Talk:Dry drunk

"There is actually a condition.." is poor writing and smells like weasel. Who recognizes the condition? What are the symptoms? The article itself starts out by saying it's a slang term. Perhaps there should be some mention of skepticism towards the term outside AA/addiction recovery circles? ie, if someone gets clean without AA they're just "dry drunk" and not really recovered, and similarly for those who go through AA but don't recover.

Really the article seems intended to buttress criticism of Bush. Nice link.

I agree the article needs work. However it seems definite that the so called dry drunk condition is something some people within the AA at least have 'recognised' for a while, long before Bush came into the picture. I came across this usenet article from 1996 which shows as much http://groups.google.co.nz/group/alt.recovery.aa/browse_thread/thread/6b35e9dfd5ebfae5/c60c8aa80121ef6a (look at the last msg by gimpguy especially). Therefore, I think another thing the article needs in addition to what has been mentioned by the other person (although I think the scepticism part needs refinement, I suspect not everyone outside the AA recovery circle are sceptical of the term), is some analysis of the history to show the 'condition' was not something invented to describe Bush. Obviously the usenet article is okay but we need something more substanial and from a better source. P.S. Interestingly, usenet also shows mention of Bush as a dry drunk preceeded the 2000 election and of course then the events following September 11th etc...60.234.141.76 13:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the article that would make it questionable regarding its neutrality? The only problem I can see is that it's short. Adding more information, along with the requisite "criticism" section, should do the trick nicely. Unfortunately, I'm not the one to do that, since I just heard of the term "dry drunk" a few minutes ago, but the users on Wikipedia seem to be very good at finding and presenting useful information. Somebody expand this article and get rid of the silly "NPOV disputed" sign! Harkenbane 17:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that "dry drunk syndrome" and "dry drunks" precede any contemporary political controversy. The concept is longstanding part of the culture and body of knowledge of AA and other addiction recovery circles. Article needs expansion, signaling as a stub. Don't see anything controversial in this subject- (unless one is a "dry drunk" in denial.) Removing "NPOV disputed" sign. Intersofia 15:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The non-neutrality is that the term is not recognized as a psychological disorder by any official group, but the article treats it as one. The only 'authority' on dry drunks is AA itself, hardly a reliable source given that it is widely regarded as a cult.