Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 6

Comments on Requesting Comments
The user who posted this question has been removing comments pending review by an outsider. Please let us know when editors of this article can comment. — DavidMack (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The RfC is supposed to provide a hopefully neutral third party opinion on things, and at this point all the regulars know each other's opinions, so I understand his concern. At the same time that doesn't forbid regular editors from reiterating or clarifying their point. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

based on the comment "Sharp Press is a 'cause-driven' small press. Our mission is to make available radical books and pamphlets that would otherwise not be published" I would say that anything published by this company will probably be questionable by the guidelines for sourcing, seeing as they seem to be more interested in the controversy than the quality of the reserch, and it is not exactly a peer reviewed source. if you want to use somthing that you have found in those books, you may be better off looking up their source and using that instead.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Use it to discover studies that may have been made, then go to a more neutral and reliable source to verify results. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you dismiss See Sharp out of hand, you have to dismiss GSO and Hazelden publications too. They're both 'cause-driven' small presses whose missions are to make available books and pamphlets presenting a particular point of view.  The Big Book and 12x12 have to be cited, because they're at the core of the program.  But uncited, unreviewed pamphlets by anonymae at AA headquarters aren't encyclopedic.


 * I have no opinion about the book in question. PhGustaf (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been informed that my removal was not appropriate. I was simply aiming for "neutrality". I seem to be disagreed with on this matter by all, so I will return the comments I removed to this section. Fair?

I'm not sure that "making available books that would otherwise not be published" means "highlighting controversy". They publish books on anarchy, for example, which is not "controversial" nor does it "highlight controversy" - it just brings information to the public that no one else wants to print. They seem to do this because no one else will as there is little money to be made in it. This does not preclude them from being a wiki source. I'm currently reading Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion", which is a book very similar to More Revealed or Cult ot Cure - Dawkins takes as much of the evidence he can find on a subject, and uses it to back up his opinion. I can't imagine that Dawkins work would be out of place on a "God" article, or an aetheism article, though it is certainly not "peer reviewed", but more a work of popular non-fiction. I would apply the same rules to the More Revealed library.

In anycase, this is an argument that has been had countless times by the regular contributers to this article. I wanted a 3rd party, uninterested source to make a recceomendation. Surely that seems sensible, as I don't think we will ever reach consensus on this issue otherwise? I will certainly never mention it again if it is found to be "against my favour". And it's not as if anyone will be chucking in "any old thing" from the books, but rather carefully selected passages, presumably followinig the "Bold, revert, discuss" cycle. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bikinibomb, was about to restore your comments, but you have said I dont have to. I will restore the other ones.82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See Sharp is a small publisher with a particular set of POVs. But it's not a vanity press or a mimeograph in someone's basement.  It's heavy-handed at best to declare an entire publisher's set of works unfit for citation.  I would give See Sharp citations extra scrutiny, but wouldn't dismiss them outright. PhGustaf (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, you were talking about a particular book, one I'm not familiar with. What I said still goes; I'd have to se the citation to have an opinion about it. PhGustaf (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC

Dawkins The God Delusion is published by Bantam Books who also handle these authors:. There is no comparison with See Sharp Press. The only reason to include See Sharp Press is to support the arguments of a minority of disgruntled former AA members, opinions which can't be supported by reliable sources. - Mr Miles 00:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Did everybody get that? — DavidMack (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments from one editor on See Sharp books
Spoiler warning: my comments are opinions on the publisher in question. Read them when you're ready to.

More Revealed by Ken Ragge is one of the books in MoreRevealed.com's online library (published by See Sharp and again by Alert Publications in 1992). Ragge's thesis is that AA methods are based on disease theory (Chapter 3), that disease theory is invalid, and that therefore AA is by definition manipulative—which he seems to take as a cue for what I see as a barrage of hatred. He states 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). He does not say what research methods he used to arrive at these conclusions. To me there appears to be a lot of name-calling and zero scholarship in this book.

There is one section of the book that I fact-checked and found to be flatly dishonest. On pages 31-32, Ragge claims that Psychiatrist George Vaillant reported AA to be completely ineffective. In fact, Vaillant's 8-year study was of clinical treatment, not AA (Vaillant, The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited, p 189). For eight years after detoxification the patients had unlimited, free access to a large network of halfway houses, drop-in centres, detox units, and integrated mental health facilities. AA attendance was optional, and greater AA attendance turned out to be associated with higher recovery rates. Ragge's description of the results was false.

