Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Intrigued and Curious

I have been browsing this page and saw a few comments that seemed to be conflicting.

It was repeatedly stated that the purpose of including Alcoholics Anonymous on Wikipedia was the same as any other topic; it is merely a subject in the encyclopedia, and has no other motives.

But it seems as though the participants in this discussion are quite passionate about the many details that should or should not be included.

I'm curious as to why the interest started on this subject, and why there seems to be so much controversy. It seems like all of you are doing a decent job of making the article factual and appropriate.

I'm just curious - have a family member who I suspect is Alcoholic, and wondered how you all wound up here?

Thank you,

Dinorama 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)D

Good question, and one that is not easy to answer. AA is open to people in crisis and despair, so whether people feel helped or hindered by AA, their feelings are often very intense. Those who have been helped are often fervent supporters of the 12-step program and sometimes see it as the only way to recovery. Opponents often see this fervour as narrow-minded and cult-like. AA is a spiritual program and AA groups are all independent, so it is difficult to obtain hard statistics on how well AA works. As far as the personal background of the contributors to this article, that's private, but it would seem likely that most of us have had some kind of contact, direct or indirect, with AA or the 12 steps. — DavidMack 15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

AA in many ways operates as a cult religion. AA has not changed since the 1930's and is in stuck in the past. A book worth reading is Stanton Peeles "the diseasing of america..saving yourself from the recovery zealots" which looks at AA's dogma being practice in the multi million dollar recovery industry. I thought Charolette Kasl did an excellent assessment regarding the problems with steppism in her paper Zen , Recovery and feminism. There is no example in AA of a recovered person, they have adopted Bill Wilson's philosphy "pmce an alcoholic always an alocholic". {signed and educated responder}

AA's definition of alcoholism

The following, final, paragraph from the named section of the main article, should probably be removed, ASAP.

When defining alcoholism, it is imperative to note the element of choice (or lack thereof) as it relates to the first drink. As the Big Book states on page 24, "Most alcoholics, for reasons obscure, have lost the power of choice in drink. . .We are without defense against the first drink." Bearing this in mind helps the alcoholic new to recovery avoid the false sense of security that may accompany the idea that all he has to do is to avoid the first drink today. The power of choice over the first drink and the idea of being powerless over alcohol (Step One) are incompatible. Success in the program of Alcoholics Anonymous ultimately depends on the extent to which the alcoholic is able to admit his total inability to stop, or once stopped, to stay stopped, on his own.

This paragraph does not site references, is not NPOV, is probably "oringinal research", and sounds very unencyclopedic. Sounds to me more like something that someone has said in a meeting than something that is generally agreed upon by everyone, even by everyone within the AA community.

In time, I may replace it with a brief discussion of the controversies behind the disease theory (when I have the energy to do proper research). What does anyone think about the idea of removing this section? And the idea of a section on controversies behind the disease theory? 82.19.66.37 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph should remain. It's intention is, I believe, to explain the topic organisation's position on alcoholism, it would benefit from being rewritten with better references and removal of first-person opinion. A debate on the 'disease theory of alcoholism' should take place on the Alcoholism article, not here, and I would suggest controversial opinions be avoided. Mr Miles 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to have a better sourced version of that paragraph, but don't think the one that is there should remain until we get a new one. It is one persons opinion, surely that much is clear? It has no place in a Wikipedia article. Indeed, the quality of the article would be improved if it was removed. Someone has obviously taken the time to do a pretty decent job of the preceding paragraphs, so why on earth spoil the article with a poorly written non-NPOV section at the end.

And talking of NPOV, I quote the following from the Wiki policy:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority."

This, to me, states that a brief examination of alternative viewpoints (and there are several significant other "models of addiction") would be relevant. There are verifiable sources on this precise subject. It doesn't have to be "overly negative" (believe it or not, I am actually just looking for some balance in this article). It just has to inform the reader that the "disease theory" is not agreed upon by all addiction specialists, and perhaps to mention briefly the names of other theories. I think this would be pretty sensible. 82.19.66.37 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're right about that paragraph, the point it makes relating to powerlessness is better expressed in the preceding paragraphs and I don't believe that needs expanding (and as you pointed out, it's poorly written). I've removed it now, hopefully nobody will object.

