Talk:Rowland Hazard III

New edits: Jung role, many citations needed
The recent (May 2010) additions regarding the Oxford Group, the role of Carl Jung and Shoemaker's account of Rowland's conversation with Jung need references or they may be deleted.

Also, I disagree with the assertion that Rowland was "markedly influenced by the Oxford Group and not [by] Carl Jung, as he could do nothing for Rowland" as per one of these edits, as available sources are quite clear that Jung's pronouncement of Rowland as hopeless was a primary motivation for his search for a spiritual solution and subsequent involvement with the Oxford Group. If any clarification is needed, it should be that Jung asserted that psychotherapy could do nothing for Rowland, and that Jung acknowledged anecdotal accounts of the effectiveness of deep spiritual change. I also feel that any such discussion belongs in the body of the article, and not in an introductory paragraph. Hipgnostic (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo?
Does anyone know of a usable photo of Rowland Hazard for this article? Hipgnostic (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very much appreciate the pic contributed by Rberlow. Is there any that shows Rowland more clearly and/or at the time of his initial contact with the Oxford Group? Hipgnostic (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol Sawyer Baumann
Carol Sawyer Baumann probably doesn't belong in the article, as she became involved with Jung after Rowland Hazard did. Including George French Porter would make more sense, as his involvement with Jung was early and notable in other respects. However, I don't have a published reference for his friendship with Rowland Hazard unless you count Stellar Fire. It is of course a matter of record that they were in the same Yale class.Rose bartram (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Amy Bluhm is the primary reference for Carol Sawyer Baumann, however if her (Baumann's) involvement with Jung was after Rowland Hazard's and not before, I would agree that a different reference would be more appropriate for illustrating "influencers." Hipgnostic (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bluhm says Sawyer left in July 1927 and was analyzed that fall. Hazard was there May-June 1926.Rose bartram (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Stover at Yale
I'd like to remove the part about "Stover." Does anyone mind? Although there is a reference for it (the CASQ article), it is entirely speculative and therefore misleading in an encyclopedia. I also think the identification with Joe Hungerford is unlikely, but that I suppose is OR. The problem is that there is no basis for it other than a hunch.Rose bartram (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The specific reference is in the CASQ article http://dl.lib.brown.edu/libweb/collections/kirk/casq/CASQ_v3n2_2007.pdf and recounts recollections in the first person (but who, I wonder, is the author?). I had felt this was an intriguing illustration that helps to make Rowland Hazard more "three-dimensional," if you will, with relevance to the affairs of his day beyond his rather one-dimensional role as a character in the events that led to Bill W.'s sobriety, however I see your point. Perhaps if modified to reflect, e.g., "According to those who knew the author and the students on whom he modeled the characters of his novel,..." or similar? Hipgnostic (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The author of the article, I believe, was Jared Lobdell. My understanding (based partly on my reading of that article, and partly on things I seem to remember Jared writing elsewhere) is that the other names listed were ones his father's friend (Leavenworth I think was the name) told him.  The identification of Hungerford as Hazard was Jared's own hunch. I don't read him as saying that anyone told him. There were hundreds of other wealthy people at Yale in those years (the graduation years of the other people listed range over about 8 years, I believe). In addition there are just too many other things that don't match.Rose bartram (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Jung letter
I looked at both versions of the Jung letter, and I don't know what Coffeepusher means about the "Speaking of Faith" one having more advertising. In fact, to me it looked like it had none (is it possible we are not looking at the same page?). The "Sober" version, OTOH, has a lot of other material with a traditionalist bias. I see some unpleasantness developing here, and no discussion whatever. There are better ways to pick the best reference than to revert another editor's work with a "mine is better" remark.Rose bartram (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Speaking of Faith" link promotes the radio show for starters, and does have banner advertising (the other page has none). additionally it appears that the link was added in a mass promotion of the radio show where it suddenly appeared on several wikipedia pages as an external link with its own section.  I do not assume ill intent with the addition, but wikipedia is not a collection of links and an obscure radio program suddenly appearing on several addiction pages (under the section "media sources" with no other sources referenced) provides a little undue weight upon the source (since Jack Alexander is not referenced in the source at all, or any other notable media source).  The reference within the article is in a section that was previously cited by the earlier citation of the book "Alcoholics Anonymous", so personally I think this citation can be done away with entirely since it was added in a previously cited section with no modification to the text.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Works for me.Rose bartram (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but not for me, Rose and Coffeepusher. In my opinion, the sober.org website version is not as accurate as the photo image of Jung's letter and there's interspersed commentary, although seemingly on-point but of uncertain cite-able origin. Just cite "sober.org" or "the Big Book Bunch". What are these sources and their veracity? Oh well. I've inserted a footnote with a link to ONLY the photographic image of Jung's letter to Bill Wilson from 1961 about Rowland Hazard III.


 * Also, Rowland Hazard III's experience played a big part implicitly in the founding of AA. See the article by Finlay in a scholarly journal referenced in the articles.




 * Mind you, as did Carl Jung and, inferentially, William James and his Varieties of Religious Experience as, in the very least, Finlay's article points out. Thanks for your discussion. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ok, but why does the edit need to be there at all? the paragraph is already cited, the additional citation itself is only loosely related by tying the two individuals together and the content is not cited at all, and three editors don't believe that the external link is necessary.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * reading you reply I think you may have missunderstood that we took all external links out, the sober.org and the radio show.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, right now the unexpurgated link to simply the original photographic image of Jung's letter to Bill Wilson, including, in Jung's own hand, certain important afterthoughts he had which he wrote in -- well, that' there simply, with no allusion to the respected radio documentary. So it's just Dr. Jung's letter. Closed case. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Yes I think that the link to just the letter is acceptable.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent. It was a very fruitful discussion. Many thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with reference and links
== I am new at this, please bear with me. A couple of the references and notes give a link to stellarfire.org. Either the page requested is not found or I am directed to a site I believe is incorrect. I don't know as the page is in an asian language. Oreo8417 (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Oreo8417/Connie M.

Removed original research content
I removed the original research statement that some of Hazard’s friends with connections to Jung may have led Hazard to Jung.

Please consider removing the warning about original research.

NorieNC (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)