I also took a quick look at another book in the 'More Revealed' online library: Resisting 12-Step Coercion "by Stanton Peele and Charles Bufe with Archie Brodsky." Here is a quote from Chapter 2: "As for AA, there are scientifically valid studies, but not many. Two, to be exact and they are of particular interest to the purposes of this book because they both involved coerced clients." The suggestion that there are only two studies on AA is ridiculous. As the authors indicate, they proceed to use data from court-coerced attendees as a basis for criticizing AA.

In a review of another book by Peele, addiction specialist Griffith Edwards stated that Peele used incomplete references and ignored crucial studies. This seems to be the case in the See Sharp books I have looked at. So I argue that they are not a reliable source. There is no lack of reliable academic articles out there both pro and con AA. — DavidMack (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In a review of project MATCH, Stanton Peele stated that it was a floored study which was politically motivated. Therefore, I view MATCH as inadmissable.  Never mind that it was noteworthy, widely discussed and a very good study.  Please note the irony from my POV, then realise that I am applying the same argument that you just applied to peele.


 * Studies on AA have often been very bad. They have been criticised for lacking control groups, cherry picking their subjects and for being unrealistically short term.  "Scientifically valid" would mean that they were "randomised" (no cherry picking) long term (not a year or two) and had a control group.  They should also have a non-AA treatment to compare them to.  Peeke and Bufes argument is quite valid.  Otherwise, you could consider every rehab (who all claim 60%+ success rates, based on the amount of people who don't leave their program before the end) as a scientifically valid study.


 * Vaillants "clinical treatment" was a weeks detox and then AA for 8 years. Doesnt matter what the label was.  Did vaillant record the patients use of the other facilities?  I'd be interested to hear that.  But anyway, the main reccomended treatment was AA.  So, perhaps if those other options were removed, the failure rates may have been higher?


 * All I would say about Ragges conclusions is that he is not the only one to arrive at these. They are no less valid than the unscientific big book, and they are notable views on AA.  Why would we not include them in the criticism section?   82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the Brandsma study was randomized, and compared results with non-AA treatment.


 * At any rate, citing AA literature is allowed in this article under the questionable source guidelines in WP:V. Of course, it should only be done when necessary, but it is allowed in this particular article. We've discussed this before.


 * I've offered to help get editors actual journal articles, and I've been sending them as I get them. If you have access to the same sources that these authors derived their opinions from, why do you continue to insist on using their books when you have access to the actual research? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies
Where's the cavalry? We sent out a call for help and all it did was intensify the debate. God, I hope they come before we destroy each other .... — DavidMack 04:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL 82.0.206.215 14:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's such a clusterfuck I think they're trying to stay away from it. A WP:3O might produce better results. -- Craigtalbert 20:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

History
Why have a redundant section. In that case why not just move the entire history section back. David M. has the habit of introducing material and at a later date substituting it for the original. Just a pattern we have noticed. In that case just move it into the history section. Write now the history reads like a piece of Spam.

Why was the the section of Vaillants research concerning ethnicity removed? It is in his research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes why insert a duplication of the history section into the main page when a separate one has been created? What is in there is a complete duplication of what is in the History Section. What it appears to be is a carefully orchestrated move on his part to put the History back in the main article with his POV eventually delete the History Page. It is a simple method of shoving out others contributions and a tactic I have seen used before on this page. I am amazed Craig Albert would allow this!

I also, would like to know why issues of Ethnicity were deleted? Vaillant went into some detail on this very subject and offered up a table to support his findings. Can someone explain?

MisterAlbert--MisterAlbert 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A comparison of two types of Catholics isn't really a notable bit of research. Plus the conclusions sound flaky since sin, guilt, and repentance exist in all types of Catholicism. And racist -- Irish take more pride in sobriety than Italians? May as well also throw in that Injuns are lazy no-goodniks who don't care about anything except for their firewater. I don't buy it.


 * Produce a more notable study that compares blacks, whites, and Asians finding some clear genetic reason and you may have something. -Bikinibomb 02:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted because it was a spaghetti edit (as coined by Davidmack), and also because it's more relevant to ethnicity as it relates to alcoholism than it is to AA. The source was reasonable enough.