I also agree that alternative (academic and medical) opinion to the Disease Theory should be included in the article on Alcoholism, but not here. AA's opinion that Alcoholism is an illness is clearly stated in its literature (referenced in the section we've been discussing) and there is no alternative viewpoint (for example, that AA doesn't believe alcoholism is an illness) that I am aware of.

The article on the Earth only mentions the 'flat earth' theory from an historical perspective, it doesn't include it as a minority opinion! However, I believe, the conspiracy-type opinion exampled by 'Orange-papers' does fall into the same category as 'flat earth' theory in that it's such an extreme minority view. It's a shame there doesn't seem to be reasonable and none-hysterical criticism of AA - except in the research already included - guess that is the nature of this subject and of alcoholics in general. Mr Miles 11:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Language

This may be a rather naive question but, what version of English should this article be written in? It seems a little inconsistent but mainly US English, should it be in International English, presume that is the target audience? Mr Miles 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is partly answered at the Manual of style: National varieties of English and Disputes over style issues. Yes it should be internally consistent, and if AA is considered American-born, then US English might be appropriate. Personnally, I don't know how to write International English. — DavidMack 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

US English it is, thanks. Mr Miles 12:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it prudent to include...

From the Alcoholics Anonymous website..."Non-A.A. individuals and entities may not reprint A.A. copyrighted materials without prior approval granted pursuant to a written request."

Thank you for your contributions and comments. I have followed them with great interest. Especially to Mr. David Mack, who is obviously sincere in his dedication to the maintenance of this Wiki.

Dinorama 07:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Balanced description of anti-AA view

I hope the addition of a paragraph on the anti-disease-theory-view makes everyone happy. The reference I used by Peele was also referenced in Vaillant: "Alcoholics Anonymous: cult or cure?" Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, June 2005, ref #32, as an example of anti-AA sentiment. — DavidMack 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added some balancing context around your disease-theory edit, hopefully that will demonstrate the ratio of opinion between that viewpoint and the prevailing medical viewpoint. However, I'd also like to propose we remove discussion of disease-theory completely from this article. Perhaps we could just state AA's view that alcoholism is an illness and link to the Wiki article on disease-theory. Thanks. Mr Miles 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Make that simple statement and remove all the balancing context material. — DavidMack 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Stanton Peele

Wiki defines unreliable sources as: 'Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community'. Perhaps we can have a discussion regarding any inclusion of Stanton Peele material in this article in light of Wiki's policy. Thanks. Mr Miles 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement of policy. Wikipedia says that Reliable sources are "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

"Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view" are not unreliable, but simply must have their sources checked

Peele has published in some academic journals ("Utilizing culture and behaviour in epidemiological models of alcohol consumption and consequences for Western nations," Alcohol & Alcoholism 1997, 32:51-64.) as well as Psychology Today. He is noted to be well-qualified but a maverick:

With these and other issues treated in cavalier fashion, with referencing highly incomplete and crucial work often ignored, one begins to feel that this is a book where polemic and scholarship have become inextricably and unhappily mixed. ... Peele is not only a psychologist of distinction, but someone who can make use of sociological and biological ideas. ... So there's the dilemma.

— Griffith Edwards, "The Meaning of Addiction" (Review of Peele's book). British Journal of Addiction, Dec85, Vol. 80 Issue 4, p447-448.

Like I said, Peele was referenced by Vaillant as an example of anti-AA sentiment. So I believe Peele's views should be briefly mentioned in the AA article to create a balanced point of view. Any more detail on Peele belongs in Disease theory of alcoholism or Stanton Peele.

