financial solvency.[1]"

One more issue I see is that the purpose of DA is not only to maintain solvency but is to help people who are compulsive debtors to also become solvent in the first place.

69.171.160.33 (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

All of the changes made today were done so within Wikipedia guidelines by a person with years of experience with DA and Wikipedia. Citations are to follow soon.

69.171.160.213 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not revert these changes. The old opening sentence does not explain to anyone outside of DA what 'solvency' means.

Please do not revert without discussing and without knowing what Debtors Anonymous is (in depth). The old opening line makes the article useless to all but 'insiders' who already know about DA.

69.171.160.244 (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debtors_Anonymous&oldid=331538389 is a mess of hyper-formatting and disorganized headers. Please consider rewording what you're trying to explain. - CaelumArisen (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure what hyper-formatting is but I can reword the opening.

It is a work in progress and I can make it more natural.

Thanks for responding.

Cowebd (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Cowebd (I'm assuming you're also the various 69.xxx.xxx.xxx addresses) your work and insight for the article is much appreciated. I know you are trying to work within Wikipedia's guidelines, so I'm going to point you to some (linked in the paragraph below). Apologies if you've read them.


 * The goal here is to write an encyclopedic article meaning, among other things, that it is based on reliable sources, a term that in Wikipedia guidelines means third-party publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I know that information that you've added is in several DA publications, self-published sources, however, can only be used under specific circumstances. One such constraint is that articles cannot be primarily based on self-published sources. The information in this article needs to come primarily from reliable sources (best ones are peer-reviewed journals, and books published by a university press). I've been putting together some sources in anticipation of expanding this article, some are currently listed in the further reading section others are on citeulike.


 * You seem to have a very through understanding of the DA literature. What I've found works well in articles similar to this one is to use the reliable sources to make a basic framework for the article, and then to fill in the gaps with the self-published sources. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One last thing... I take it from your discussion with CaelumArisen that you are a DA member. If that is the case, you have a conflict of interest (another wikipedia guideline) regarding this article. Please read the COI guidelines carefully. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Scarpy, I'm sure that you and I both share a great appreciation for Wikipedia. Nevertheless the spirit of any law should supercede narrow legalistic interpretations. One should consider the purpose of any law or rule and not literal, rote interpretations.

Some examples of this are illustrated by the discussion that has been running here:

1) The average person who hasn't attended DA groups won't understand what 'solvency' means (in this case an addiction to abusing things like Credit Cards ).

Therefore the term 'solvency' or 'solvency' alone in the opening line renders the article useless for the general public. Failing to allow for this is an overly-narrow interpretation of the guidelines that ruins the usefulness and accuracy of the article.

2) Cutting off writing of the article to people who have no prior knowledge of DA is a narrow and overly legalistic interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines for the following reasons--

A) The problem is, if you haven't gone to DA groups you don't know what the terminology really means--

For example, "solvency" is a jargon word in DA that means 'abstinence from things like Credit Card abuse'.

'Solvency' in DA does not have the same meaning that it does in Websters Dictionary. Websters does not define 'solvency' as abstinence from credit card debt, but Debtors Anonymous does.'''

 B) Therefore showing a little flexibility in writing this article gets to the spirit (the real purpose) of Wikipedia which is to be an accurate publicly written online Encyclopedia, rather than having articles that do not accurately reflect their subjects in the name of rigid interpretation of rules. **I mean this respectfully, not personally. But I insist sincerely that this is very important.

Consider: People who desperately need help are reading this article every day and are getting the wrong picture of what DA is and may be missing out on help that they badly need.

Some of these people may even be suicidal, which is not to be taken lightly.

A little flexibility in this case would reflect the true spirit (purpose) of Wikipedia, while a narrow interpretation of the rules in this case would not reflect the true spirit (purpose) of Wikipedia.

This is a case where shades of grey do matter: Leaving the word 'Solvency' with no explanation in common every-day language what Debtors Anonymous actually means by 'solvency' makes this article inaccessible to the average reader (thereby violating Wikipedia's stated mission).