 * I get the idea that reverts are supposed to be a last resort, but this throwing material with spelling errors, poor grammar, etc and then expecting another editor to come along and try to turn it in to something encyclopedic is well... a great time to invoke WP:IAR. I'm not here to be Fred's bitch.  If he shits in the article, and some one flushes it rather than trying to polish his turds, I don't see a problem. -- Craigtalbert 04:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the "pattern" you describe; please explain further. And who is "we"?
 * It is Wiki practice to break long articles into sub articles, leaving a short summary in the main article; see Template:Main. See also examples at Roman Catholic Church and Toronto. I didn't break off the history section, and nothing was orchestrated. Please assume good faith.
 * I'm also not sure what you mean by "spam". I was trying to state the bare facts, neutrally. If you can improve or condense the content, please go ahead.
 * 93, could you please be less aggressive in your deletions? Maybe discuss first? Otherwise it could be seen as vandalism. You also removed all history past 1937, noting "Already covered into AA into the 21st century," but that section is only a list of dates.
 * I don't know who deleted the ethnicity material.
 * — DavidMack 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be good to have a really short summary of the history. Bill sober, Bob sober, Big Book, some key membership numbers through the years. Then a "more details" link going to the main history section if people want to know more, same as Bill's life is touched on briefly in the history article and linked off to the main Bill W. article. We know some editors are going to keep adding a lot more to the main history article, it's bloated up like a whale since I touched it not to long ago. So rather than make the reader wade through all that, give a brief history then a link off. But probably briefer than what's here now. -Bikinibomb 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the constructive suggestions; I condensed the section. — DavidMack 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well at least you have removed the POV. If you decide to read Pittman's, AA the Way It Began, you will find there were a number of conversion cures for alcoholism among them  some  the Emmanuel movement. MisterAlbert--MisterAlbert 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Relevant to the history of alcoholism/addiction and temperance movements, not necessarily relevant for the AA article. -- Craigtalbert 19:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No POV intended. My sources for the "hopelessness" were Griffith Edwards and Kurtz's AA—the Story. MisterAlbert, I was hoping you would like the history summary. — DavidMack 20:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See Sharp Press controversy
I have now added in this section. It's not great, but it is a start. I'm sorry, I just can't get my head around doing the references properly :-( Help with that is appreciated.

Clearly that will not be the final draught, but as I say, it is a start. Step13thirteen (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand why this was added, based on the contriversy these books have created in our discussion pages alone (looking at the archives) they probably need to be noted. I understand this is a first draft, these are my initial impressions: Right now it appears out of context (dosn't flow well with article), and reads like an advertisement...but it is a really good start.  I am reluctant to change anything, since this is your edit...and I want to see where you are going with it.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looked more like advertisement for See Sharp Press, deleted it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Put it back, with an appropriate tag. I agree that it's flawed as it stands.  But there's a great deal of informed literature (not just See Sharp) out there that's highly critical of AA, and the article can't just dismiss that corpus out of hand.  Might as well start here. PhGustaf (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the material was added in good faith. My objections are: Normally I'd be happy to copy edit, but I don't believe this material should be there in the first place.
 * See Sharp Press should be mentioned only as a source in footnotes, not as a topic.
 * "AA participation at best does no good ..." is not what Vaillant said (see above).
 * Instead of saying what books published by See Sharp say about Vaillant, Brandsma and Ditman, why not just quote Vaillant, Brandsma and Ditman?
 * It doesn't help to state that one author said that AA was a cult, or another author published AA horror stories. What were the authors' main points?
 * I agree that there's lots of anti-AA material out there; if we need more, why don't we find some from reliable sources?
 * — DavidMack (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving step13 good advice for his next pass at the article. Can we please stop saying "anti-AA"?  PhGustaf (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we please stop saying "anti-AA"? Not really, all criticism is anti-something, in this article it is about something anti-AA. But I think he needs to put it in a section here on Talk and work on it with feedback. If you just slap stuff in the article you are asking for it to be deleted, as was said about "unpolished turds." -Bikinibomb (talk) (cont...)


 * There's a difference between "anti-AA" and "critical of AA". I am critical of AA in that I believe it's built on obvious lies and that the Twelve Steps are repulsive dehumanizing drivel.  I am not anti-AA in that if a friend had a drinking problem, I'd suggest he give AA a shot, and hope it worked for him.