— DavidMack 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The first problem is that much of the information that's being added about Peele is plagiarized. I agree with DavidMack that it is worth being mentioned. However, copyright violations and POV are not acceptable. We've been doing the anonymous editors a lot of favors correcting their poor edits and we have been very tolerant of their opinions despite their fairly consistent deviations from wikipedia's policies. I believe that larger problem here is lack of administrator involvement. — Craigtalbert 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I made it a brief mention of opposition with a reference to Peele. Hope everyone approves. I believe the article is balanced enough that we can legitimately call in administrators to deal with pasters of irrelevant links — DavidMack 01:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I belive a mention of Peele is required for balance in this article. It should be clear, however, that he is in the minority opinion on this issue. PouponOnToast 12:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you were to state that he is in a minority, I would be grateful if you could find a suitable source to back this statement up. Actually in the UK, for example, methods similar to Peeles ARE the prevailing view, and 12 step treatment is not commonly used by professionals in the addiction field. 213.235.24.138 15:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I inserted "citation needed" for that statement. — DavidMack 17:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the misleading intro to this thread, I copied the Wiki policy from an earlier post and didn't check the exact context. Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community is a Wiki definition of an exceptional claim, as you pointed out DavidMack. But, I disagree with your statement of Wiki policy. Exceptional claims, rather than requiring their sources be checked, 'should be supported by multiple reliable sources'. So, Stanton Peele's views (as contrary to the prevailing view in the academic community), require support from another academic. Does Vaillant count? Was he actually supporting Peele's viewpoint? If another academic in agreement with Peele can't be found, I would say Peele shouldn't be included in this article.

User:213.235.24.138, I imagine it might be difficult to actually find a survey of academia to reference with regard to Peele's minority viewpoint status! However WHO subscribes to the disease model which it calls 'alcohol-dependence syndrome', will that do?

Thanks for all the contributions, and thanks DavidMack for the research. | Mr Miles 21:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the WHO opinion is sufficent to show that the disease model is the prevaling view. However, playing devil's advocate here, aside from Peele and Vallant I know similar views are also shared by Jeffrey A. Schaler author of Addiction Is a Choice (ISBN:081269404X) -- I met him in person once. There is clearly a very vocal group of people dissenting from the disease model, though they are a minority, they are enough to represent multiple "reliable sources" (if only of their shared beliefs). If I did the legwork, I'm sure I could find plenty more of them. This is one of the reasons why I rarely contribute to this article passed trying to to keep the vandals at bay -- the AA rabbit hole is VERY deep, and the abuse to this article by the anonymous editors and their obstruction of relevant discussion on the talk page... Well, the terrorists vandals are winning when it comes to the AA article. — Craigtalbert 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess Mr Schaler clinches it, shall we leave DavidMack's last edit as the final word on SP? (until next time!) I'm not sure that I agree the 'terrorists vandals' are winning, like DavidMack, I think the article is balanced enough. With ONE exception, the paragraph Occasions of abuse at meetings. Which begins: AA groups have the benefits and risks of any community; in which case, why is the article highlighting this point? Unless AA can be proved (by data) to be anymore abusive than any other community (like a University for example, where rapes, murders etc. are reported of regularly), then why is this paragraph here? It's there because we were bamboozled by the 'terrorists vandals' you mentioned earlier Craigtalbert!

Mr Miles 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, now that I think about it, I think that your initial instinct may have been right. We've been focusing a lot on what is notable and what constitutes reliable sources. We really haven't been thinking much about the scope of what this article should cover. Of course discussions of the disease model of addiction and conflicting debate and theories are tangentally relevant to AA, but just tangentally. This article is just about Alcoholics Anonymous, and much of what is being discussed is straying more in to the philosophy, psychology, and biology of addiction. Those discussion and that information would be more relevant for the alcoholism, addiction, disease model of addiction articles. I think too much weight has been given to people who use academic debate on such topics to take shots at AA, and that's not what this article is about. If research being brought up for inclusion in this article isn't specifially about AA, it belongs in other articles. -- Craigtalbert 00:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that someone deleted my post last night regarding the WHO model of addiction. Which, I state again, is not the disease model, but something entirely different. In fact, unlike the disease model, it has specific criteria which address a broad range of factors related to addiction (it's where the term "bio-psycho-social" comes from). Anyway, ICD10 diagnostic guidelines state that 3 of the following 6 should be present for a diagnosis of "dependence syndrome" to be made:

-strong desire or sense of compulsion to take the substance -difficulties in controlling substance taking behaviour in terms of its onset, termination or levels of use -a physiological withdrawl state when substance use has ceased - evidence of tolerance - neglect of alternative pleasures/interests/responsibilities - persisting with substance abuse, despite clear evidence of harmful consequences

Obviously, all of this is much more prescribed than the loosely defined "disease model", which emphasises "powerlessness" and "spiritual experiences" (as stated in the main article).