Respectfully, 75.166.170.132 (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While we're discussing readability I, respectfully, removed the indentation form your comments causing the obnoxiously bolded statements to be interpreted as specially formatted text. My apologies if this does not maintain the level emphasis you intended. I'll also let you know I have no difficulty reading text in a normally weighted font. It does, however, seem slightly condescending (to me at least) when every other sentence is in bold.


 * I agree that the "spirit of the law is more important that the letter of the law." I also agree that the lead section needs work and should be rewritten to comply with the WP:LEAD guidelines. You are also correct that DA has hijacked the word 'solvency' and redefined it for their purposes (this is mentioned in the body of the article).


 * I want to mention a few of Wikipedia's basic guidelines so we're both clear about what spirit we're following. Wikipedia guidelines strongly emphasize the necessity of verifiability (see WP:V), meaning that information in the encyclopedia should be supported by a source. These sources should be primarily reliable sources (WP:RS), meaning sources that have a reputation for fact checking an accuracy (e.g. peer-reviewed journals, books from a university publisher, etc). If you want to change the current lead section, you're welcome to change it at anytime. Just be prepared for it to be reverted if you stray too far Wikipedia's guidelines (you also want to check WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT).


 * I have been doing some heavy-lifting to get a hold of reliable sources on the topic of DA (you're welcome). I'm reading Terrell's dissertation (mentioned in the further reading section) to add what I can from it to the article. This is part of the reason why I haven't written a more detailed lead yet, because a summary of the article will change as the body of the article changes.


 * You should also know, this is not the first time that someone has made an argument playing on emotions to dispute things I've written in a Wikipedia article. The president of Crystal Meth Anonymous once implied that people would die because I used the phrase "twelve-step groups" rather than "twelve-step fellowships." I suggested that he edit the article and change the wording, but he refused to. I haven't seen an article reporting that someone off'd themselves due to wording on Wikipedia yet, and I don't expect I ever will. -- Scarpy (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Scarpy, here is a little reality check for you--

I've worked for years with people in recovery, formerly as a counselor and later as a volunteer in 12 Step Programs--

Total experience: 20 years plus Total people worked with: More than 500 people.

'''Guess what? There really are suicides. And drug overdoses. And lots and lots of ruined lives.'''

Your last quote is a perfect example of the problem here-- I don't know that guy (President of Crystal Meth Anonymous) but I'll bet he knows an awful lot more about the subject than you do. And yes lives really do hang in the balance in that line of work. It is no game and it is no joke.

Look I'm sure you are a good person with good intentions-- and you might know a lot about Wikipedia--

But your open-mindedness is needed here. These Wikipedia articles get read by a lot of people-- and if they contain misinformation that prevents desperate people from getting badly needed help-- yes it can (and will) kill people.

We are all human and we all at points need to question our positions at times--

I beg you to question your assumptions about these articles and especially to understand that they can affect how thousands of people understand these vital nonprofits (which will affect whether or not people approach them for badly needed help).

It's a very serious thing.

Sincere regards, 75.166.170.132 (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Guess how much most 12 Step Presidents make-- NOTHING. They work for FREE. You don't even understand how 12 Step Programs work... You are treating that guy like he's out to make a buck... all he is doing is trying to help people...

75.166.170.132 (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors also make nothing. I am being very open-minded and I agree with you on several points. But if you're trying to guilt-trip me in to making changes the the article, then I also have the question your skills as a counselor.


 * FYI: This particular article is read about 1000 times a month (average of October, November, December is 1174 views -- December was higher than usual and skewed the results a bit). Relatively speaking, that's not very often.


 * I should also let you know, I am not going to continue discussion with you. As far as I can tell we basically agree that the lead section should be rewritten, and apparently disagree on the number of causalities this article--and I suppose myself by way of contributing to it--has caused. If you're looking for vindication on the topic of this article's lethality you can put in a request for a third opinion (see WP:3O) and an uninvolved experienced editor will weigh in on the point. I'm done. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should feel guilty because you didn't know.

