Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

Let’s decide whether to add 5ive9teen’s comments to the idea AA is a “Cult”
I see in these two edits that 5ive9teen added some commentary giving an alternate viewpoint to the idea that AA is a “Cult”. This change was reverted since there was no consensus to add the content.

That in mind, I have opened this discussion to see if we should add this content. I support adding it, but we need to build consensus. SkylabField (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose adding this text, at least in the current form. Of the two sources cited, one is apparently written by the founder of AA and published by AA itself, and the other is self-published on Scribd, which is designated an unreliable source on WP:RSP. At the very least, we would need better sources to say anything like this. CodeTalker (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is original research, as 1) As far as I can tell, the "benign anarchy" comment is not a direct response to accusations of being a cult, 2) it uses a 1957 publication to respond to a 2009 claim, 3) The two sources cited are WP:PRIMARY non-independent sources. I.e.; this is WP:SYNTH of a thesis not present in the sources, using unreliable sources. Another issue with the edits is that they place the response in wiki-voice. We cannot adjudicate this and decide, as a wiki, that the "cult" accusation is wrong, since our WP:BESTSOURCES (e.g. scholars and scientists) do not agree. If we were to ever include this using appropriate secondary sources, we would have to do so with attribution. Because it's a POV response to a POV criticism. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Scribd is not the publisher of the secondary source, and here is a third source: Benign Anarchy: Alcoholics Anonymous in Ireland Hardcover – March 22, 2010 by Shane Butler 5ive9teen (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And one more source secondary source
 * https://www.stockholmuniversitypress.se/site/chapters/e/10.16993/bbb.h/ 5ive9teen (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of these sources actually mention the "cult" label, as far as I can ascertain. Could you point to the specific passage or page where these discuss the "cult" label? If they do not mention it, then the edit would very likely be WP:SYNTH. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose While there are good sources which don’t feel AA is a cult (e.g. Vaillant 2005, Alcoholics Anonymous: cult or cure?), I have to agree the proposed edit didn’t have adequate sourcing. SkylabField (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely welcome a short, of approximately similar length, attributed statement from one of these which could serve as a counterpoint to the "cult" claim. That would definitely bring us closer to NPOV! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dr Vailiant is not an independent source. He was a Trustee of Alcoholics Anonymous who sat on their Board for many years. 86.31.33.124 (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Shortening the lead
The lead is a little long, and I suggest abbreviating in a new paragraph the too detailed summary of the steps and traditions as follows:

'''AA’s twelve steps are a suggested and continuing program of spiritual improvement and of better conduct while helping other alcoholics that goes beyond simply abstaining from alcohol. Throughout the steps divining and following the will of God "as we understood Him" is urged, but differing practices and beliefs, including those of atheists and other non-theists, are accepted and accommodated. AA’s twelve traditions are AA's advisory guidelines for members, groups and the rest of its organization to keep it focused on its single purpose or recovery from alcoholism. Per the traditions “a desire to stop drinking “ is the only membership requirement.'''

The later sections of the article will of course fill in the gaps. The goal here is to briefly cover the steps and traditions and provide a couple of specifics from them of their more striking suggestions and make the lead more digestible

5ive9teen (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This has done 5ive9teen (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edits improved the prose - thanks! I tweaked it a little (diff.) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 21:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * TY and for the comment and your edits which overall are an improvements. In the spirit of back and forth, I’ve done a few more edits.
 * Great edits! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 23:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, any improvements you might have, please do them. 5ive9teen (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding a movie to movies featuring AA
Stephen King's Doctor Sleep features AA and the story is about recovery. Posthxc1982 (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit: I added it, I hope I did it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posthxc1982 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Racial and Gender Demographics of Early Fellowship Description in the Lede
The Big Book’s subtitle  “The Story of How More Than One Hundred Men Have Recovered from Alcoholism’ is factually correct, women did not join until months after the Big Book was published. So saying the fellowship was “then mostly white and made” is wrong as far as “mostly” goes. It was, in fact, exclusively male and white though by happenstance, for the most part. Sophie K was allowed to attend months after the Big Book’s publishing date (April 1939) following discussions which included protests from Dr Bob. Shortly thereafter Bill W invited African Americans, though this apparently did not require a group conscience to permit.

To avoid any reasonable personal person reading into the article implied fault finding, we could instead say:

“The new fellowship — then white and male, though not by design or for long — published in 1939…”

5ive9teen (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The 13th step movie redux
As per established consensus, the movie "The 13th step" which has not been once mentioned in any reliable source should not be in this article. Despite this, an editor is adding the content to the article again multiple times in a disruptive fashion. The movie wasn't notable eight years ago, it isn't notable now, and it does not belong in this article. SkylabField (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. The talk consensus at Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 9
 * mentions that there are no reliable sources whoch cover this topic.
 * Yet the most recent update (which has been reverted) includes:
 * https://www.propublica.org/article/how-alcoholics-anonymous-can-be-a-playground-for-violence.
 * That article also references
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/video/the-sober-truth-3/
 * Those are both reliable sources.
 * I recommend we allow the reverted content.
 * ReferenceMan (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The propublica article doesn't appear to mention the movie at all. I declined to watch the video given, and instead looked at the published text article associated with it, which also does not mention the movie at all. Why would these sources lead us to include the movie? To be fair, I only did a ctrl+f search in each article for keywords "13" or "movie". I saw no references to the movie. King keudo (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There would be no reference to the movie in the article: the movie I was released two years later 5ive9teen (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. I now understand. The issue is the movie itself is not notable. Not the topic the movie covers.  I am happy to close the discussion.ReferenceMan (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While the 13th step movie is not notable, I do agree the Karla Brada story is notable enough to have a mention in this article. Note that the lawsuits did get dismissed and AAWS has since then made a safety pamphlet. SkylabField (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article has only antidotes with no data presented to show AA as tolerant, as is inferred, of predatory attendees, most likely since none exists. It ignores perhaps the most fundamental aspect of AA: it is an intentional anarchy based on group autonomy, so analogies to Penn State and the Roman Catholic Church are poorly drawn. Also, and no mention of this is made, groups (which the article’s author does not understand as distinct from an AA district or larger entity, such as a national AA association) in the US and elsewhere, because they are autonomous, can and do ban disruptive or dangerous members. The article would make it seem that a group would never do this and has never done so.5ive9teen (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)