Anyway, whoever deleted my post from my home address, please do not do so again. 213.235.24.138 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the WHO source, the definitions are interesting. See alcoholism, alcoholism, disease concept of, and alcohol dependence syndrome (under dependence syndrome). As Craigtalbert says, most of it would be more relevant to alcoholism and disease model of addiction. Unfortunately the definition of alcoholism, disease concept of ends in mid-sentence, but it does have one interesting and relevant statement:

"The lay perspective of Alcoholics Anonymous (1939)—that alcoholism, characterized by the individual’s loss of control over drinking and thus over his or her life, was a "sickness"—was carried into the scholarly literature in the 1950s in the form of the disease concept of alcoholism."

— DavidMack 17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this all seems like good stuff, but it's making my head spin - rabbit hole indeed! This is where i'm at: AA's description of alcoholism is a disease model (not The Disease Model, although that developed from AA's lay views), and WHOs Dependence Syndrome is also a disease model (although not The Disease Model). And Stanton Peele believes that Alcoholism is a "problem of life", which most people experience during their lifetime, a pattern of behavior, not a disease. If that's the situation, then, Peele is in the minority, AA's view is comparable with WHOs and WHO will stand as a reference to the majority view. What about the BMA? - just kidding! Mr Miles 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be unreasonably obstinate here, but there is only one "disease theory of alcoholism" (look it up on wiki). It has very little to do with the WHO model. Seriously, I dont see the WHO model saying anything about a disease. AA does. The thing is, IMO, the AA view makes some very valid points. It talks about people finding it impossible to quit and an over whelming compulsion to use/drink. These are very real facets of addiction. It then moves on to talk about genetic pre-dispositions. Again, this is not to be denied, but it is not the only factor involved. It also states that alcoholics can never drink again safely, a truism in a huge number (maybe 50%+) of cases. But it doesn't take into account severe problematic drinkers who do not directly corespond to its own definition. The WHO model does. The WHO model does also not define itself as a disease. I don't know, perhaps it is just semantics, but to me a lot of this stuff seems important. But, as is often (but not always!!!) the case, david mack is right. This is not a discussion to be had on this page..... 82.19.66.37 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I proposed that Disease theory of alcoholism be renamed Disease concept of alcoholism, since there is no single theory. If anyone has comments please go to that talk page. Thanks. — DavidMack 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My last comment on this topic:

From a dictionary:

Syndrome, noun: Pathology, Psychiatry. a group of symptoms that together are characteristic of a specific disease, or the like.

I see the WHO model saying quiet A LOT about a disease - ICD is an acronym of International Classification of Diseases!

ICD actually stands for "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems", which is kind of something different ICD explains even more. 82.19.66.37 21:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This pdf is the best link I can find from the WHO site:

http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres/5B7BC004-34C3-4844-BB22-D210F1FDB9EA/0/ENG_Neuroscience_summary.pdf

On page 23 of this article you will notice the sentence:

Although some illnesses are caused by a single gene, such as in Huntington’s disease, other disorders, known as complex disorders, appear to be caused by the interaction of several genes with environmental factors. Substance dependence is one such complex disorder.

That doesn't sound very much like Peele's description of Alcoholism, but it does sound an awful lot like AA's (AA also, at times, avoids the term 'disease'). Okay, how about this to replace the existing line in the AA article:

AA's description of alcoholism is based on a disease concept, an approach shared by the World Health Organization, that has nevertheless been challenged by some researchers...