Also I noticed that you created a lot of very good 12 Step articles which have helped a lot of people, so quite the opposite, you have done a lot of good for a lot of people. That's all I'll say, I know you don't want to continue the discussion.

75.166.170.132 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is really improving, although the opening section and the definition of "Solvency" (DA's definition) still needs work.

Thanks to everyone!

69.171.160.49 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Labeling" Section is Biased
The "Anti-Labeing" issue is an old criticism of 12 Step programs and although it's fine to place it in the article, the counter-argument should also be placed-- That the primary problem with compulsive illnesses is 'denial' (denial that one has a problem) and that 'breaking denial' is key to recovering from any compulsion or addiction. Hence saying "I am an alcoholic" or, in the case of this article, "I am a compulsive debtor". There are many citations out there for this answer to the "Anti-Labeling" argument if anyone has the time to research them.

69.171.160.74 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Accountability sessions
"DA meetings have an "accountability" session, during members are allowed to ask questions and interrupt each other to give advice." This does not happen at a regular DA meeting. Ozzie1rt (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The description of the meeting comes from page 24 in the thesis cited (there is a link to download it in the citation). Generally speaking peer-reviewed sources are the best for wikipedia articles, but in cases like this you can correct it using questionable sources; meaning self-published DA material (pamphlets, books, information on their website). If you can find, or point me to, these sources I'd be happy to help with corrections. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Debtors Anonymous World Conference memorandum on Importance of Debt Abstinence for Under-earning Recovery
I see the note for the citation, the memorandum has been read many times in the DA telephone groups in the last year. But I'm not sure where to get a copy. Can someone help?

Thanks!

75.252.217.24 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead section and article future
It was a long time ago, but I remember when I wrote the lead section that I specifically excluded citations, and I thought this was in keeping with the guidelines in WP:LEADCITE. The idea being that "over citing" it was distracting. But reviewing those again, I see that it's more along the lines of material that's controversial or challenged should be cited. I'll go back now and add citations for things that have been removed from the lead for lack of citations (even though it's just a summary of other parts of the article). - Scarpy (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, LEADCITE does say "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Each article is different, and the lead must be examined on a case by case basis to determine the proper balance between too many redundant citations and not enough citations for controversial statements. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering deleting references to the Hayes survey
The survey of 36 DA members conducted by sociologist Terrell A. Hayes informs the basis of several sections in this article, but I'm not sure it meets the notability requirement as a citation, as well as it seems to be a separate subject. I'll wait for others to respond with any differing opinions before deleting. TBliss (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 46. Hayes wrote four scholarly sources on Debtors Anonymous, so yes, they're used in this article. Wikipedia articles should be based on the peer-reviewed scholarly sources whenever possible. If anything, I was more worried about the number of WP:SPS sources here, but thought they helped clarify DA's asserted position on what's discussed in the scholarly literature and were not unduly contentious. If your concerned about the notability of them as they're used in the article, you'll want to post them on the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard . - Scarpy (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a lot wrong with this article. There are typos, informational errors, qualitative judgments, promotional references, and off-topic information that undermine the purpose of Wikipedia as a place for users to obtain neutral, non-promotional, encyclopedic information about a subject. I will be making point by point changes in the next couple of days, and ask that this time you do not reverse them unless you have an appropriate referenced reason for each reversal. One example is that DA publishes two books now, so reversing back to only one book is clearly mistaken on your part. I also don't understand your personal attachment to an out-of-date study based on sample surveys of 46 anonymous members out of thousands that doubtfully relays relevant information about this organization helpful to the average reader, and will consider posting my concerns on the reliable sources noticeboard. TBliss (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * of all the articles I've written on Wikipedia, this is one of the ones I put the most work in to. Easily over 300 hours researching, reading the sources, writing the article and working to make it better. When it was reviewed for good article status (Peer_review/Debtors_Anonymous/archive1) had some very useful suggestions, but didn't mention anything about qualitative judgments, promotional references, or off-topic information.