 * Sorry if I stretched the "forum" rule a bit. PhGustaf (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dehumanized vs. drunk sounds like a choice between having your finger vs. pecker chopped off, just one is more "anti" than the other haha. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Like why is the blurb about court-ordered attendance sitting there at the end of a section talking about cults when it's already discussed in the meeting section? Is he trying to say AA got to the judges and probation officers and brainwashed them to order people to attend AA? Or is it just a little twist of the knife for extra umph that has nothing to do with the section?


 * So yeah it needs to be removed and brought over here for a while. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you would have just broken it up and put each piece in relevant sections -- cults, effectiveness, and courts, it probably wouldn't be a big deal. But put it under a big HEY LOOK AT ME! ad for See Sharp and you are giving undue weight to one obscure source. It's not like they are the AMA or something. A ref number after general statements already said about each thing in appropriate sections is enough for some of that, especially the court business. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here it is to work on, it's not really even a POV issue but like I said, a big advertisement for See Sharp. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To be discussed after the discussion at the end of this section - seems to over-ride what is being said here, in terms of objections to me. You have all made valid points, which I will attempt to address soon.  82.0.206.215 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What?
Bikinibomb, I respect your work on this article, but I don't see the point of pasting the disputed info here. — DavidMack (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither do I. People can cut and paste relevant parts out of the diffs if necessary. Removing it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, like I said most of it seems to be covered already. The point was to offer a compromise for the other half who wanted it to stay in the article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange behavior
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the very nice wikipedian, Phyesalis, who responded to the RfC didn't agree with using these sources like you attempted to do. It makes me wonder when you're going to give up your crusade to use the AA article as a vehicle to promote See Sharp Press, Staton Peele, etc. I've been pretty good about sending Step13 peer-reviewed articles that largely support his points for him to read, summarize, and cite. I'm a little discouraged that after all of this he's still pushing to advertise this company, it's authors and it's products. This is really a horrible misuse of wikipedia. We can, and should, dismiss these "sources" out of hand.

It also strikes me as strange that for people who seem to be so in favor of alternatives to AA, very little work is being done on articles about alternative addiction treatment modalities. I know I've done more work on the Rational Recovery article than anyone else here. The Secular Organizations for Sobriety is pathetically small and almost useless, as are the Women For Sobriety and HAMS Harm Reduction Network articles. Very notable organizations -- and dare I say it, equally effective programs -- like SMART Recovery and Moderation Management don't even have articles. No matter how much I encourage editors sympathetic to them to write, and apparently no matter how much I go out of my way to point them toward reliable sources, this doesn't seem to change.

Very few people are going to the library, reading abstracts from Google Scholar results, researching, or otherwise adding peer-reviewed scientifically derived results to articles. Instead, most of the effort is going in to getting See Sharpe Press books advertised.

Strange, isn't it? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange, and predictable. It's easier to surf than to read books. It's more relaxing to read gossip than to actually find out what someone wrote. It's more fun to read hate literature than to actually compare the pros and cons. — DavidMack (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I created Celebrate Recovery to present that AA alternative. Someone did SMART Recovery but it was too spammy and AfDd. They tried to delete Celebrate Recovery too until I told them I was Muslim and not spamming for the Christian church, then they left it alone. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anything that I put in the article was supposed to be a promotion of peele or see sharp. As I have repeatedly stated, I put that in their as a "fringe controversy" which is notable.  This is in line with Wiki policies.  Without wishing to "wikilawyer", I challenge anyone to show how I have misinterpreted these policies.


 * I am surprised at this criticism. Craig has very kindly sent me some relevant articles to the AA program, and has been quite fair about the "POVs" they propogate (I haven't received any if he has sent some this week - I'm on annual leave and he has my work email).  I later opened up a discussion on More Revealed.  We have finally received some comment on the article (I didnt notice until today) - much appreciated, and as I said, I will abide by the decision - I will not use, or ask to use, their opinions on AA studies in future.


 * However, the conversation moved on in the section on "wikilawyering", it seemed to me that it was agreed that See Sharps criticisms were notable. It was agreed that their comments were a "fringe criticism".  It seemed that it was agreed that I should make a stab at the new section, which I did.  See Sharps extensive publishing on AA should be noted in the controversy section - correct me if I am wrong, and we can have the debate a second time.  If I am correct to add this in, then I don't understand the criticism.  I'm certainly not sure what my personal additions (or lack there of) to pages about which I know nothing about (SMART, RR, WFS, SOS etc) have to do with anything.