I would say absolutely not. To explain again, the AA concept of alcoholism, as described in this article is "an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer". This is categorically not in the WHO definition. Indeed, I dont think the world health organisation would recognise any disease which "only a spiritual experience will conquer". I think they deal in science, not witchcraft...213.235.24.138 12:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

More on More Revealed

I took a look at Ken Ragge's book More Revealed (Alert Publications, November 1992) Online. (I'm not sure of the integrity of the online version, because the title page says it's a "Critical Ananlysis".) Ragge's thesis is that AA methods are based on disease theory (Chapter 3), that disease theory is invalid, and that AA uses guilt, "manipulation through fear", and coercion to indoctrinate new members (pp 18, 28 and 32-33 in the online version). Ragge states that AA members are status-driven gossip-mongers who often hold private meetings to keep out "undesirables" (p 98). The book was reviewed in Addiction (Aug93, Vol. 88 Issue 8, p1150-1152) by Alan Ogborne of the Addiction Research Foundation, London, Ontario, Canada. Ogborne writes that the book "draws attention to many important issues" such as "AA's uncritical endorsement by many professionals". However, Ogborne summed up his review with the following statement:

"This reviewer found nothing particularly new in the book but was concerned that the author found nothing positive to say about AA. This is difficult to reconcile with the obvious fact that very large numbers of people have found AA helpful and live productive and fulfilling lives within the movement. Certainly some AA groups become cultist and some members are convinced that AA is the only way to recover from alcoholism. However, this is clearly not universal."

I would therefore submit that More Revealed does not meet Wiki standards as a reliable source. — DavidMack 17:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your argument there. Which part of Wikistandards does this book breach? I just took a look over the page and can find nothing specific that would prevent the book from being sited. Can you please expand upon this? Thanks 82.19.66.37 21:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It breaches the part where sources are supposed to be reliable. Since the argument in More Revealed has been shown not to to be representative, it would be misleading readers to assert that it is. The only mention it deserves is as being a published argument put forward is cleary biased and opportunisitic. -- Craigtalbert 22:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The progression of Ragge's book is that disease theory is invalid and therefore AA is by definition manipulative—which he seems to take as an open licence for what I see as a barrage of hatred. He does not explain statements like "undesirables... are not invited"—would this be based on observation, survey, personal experience? I conclude that this is a low-quality and unreliable source. — DavidMack 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange, because when I look at the "sources" section of the book, he sites 200+ sources. Of course, if claims not being explained is the criteria for non-inclusion, then I submit that the whole of the big book and most other AA-approved literature is also insubmittable as a source (what with the whole thing being based on lies and all that). But in actual fact, This is the official policy on reliable sources; "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Given that I have personally seen "undesirables" excluded (via the cold shoulder, or even flat out asked to leave) from AA, I think the comment is quite valid. So, I would be interested to hear a little more about what makes this such an unreliable source....82.19.66.37 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't cite a source that has bogus information as being correct no matter how much you try to twist the language in WP:RS. Time Magazine could publish that the Earth was flat, Time Magazine qualifies as reliable source, you can say that Time Magazine erroneously printed that the Earth was flat, and cite when they did, but you can't present the information like it's true. Do you understand that as an anti-AA zealot, including More Revealed actually hurts your argument? Just as if Time Magazine did print the Earth was flat, the more people citing their mistake, the more it would damage the creditability of their publication? If you want to pluck things out of More Revealed at least pick some of the less ridiculous and less demonstratively wrong ones. This is an encyclopedia, after all. -- Craigtalbert 17:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well then you can't site anything that alcoholics anonymous prints, due to the rather huge number of "bogus claims" that are printed, such as the disease concept, or anything about spiritual awakenings. But, oh, hang on, you can, because this is what AA says. So you can also quote what other people have said about AA, especially if it is from a reliable source. And despite your accusations of me "twisting the words", I quoted directly from WP:RS, and have still not had an acceptable explanation of how More Revealed (let alone any of the other books from said website) deviates from that, and therefore is an unreliable source. I'm not sure that I do want to pluck anything from "more revealed" (I haven't finished it yet...), but if I do, it will be in a "criticism/controversy" section, which would be the most appropriate place for it.213.235.24.138 12:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I can, it's the article on Alcoholics Anonymous, and that's the position of the organization. The purpose of this article isn't to debate the trueness or falseness of what Alcoholics Anonymous says, it's to give unbiased/balanced information on Alcoholics Anonymous. Now, if I went in to the Disease Theory of Alcoholism and said Alcoholism is a disease because this book published by AA says so, then that would be wrong. — Craigtalbert 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. So if AA is allowed to comment on itself, then other notables can also comment on it, via this article? I'm not trying to debate anything, simply get important ideas expressed about AA by outside sources introduced into the article. If I present any of the ideas as "fact", you are welcome to query the provenance of them. But please don't out of hand reject a source, simply because it expresses ideas which you don't like. |||| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.235.24.138 (talk • contribs).