 * I explained my reasoning for including the four sources from Hayes above and I'll reiterate again it's because these are scholarly sources discussing Debtors Anonymous. Peer-reviewed scholarly sources are the ones that have the highest value for an encyclopedic article. If you do a Google Scholar search on Debtors Anonymous, you'll see that there aren't that many and I tried to included all of them in this article that were published at the time. While research was done in the 90s, I'm not aware of any similar published peer-reviewed research that has been done since, and the DA program (steps and traditions) hasn't changed since that time, so it is still relevant.


 * If you can tell me which of the four (or all four?) of the sources written by Hayes you're concerned about, I'd be happy to post them on the reliable sources notice board for you.


 * I'm sorry I missed your edit about the new DA book. I'll restore that, and the one correcting the typo in the Parallel Organizations section. But reviewing it again, everything else was removing information that was cited, or summaries of cited information in the article. - Scarpy (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and posted all four of the Hayes sources on the noticeboard. The section is here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. - Scarpy (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, those are some appropriate fixes. I also think the word ‘assiduously’ under the Development section is a qualifier that doesn’t belong, no way to cite that - it’s an opinion. It’s a small point but it goes to lack of neutrality. The promises mentioned in the same section are similar in name only, certainly not in format so that is a misleading statement. Throughout the two references to the Mundis seem to be promotional and I would remove them. I still think any reference to the Hayes studies is a separate topic from the subject at hand, perhaps you might create a page for the studies and link to it from the Debtors Anonymous article. But the lingering problem is that there are no other mentions of these studies online whatsoever, they seem to have no other impact or notability. This would be like taking a scholarly study in any other field, which are often easy to find and often not particularly meaningful or evident of an actual phenomenon, and using that study to bend an article to a lone theory that is not widely accepted. It would never happen with a topic that had the oversight of numerous experienced editors.TBliss (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with removing the word "assiduously." The DA promises and AA promises are similar, nothing says they're exactly the same. I would be fine with moving the content from that section in to List of Twelve Step alternate wordings as in context it could be argued it's WP:SYN. Can you help me understand about the Mundis references "seem promotional?" I still have to disagree with you on the Hayes articles, but will continue that discussion on the noticeboard. - Scarpy (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The DA promises and AA promises are similar in title only,the content is completely different so I do think it's misleading. As far as the two occurrences of the Mundis title, they are grafted into the sentences: "The use of unapproved literature in DA groups, such as How To Get Out Of Debt, Stay Out of Debt & Live Prosperously, can cause conflict even though DA encourages to use of outside sources." and "Debt-shifting is not discussed in official DA literature, although it is discussed in a book largely based on DA principles, How To Get Out Of Debt, Stay Out of Debt & Live Prosperously." The sentences would show their point without mentioning specific book titles. This is the only book mentioned out of the many possible outside sources and books that discuss topics not discussed in DA literature, so it seems self-promotional because there's really no reason to mention this book in this context. It would read better to simply say "Debt-shifting is not discussed in official DA literature." and as far as the first sentence, the newest book 12 Steps, 12 Traditions and 12 Concepts clearly takes a stand AGAINST the use of any literature that's not Conference-approved so I would remove the sentence entirely. If you're keen to promote the Mundis book, it seems a list of books that discuss Debtors Anonymous would be a more relevant way to do that.TBliss (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We're going in circles here. You're trying to say noting that DA has promises similar to how AA promises is misleading, because of the differences in the content. A point by point comparison of the two wouldn't make sense in the context of the article, it would be undue weight (WP:UNDUE), and there are references to both so readers can compare them if they would like. You're not offering a suggestion or a compromise here. Like I said, I would be in favor of removing that paragraph and just linking to List of Twelve Step alternate wordings, I'll go ahead and do that unless you have any other suggested.


 * The Mundis book is the only one mentioned because it's the only one mentioned in the WP:RS for this article on the topic of outside sources and debt-shifting, and it's discussed in this article in the same context. I feel like many of the disagreements here could be solved if you would read the sources for this article. At any rate, there is no "promotional" tone when discussing that book.