 * As for "easier to surf than to go to the library", you're darned right it is. I don't have access to a decent library anyway - no uni libraries or anything.  Craig has kindly sent me some interesting info, and I have added some properly referenced stuff in here eg the Marlett stuff on AA versus CBT.  I am really not up for being "slagged off" for being anti-AA;  as phugstaf mentioned, I have advised many people to attend AA in my 3 years out, as part of my job - I allow them to make up their own minds - I also give them the facts, such as mentioing the religious aspect or telling them how much some people get out of it - so don't tell me that I am the only one with incurable biases.  I also think there is some truth behind what peele, bufe, orange etc say.  I also don't see what your criticisms of me (too lazy, too interested in gossip, too interested in "hate lit") have to do with the article or my contributions to it.  Please remember WP:CIVIL, and think how your words would come over to other people.  It's about tone and insinuation as much as anything else.  82.0.206.215 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it was me - give me a chance, I need to get used to this signing in and signing out. Step13thirteen (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My comments were general and not aimed at you. No offense intended. — DavidMack (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if anyone meant you should take a stab at a new section that is like a mini article about See Sharp. It would be like me creating a section on James Woods just to say he played Bill W. in a movie then listing some of his other film credits. Instead just put what the books actually say into appropriate sections, rather than talking about who wrote them and published them, that's what the ref numbers are for, so people can click on them to do more research on the sources if they want. If they talk about cults put specific statements in the existing cult section, about courts put it in the existing court section. Etc. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Arrggghhhh!!!!!!! Well, I don't know where I stand now.  I thought that I was on the right track.  Whilst I couldn't really care less about advertising See Sharp, it seemed sensible to me to sumarise their criticisms in one go, as the criticisms of the criticisms would add NPOV.  I think the jump to James Woods is something of a stretch - I would say that James Wood could have some sort of home in the Bill W article - though I see where you are coming from.  It seems that the criticisms they level would be barred by the arbcom ruling (which, whilst not technically binding, I intend to stick by) unless the criticisms were notable in their own right - this was the basis on which I was continuing.  Clearly, consensus is going to be hard to reach.  Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I should go forward?  Would be useful right now.  Step13thirteen (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, what are you trying to summarise? doing it all in one shot didn't work well, so what are you trying to say.  lets just get the raw message out there, and we can work from there, because right now everyone is a little confused.  when I say raw message I mean are you trying to say "there is this publisher Sharp Press who prints books that critisise AA"? "although AA has helped alot of people, some people interpriate the scientific data outside the traditional way, and here is how"? "Sharp press good! AA bad!(just joking)"! "if you join AA, you will be subjected to sex hungry crazed cult members (sign me up!)"!...but if we get the raw message out there, and you are willing to let people eat into it a bit, then we can probably take this somewhere good.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, James Woods is a weird example. Maybe more like, if I did a section on Hazelden and listed a bunch of books just to say some AAs were helped by their literature. That would be undue attention to that source. I think you should just pluck out statements from your deleted section and put them in, if you want. If you want to say "Bill W. used such and such recruiting tactics" then put it sourced in the cult section without going into detail about the publisher and all that, and see how it goes. -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that putting a section on See Sharp Press will be seen as just adding their material by the back door, material which is now agreed to be below Wiki reliability standards. But even an inclusion as "fringe criticism" will require an explanation of the psychological factors underpinning the reasons why a fringe feels so strongly negatively against AA when the majority either take it or leave it. Imagine the arguments about that! -Mr Miles 20:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing problems with posting information... blockage of information:
Please explain?

There seems to be an ongoing problem with Mr. Miles attacking the editing by one user. I refer you to the discussion page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_W.