I think that said policy states that sources should represent views which are not "in the mainstream". I think it represents a significant amount of people who consider AA methods to be based on guilt, coercion (that part would be hard to deny...) and manipulation through fear. 82.19.66.37 23:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If it does, then you should have no problem finding other reliable sources to support your claim. If not, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. -- Craigtalbert 00:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy is that "Articles about any organization... should link to the official site if any." We don't take AA's statements as gospel, we just state what they are. 213.235.24.138, maybe you could assume good faith, that we're just trying to identify what sources are of good quality. The original post on More Revealed was partly in response to users who kept pasting the link into the article. The book is of low quality, especially during the anti-AA rants where he doesn't explain his sources or methods. I don't know how to tell if the book is self-published. I haven't yet found any academic papers by the author Ken Ragge. — DavidMack 14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also 82.19.66.37, Just doing this from my work computer during the quieter moments. The book was published by SeeSharpe press. I'm not trying to state anybody else's opinions as fact, just that they are a valid source, one which you may not like, but does not contravene anything in the Sources section. I would say that the "big book" is full of "pro-AA" rants, many of which were written by anonymous authors, and none of whom have published any academic papers. The same rules apply in both cases, I am afraid. 213.235.24.138 15:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read up on wiki policies. In the article about AA, we state what AA says about itself, backed up by official AA documents (see What should be linked). For statements about AA, we have to find reliable sources. One characteristic of reliable sources is that they are verifiable, which means "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" etc. On the other hand, wiki says that "Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." In other words, if Joe Blow writes a book of questionable reliability, we may not use that book as a source on AA, but we can use that book in an article on Joe Blow, where we'd say "In his book Joe Blow is very critical of AA ..." etc. Clear? — DavidMack 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, verifiablity means sources that can be checked by any reader (I got that by following your link, don't you know...), and which conform to the following standards: Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

It says nothing about "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" etc. When you can explain exactlt how it doesn't correspond to the above standards, then you will be clear. Clear? 82.19.66.37 17:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To read about "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" click here. I believe that More Revealed not a reliable source because the author is not a recognized authority who has published papers and he does not cite any research or sources as a basis for his attack on AA. The publisher See Sharp Press describes itself as follows: "a cause-driven small press" with a mission "to make available radical books and pamphlets that would otherwise not be published, especially in the areas of anarchism and atheism." I have no problem with See Sharp and I'm glad publishers like them exist; they challenge conventional world-views. However, no one has established that they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as wiki requires. I'm still not sure why you are defending More Revealed. We have also removed references to dubious pro-AA material such as books by "Dick B.". — DavidMack 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, and interestingly, sources talking about themselves must not be contentious or unduly self serving. A lot of what AA describes in the Big Book is most certainly contentious (you could hardly doubt that...), and has been described (by Peele, Ragge, Buff et al) as unduly self serving. Think we may have to remove all the Big Book stuff, and any other sources printed by AA. And all the ones by anonymous authors, such as the Hazleden stuff. I guess that will leave you with the valliant study, but I do think that to achieve NPOV, you will have to mention the bit where Valliant talks about the "horrendous AA death rate" and how "AA has failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism". Tell you what, if you don't, I will. Thanks 82.19.66.37 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The material from AA should be relevant and non-contentious. I believe a statement like "AA provides a spiritual program for recovery", referenced to AA material, is a valid statement of fact. A statement like "AA's program is the only certain route to recovery" is contentious and should not be in the article. Your contributions and editing that follow wiki policies are welcome. — DavidMack 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

I'm thinking the structure might be more logical if the history section is moved to later in the article, after the organisation's description. Perhaps the contents might be:

1. How the AA program works
2. AA's definition of alcoholism
3. The organization of the society
4. Twelve Traditions
5. AA History
6. Research on AA

Any thoughts?