 * I'll also admit that I haven't read the book published less than three months ago. But if it says what you say it says, then yet it would be perfectly acceptable to mention it as an addendum to the outside sources section following the WP:SPS guidelines, although DA pamphlets in circulation around 1999 said otherwise.


 * I hate to point this out, but this is the also second time you've made an imputation that I have a personal interest here, "if you're keen to promote the Mundis book" and previously "I also don't understand your personal attachment to an out-of-date study." I feel like this conversation would be more productive if we could stick to the Wikipedia guidelines, as these are what I followed when writing this article. If you haven't yet, please take some time to familiarize your with them (e.g. WP:N, WP:RS, etc). - Scarpy (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Since we haven't gotten a response on the RSNB, I'll put in a request for a WP:THIRDOPINION. - Scarpy (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your editing on the bulk of the article. But all references to this study are confusing. Honestly it's taken several readings to even understand the way that the studies are woven into the article. So now I understand all of Section 5 is really about the studies. It's a LOT of text devoted to this, it's more about the study than it is about DA. I would rename Section 5 entirely to something like "the Hayes studies" or "Alternative Points of View". I think there could still be a section titled "Changes in World View" but maybe only the first paragraph as a subsection under the Concepts section. I understand at the end of this section you come back to the theme of Changes in World View, but it's not coherent as an overall theme. I thought it was going into more descriptions about the DA program -- Intergroups, Bankruptcy and Outside Sources. It took me awhile to realize that these are discussed only to circle back to how they relate to the studies. I would seriously confine any talk of the studies -- which I do think are not notable -- to a single section clearly titled. There's no way any other article would be filtered through the perspective of a single sociologist's studies unless it described an actual popular phenomenon backed up by other people's studies or reports. Here's my suggestion:
 * ''' The Hayes surveys
 * Using convenience and snowball sampling sociologist Terrell A. Hayes found and surveyed 46 DA members from July 1993 to June 1995. 42 of the members surveyed were attending meetings in the Eastern United States, the remaining four attended meetings in Austin, Texas.[45][46] An analysis of the data Hayes collected revealed specific parts of DA hindered acceptance of DA's overall ideology. These included: labeling, intergroup and intragroup differences, lack of a clear position on bankruptcy and debt-shifting and contradictory information on what literature DA groups should use.[3] Law Professor A. Michele Dickerson suggested that something like Debtors Anonymous may be a useful addition to debtor education precisely because it would add a guilt-based component to the curriculum. The stigmatization would, Dickerson argues, change the debtor's economic philosophy and reduce the likelihood of impulse buying.[47] Mental health professionals find, however, that DA participation reduces shame.[22][40] '''
 * BTW I would delete reference to the studies from the bankruptcy and outside sources sections and move them to the Concepts section. Since DA adopted a document titled The Twelve Concepts of DA in 2014, I would rename the Concepts section to something like DA Beliefs to avoid confusion. What do you think?TBliss (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion
I came here in response to a request at Third opinion. While I have enjoyed reading the civil discourse and collaborative discussion above, after reading that, plus the article itself, plus the article contribution history, I am having a hard time figuring out if anything is still in dispute. A diff of article revisions would be helpful to offer a better opinion.