PLease check discussion on alcoholics anonymous history...the enitre discussion was deleted! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous

Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes edits get reverted like Craig said and I tried to say weeks ago because they are sloppily written. Though I don't know why Bill's craving whiskey and other things were removed if they were sourced. He was a really flawed guy who did a lot to try and correct it, but wasn't turned into an angel by his AA, no alcholic I know is. So in his article no one should be trying to remove information to hold him up as a saint, I agree with you there. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't Fred/misteralbert/13's description of Bill W's craving of whiskey that prompted me to remove it, it was his insertion of the text: "his disciples refused him".Mr Miles 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * Fred/MisterAlbert/.13/.93, there is an ongoing problem with your incoherent pov pushing edits. It's surprising when they stay untouched -- not so surprising when they're removed. I'll give you that Mr. Miles is a little trigger happy about it. But, seriously, get it together. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Miles, mutual support/abuse seems better as an intro or conclusion, not in the midst of the section. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right Bikinibomb, I'll move it to the beginning. -Mr Miles 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Craig, abuse is abuse. There is no justification for the type of editing Mr. Miles has undertaken. He could opened a discussion on the issue regarding the "disciple" which by the way was in the orignal source material, yet he doesn't do that. He attacks others contributions by complete deletion, in fact  he even deleted the  discussion page, where  he was asked to account for  why he was  reverting a  newer page which had corrected an error to an older page  which contained  a major error and in the process deleted some other interesting and well researched key points.

Intent is spoken by actions and Mr. Miles actions have been clear. If he doesn't agree with something he strikes it out, even hard sourced valuable research that these editors have taken the time to research and contribute. Since Bill's request for booze makes up part of the story, and is cited in the various biographies, have any of you attempted to add it back in? Oh, by the way, where is his research? The library--207.194.108.93 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC) The library--207.194.108.93 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Abuse is a abuse -- a great reason to remove pov pushing edits, and to ignore trolls who would bring a debate from another article in to this article's talk page just to get more attention. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Another great reason to remove those edits is the sheer volume of nonsensical and misspelt edits this 'IP 207.232.97.13/IP 207.194.108.93/Fred's1+2/MisterAlbert/TheLibrary' makes. Personally, I don't have time to trawl through all that to find one edit which might actually be relevant. So I just pull the trigger. It's strange that this user will take the time to make an reasonably articulate point exampled by the paragraph above, then just loses it with the article. But, as DavidMack pointed out, it seems like there are two users on that account - or one user in two different 'states' of mind. -Mr Miles 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

News flash -- Vaillant online!
In a virtuoso display of computer savvy, I have scanned some pages from Vaillant on the Clinic study, inserted them into a word document, and uploaded them to a website!!! R-click to download (1.6 MB) http://www.geocities.com/infopusher/Nat_hist_of_alc_revisited-Vaillant-p188-197.doc — DavidMack 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see some people are quoting these pages of Vaillant. After reading the text, does everyone agree that what Bufe and Agent Orange said is not what Vaillant said? — DavidMack (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * um...I can't get it...it says the page is unavalible...Coffeepusher (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It works now. Maybe I exceeded my geocities daily bandwidth or something. — DavidMack (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Put a copy up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigtalbert (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprofesional behavior
Ok, If you guys arn't interested enough in a page to watch it and discuss it on that page...please don't engage in discussion here. I just found this post on the Bill W. page, and it is entirely unprofessional that I have to deal with this crap:


 * "Have added Bills last desire to drink in as per discussion on discussion page Alcoholics Anonymous. the library--207.194.108.93 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)"

I understand that fred et al. may have a point, however I can't watch every page he posts on to tell how the discussion is going. since you guys are so interested to get involved, mabie you can help out on the Bill W page as well.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done some cleaning there, needs more work though. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But...why are you removing that content if it is sourced, and why is it unprofessional? In the religious articles we may discuss issues that apply to related articles and make changes in all of them. I think that's pretty standard. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to discuss the quote on this page. I am not going to discuss my edits to exorcism, south park, chipecobra, sin, Xenu, public sphere...etc. because this is the AA page, and that is what we discuss.  it was the behavior of coming to this page and having the topic discussed that was unprofesional...essentualy going to mom, because dad said it was not ok.  if there is a wiki-community set up, then the behavior you are discribing is lagit...however there isn't a recovery wiki-community.  You would probably be really pissed if I started changing things on this page because I got consensus from the cocaine anonymous page, and started citing that as the legit reason for a change.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I wouldn't be pissed, as long as you had a source and put it in the right section and all that there's nothing wrong. Anything that helps develop an article seems ok to me, I don't care if AA is discussed in Disneyland talk as long as it improves. Editors don't need consensus from anyone, they can just edit. Main reason I discuss the hot issues is to avoid revert wars, but if I'm feeling stonewalled then I ignore and do what I want. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