Mr Miles 12:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy!!! 82.19.66.37 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be the following organization.

• AA History
  • AA's understanding of alcoholism
  • The Twelve Traditions
• The AA program
• Effectiveness
• Criticism and controversy
• See also
• External links
• References

So, I would show AA's understanding/definition of alcoholism as part of the development of the organization. As I would also do with the Twelve Traditions -- solutions members came up with to help sustain the organization. I think "The AA program" is a little less pov than "How the AA program works." Effectiveness would contain the results of research on AA, both pro and con. A good criticism and controversy section will help keep unnecessary emotional outbursts from being inserted in other places in the article. I think most AA-critics just want to know that they're being heard. Other ones want to change each AA-related article on Wikipedia in to an AA-critical promotion for Rational Recovery. The first kind we can accommodate, the later we will need to continue to report to administrators. See also, External links, and References are okay the way they are, although I think the references could be reformatted to be proper citations, I tried to do that in the EA article. — Craigtalbert 20:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The EA article is amazing, incredibly well organised and written, well done for producing all that. It would certainly be great to have the same citation structure. But also, content from the sections, Classifying, The Twelve Step process, Criticism, Literature and EA's Just For Todays (which are taken from AA's, so we could put those in), might be include in this article. Not sure what you mean by controversy, how that would be included in an encyclopedic way? Why didn't you include a controversy section on the EA article? - Mr Miles 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Just For Todays -- can you link me to the AA original ones, and/or give me a citation for where they might have been originally published? I'm thinking the Twelve Promises and the Just For Todays probably belong in the Twelve-step program article. And then in the other 12-step articles, if they wanted to save space, they could link to the specific parts of that article rather than reproducing redundant information.

I'm not exactly sure what I mean by controversy either. I'm not really sure were criticism starts and controversy beings, and I don't know of any Wikipedia guidelines on the topic. I just thought a general heading "Criticism and controversy" would cover both. In my opinion controversy would be more along the lines of things like court mandated attendance whereas criticism would be "suggestions" on how the program could be improved, or where it's lacking. But, that's just my opinion, I'm not partial to any particular wording/heading. — Craigtalbert 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the EA article is of very high quality with a good controversy section — could be put up for review to be considered for featured article. I haven't seen any "Just for Today's" in AA literature. Al-Anon has them on some websites, and in pamphlet P4, and five of them in How Al-Anon Works p 69-70. Does the controversy over court-mandated attendance have anything to do with AA? It's the courts that sometimes force people to attend, not AA itself. — DavidMack 16:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words about the EA article. :)

I added a section for the Twelve Promises in the Twelve-step program article. I also changed the EA article as to not take credit for all of the "Just For Todays".

David - I definitely see your point about the court controversy. You'd probably know better than I would, but afaik AA has no opinion on it, though I know people will come in the meetings needing signatures from the chair, I'm not sure how all of that works. But I think you're right that it's more the court's controversy than it is AA's, though it is controversy AA is involved in, even though AA didn't cause it. — Craigtalbert 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. I re-read the forced attendance section. It's support for those who argue that AA is a religious activity. — DavidMack 22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I added in a couple of ideas from above in the course of adding new material. Please feel free to re-organise as appropriate. —DavidMack 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Disease theory of alcoholism