That said, in reading the article for the first time, I was struck by its heavy reliance on primary sources. In my opinion, some of the details that rely wholly on DA sources are unnecessary could be trimmed, although that might be difficult in places considering how primary and secondary sources are woven together. I do agree with Scarpy that secondary sources are far more valuable in an article per WP:SECONDARY, and I wouldn't want to see them removed, particularly peer-reviewed literature, regardless of how old those sources are. If the age of the source is something contentious here, then simply mentioning the date a study was conducted or published in the article text would clarify that point for a reader. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As requested, I made many edits to the page just now that hopefully clarify the material so you can compare versions. There are still references to the Hayes studies, but they aren't woven in a confusing way throughout the article as before and they are limited to a single section that makes it explicit that these studies represent alternative views of DA. My main criticism is that there was too much information shared about the studies themselves rather than about how the studies relate to the main subject. If an article were to be created solely to go into great detail about the findings of the studies, that would be more appropriate than hijacking this article.TBliss (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I agree with the concerns Amatulić mentioned above. Amatulić's thoughts are similar to what I realized while discussing this on the RSNB discussion that the bigger problem is that the large amount of primary sources I used for this article has lead to mistaken impressions along the lines of . From that perspective I can understand why someone would conclude that this article should primarily represent the views of Debtors Anonymous and that peer-reviewed research of Debtors Anonymous is not relevant--when the opposite is a better match to the Wikipedia guidelines. To make matters worse, many of the primary sources I used are Debtors Anonymous pamphlets that are only available in print form and must be obtained at meetings or through the Debtors Anonymous website, which, in hindsight, raises some issues with WP:V. It's one thing if a WP:RS is only available for cost in print, it another thing when citing several WP:SPS that are only available through the mail for cost in print. The best way to go forward with this article would be a re-write using only the WP:RS secondary sources and primary sources only if absolutely necessary. - Scarpy (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I like 's version that devotes a separate section to research studies.
 * , WP:V doesn't require that a source be easily available, just that they be available. Many scholarly sources are behind a paywall, and some print-only sources are available only in certain libraries, but either kind of source is considered acceptable in terms of verifiability. Anyone who really wants to, can verify the sources, either by paying or by traveling some distance. There also isn't any requirement that a source be online. Print is fine.
 * One way to reduce the reliance on primary sources is to reduce the details about the process and techniques to short summaries. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, and I agree that this article will be improved with secondary sources -- I'm sure there are many other profiles or at least mentions of DA out there by notable secondary sources that can be added in good time.TBliss (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you've reversed your position on the predominance of WP:SPS in this article. - Scarpy (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to say I find removing information from secondary scholarly sources really disappointing. My instinct that would be if something strikes you as confusing it would be better to re-write it in a way that's more easily understandable rather than simply removing information that you suspect would be difficult to understand or doesn't represent the views of Debtors Anonymous. I'm also concerned that you haven't reviewed the WP:RS written on the topic of Debtors Anonymous when you say "I agree that this article will be improved with secondary sources." If you haven't, I'd suggest you review the Google Scholar results on a search for Debtors Anonymous and let me know if there's anything that gives substantial coverage to the topic that I may have missed. It's always possible that I did, but I tried to be very thorough and since it been contentious recently I had a look at what was published in 2012 and it's pretty slim pickings.


 * I'm sorry guys, but I really think this is the wrong direction and this article is moving in the direction of being advertising for Debtors Anonymous rather than an encyclopedic treatment of the topic. - Scarpy (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not that the information from the studies is confusing. I thought it was woven into the article in a way that was very confusing. I thought sections titled "Outside issues" and "Bankruptcy" were presenting information about DA, but then it turned out they were there prove the point of the studies. Like I keep saying, create a page for the studies. I think three paragraphs in a single section is more than enough to get the idea of what these studies were about and if people want more info they can go to the source.TBliss (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Following the guidelines in WP:WHENSPLIT there is no reason to make a separate article just for the studies. - Scarpy (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have not reversed my position. As I said initially, I was struck by the heavy reliance on primary sources. Perhaps I wasn't clear that this isn't desirable. The article's sourcing should weigh more heavily toward independent secondary sources. Where I disagreed was with the idea that a source (primary or not) is to be avoided if it requires effort and/or money to access. The effort or cost to access a source is not a factor in verifiability. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

"Multiple repeats of the same link"
There is no stricture on how many times a citation may be used in an article (particularly if it is an independent source). There are plenty of GA and FA articles that utilize the same reference 30 or 40 or more times. I am therefore removing the "cleanup" tag as unwarranted. Softlavender (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, I will remove that one. - Scarpy (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)