archive?
um, its taking a bit of time to load this page...and my blackberry dosn't even try anymore...can we archive some of these discussions? I really don't know the prosedure, and am just wondering?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Threads on this page are automagically archived if they've been idle for ten days. But they stay as long as people are "contributing".  At the current level of contribution, a Blackberry might be the wrong tool to use. PhGustaf (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * well it works better than the rock and two sticks I had been using (jk.) seriously, would anyone have any problems if I inserted page breaks onto the "sub-topics" we have above.  some of those threads are over a month old, however it isn't getting loaded because the double equil sign isn't around the title, so the bot thinks its just one big happy thread.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have no problem, but then I'm a well-known vandal. Be aware that asking AA'ers to not blather on at great length on any topic is a fool's errand.  PhGustaf (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to add them, however if you don't agree just delete them...I do ask that if you delete, give the reasons why please, spacificly I knocked down the tripple = to a double = in the spagetti section, because while that heading is good, those topics are stale.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalism
The chimera that is 'IP 207.232.97.13/IP 207.194.108.93/Fred's1+2/MisterAlbert' added "To its detractors AA is unscientific, smacks of fundamentalist religion, excludes those who do not espouse it views. To its admirers the organization is made up of winners." to the Vaillant section. I believe he added it to get the sentence "AA is unscientific, smacks of fundamentalist religion" into the article because that's all he does. I know Vaillant said it but he said a lot of things in Natural History and we can't put them all in, I can't think of any reason why it should be there apart from POV pushing.

I removed it - PhGustaf thinks it should stay, what say you. yawn. -Mr Miles 23:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the bit has value. But I've shot my wad at it, and hope to hear from other parties.  MrMiles seems to see the page as a venue for 12th-stepping.  This is not the case.  PhGustaf (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It should stay. If you have a section on George Vaillant as an authority and researcher then his opinions count, they present both sides of the case when it comes to research. In fact it was accepted by Albert, Mack , Gustaf, and Me. The only objection is you, Mr. Miles, who by the way. It should be noted that Vaillant even provides some text describing how it works. --207.194.108.93 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)The library.

I side with Mr. Gustaf, this is page in not a venue for 12th stepping.


 * Erm, you are Albert. -Mr Miles 01:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

The second sentence -- what else could admirers view them as, losers? Dumb, kill it. "Unscientific," kill that too, what does it mean, AAs don't walk around with lab coats performing experiments? Meaningless. The rest of the first sentence, work it in with the first paragraph of the cult section. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's be very clear about one thing here -- no one's opinion counts. Not Vaillant's, not Brandsma's, not Bufe's, not Peele's -- nobody's. This is an encyclopedic article, not a collection of quotes or opinions. When we're talking about effectiveness, we're talking about science. It's not a battle of wills, it's just a summary of facts. We really should be looking at, and summarizing, all the results collectively -- not breaking things down study by study, or researcher by researcher for that matter.


 * Fighting over this wastes everyone's time and energy. You can't cite Vaillant's rhetoric like it's a fact -- it's not. Stop putting this pov pushing shit in the article, and stop throwing it back in when people clean it out.


 * If people would stop fucking around, we could make this a useful article. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On second thought the rest shouldn't go in cults. I think a section of criticism by secular/atheists/agnostics is needed when it comes to fundamentalist religion and exclusion, either here or in Twelve-step programs. It is actually a big complaint about AA/NA/etc. And maybe it can be combined with groups like Celebrate Recovery who think there is too little exclusion and think it should be more religious. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's probably the central complaint about AA/NA/etc, and definitely should be covered. It's just not a reason to turn the article in to a gossip column. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just some guy fixating on "new-found" knowledge and trying to announce it to the world in every little place he can like the pop atheists did with Zeitgeist. But yeah, from a notable secular group or individual making intelligent statements about exclusion from treatment of a deadly disease, due to the higher power, it would make for a valid criticism section. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * so I just read the quote, and all it says is "some people don't agree with this study or AA" I actually don't see any information beeing dispersed, I mean it sounds negitive, but it is mearly a statement adressing the fact that there is a disonent oppinion...which we cover in detail later on...so this quote is already covered.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"To its detractors AA is unscientific"