In response to a recent flurry of editing, perhaps the AA article should say that AA's program is based on a disease concept of alcholism, but explain in the controversy section that the disease concept is a hotly debated issue. Even the CDC et al. are likely just trying to simplify a difficult concept for public reading. A recent Scientific American [1] article] by two psychiatric geneticists says that genes play an important role "by affecting processes in the body and brain that interact with one another and with an individual's life experiences to produce protection or susceptibility". Sounds like a big grey area to me. — DavidMack 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this article explains it pretty well for "lay people". I understand 213.235.24.138's point about the "widely accepted" phrase, it is kind of a weasle word, but I can't think of better language to use to make the point. I think in the "Research Critical of AA" section the first sentence isn't really relevant to what the rest of section discusses and we might as well remove the whole "AA's approach is based on a disease theory of alcoholism, a widely accepted approach, that has nevertheless been challenged by some researchers." This is a more appropriate debate for the Disease theory of alcoholism. — Craigtalbert 15:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also probably move the "Research critical of AA" section under the "Criticism and controversy" section and rename it something like "Correlations between AA participation and increased drinking" or something like that. The articles referenced are not so much saying "AA sucks" as they are reporting research where they found those participating in it has more drinking problems than people who did not over a certain period of time. — Craigtalbert 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You might need to be very careful with editing this research section guys. In the article it states Bransma as finding: 'a correlation between AA and an increased rate of binge drinking' - I'm not a statistician, but does that really mean alcoholics who attend AA meetings have more drinking problems or drink more than those who don't?! Was that the general gist of Bransma's book? Or was the quote a piece of negative synthesis? Where did it come from and has anyone read the book? I did a Google search on that quote, 'orange-papers' and 'morerevealed' were in the top-ten results. Mr Miles 00:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't the para 'AA's approach is based on a disease theory of alcoholism...' simply be moved under the section 'AA's definition of alcoholism'? Mr Miles

For what it is worth, people....

First off, I dont have the time (or energy, or inclination!) to mkae sure this article stays as unbiased as possible. Annoyingly (for me!) consider this me to be "bowing out" of this debate. If course i will try and keep my hand in, but I think you all understand my opinions of how this article has been edited. And I think that the fact that I am outnumbered (rather than out-reasonded) is why this article is doomed to have a clear POV for the forseebale future. Of course, I will be keeping my eyes out for editors with (what I consider...) an NPOV in the future, and shall be supporting them (where appropriate - I like to think that I am not purely an "anti-AA zealot"...)

Secondly, I personally agree with david mack on the subject of "disease concept of alcoholism". Yes, it is an important thing to recognise - equally, it is important to recognise that it is not the final definition. I don't see why an article on AA should have to state what is and isnt the prevailing view (FYI, the lot of you: THERE IS NO PRVAILING VIEW!! Defining addiction/alcoholism is the sort of thing people get phd's for, and is certainly not under wiki's remit...)

On David Macks point about the contribution of genes to a disease: homosexuality was defined as a disease until the 70s. Current medical understanding is that it is more a "genetic condition" than a "learnt behaviour". Does this mean that doctors have got homosexuality wrong for the last 30 years? Is it really a disease? I hope you see my point....

I'm personally fine with sticking "reseach critical of AA" anywhere in the article. It needs to be expanded. I am sure no one else will do that, so if I get some time off of work, I will try.

The "what does addiction-as-a-disease mean?" point sites an article by ALAN I. LESHNER, PHD Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse. Clearly, when you look at the wiki article alone, NIDA, as a source, is questionable both on grounds of Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I should find a better source than that one.

I cant think of worse language than "widely accepted". It certainly isn't in Europe. It isn't by WHO, it isn't even accepted by all relevant agencies in the USA. This is misleading information.

Please dont think of google as the most reliable source of finding out what is and isn't reliable (similar to using wiki as a "fountain of all knowledge"). And dont think that mentions of "more revealed" (which no one has proven to me is unreliable...) or "orange papers" (which may be insubmittable as a source, but is never-the-less incredibly well researched) are reasons to doubt a source. You might not like them, but I consider that an "ongoing debate". Get hold of the full documents before editing that section, please.

Oh, and have found some nice stuff about "AA as a cult" on the web. Am going to try and get it all together for a section under "controversy and criticism" over the next week or two (if I have the time) [yawn... yeah, sure you are]. I assume no one has any objections? 82.19.66.37 22:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)