In what way is AA unscientific. Let's start there. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One aspect of AA is unscientific - the suggestion to an alcoholic that reliance on Higher Power will solve their alcohol problem. However, AA makes it very clear in it's literature that a part of its program is spiritual, but that it is not aligned with any one religion/particular spiritual practice, and that spiritually anything goes. That attitude doesn't conflict with ideas of secularism (or indeed agnosticism). Atheists would have a problem but as AA is transparent on its spiritual stance, I don't see any controversy. Or at least it's only controversial in the sense that religious people are controversial because they believe in God. In fact, as the Western World is generally religious, it's actually atheism that is controversial - that's what makes it so cool! -Mr Miles 10:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If they (sources/editors) are going to imply that AA being unscientific is a bad thing they need to say why. My toilet seems pretty unscientific too but it works just fine and does what it's supposed to do most of the time.


 * When we get to the religious exclusion issue that's a criticism, not really a matter of research, and like I said it can go in a criticism section devoted to that issue. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, AA is a religion unto itself. The Gospel of St. Bill.  Count up those "must"s with Talmudic precision.  PhGustaf (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Presidents Bush and Reagan used a lot of Biblical concepts in their speeches, "preached" ideas of Biblical morality, painted struggles between USA and Soviets/Muslims as struggles between God's people and Satan. But it's probably not accurate to call their presidencies religions.


 * Also I don't really know of a religion that says you can join with them but retain your usual religion, you need to quit the old one and convert to the new. AA doesn't teach that you need to give up your religions to join them, which is a big difference between AA and a religion. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Buddhism is pretty flexible about this. You can be a Buddhist atheist or a Buddhist Roman Catholic and get away with it either way.  PhGustaf (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But try to be a Jew who kills a lamb for Passover and the Buddhists around where I live would get pretty pissed. And then others say Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion. So if there can be debate about Buddhism as a religion then I'm a lot more hesitant to say AA is a religion. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking twice about it, Universal Life Church and those like it is pretty similar in the way it encourages all religious views yet has some strong Christian influences, you don't have to dump your own religion to join up with them. But I'm still not sure I would call them a religion, more of a polytheistic religious organization where any God deemed to be beneficial to the individual is encouraged. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting debate. AA is unscientific in that it relies on an unproven "god" (one that is quite specific to AA - look at the catholic church parting itself from MRA/Oxford group - imagine what hindus, jehovahs or others might have to say about AA religious principles, but that is "by the by").  God is an unscientific concept, by its very nature.  Ask almost any philosopher - God can never be disproven - only God could prove himself, presumably, and only by means that are beyond the imagination of any human - this is not "science", but presumably "pseudoscience".  The 12 steps are "unscientific" - they are not based on any scientific principle (such as evidence-based psychology), but were basically stolen from Buchman.  The organisation, like all religions, is arguably "anti-intellectual" ie the following phrases:
 * "Stop Your Stinkin' Thinkin'."
 * "Stinkin' thinkin' leads to stinkin' drinkin'!"
 * "Don't Drink and Don't Think!"
 * "Your best thinking got you here."
 * "Don't Intellectualize, Utilize."
 * "Your thinking is alcoholic."
 * "Fake it until you make it."
 * "Act As If..."
 * And many others. In short, not only is AA based on "unscientific" premises, it positively discourages unscientific thinking.  Buggered if I can find a suitable reference to "prove it" though, but am going to look into Schaler when I get the chance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Step13thirteen (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you surprised that the process of radical self-change is not an intellectual process? Vaillant noted that the slogans are kept simple because a newly-sober alcoholic needs simple guidelines. Vaillant and others have put the steps on a more empirical basis. Strictly speaking, spirituality is a scientific, i.e. it can't be proven or disproven by science. Something that is un scientific contradicts scientific conclusions, e.g. "the moon moves in a square pattern." And what's this about stealing? Did Bill W. raid Buchman's offices or something? — DavidMack (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My experience of trying to change people is that you can use principles based in scientific research to help facilitate that change, ie CBT, motivational interviewing, solution focused therapy etc. The idea that a newly sober alcoholics can't learn a few simple techniques to help him retain sobriety is simply false - look at CBT.  I'm not going to differentiate between "ascientific" and "unscientific".  As far as I am concerned, ghosts are as real as the moon moving in a square pattern.  I can't disproove them with 100% certainty, only 99.9%.  Same goes for AA, same goes for all religion.  As for stealing, you wouldn't need to raid AA's offices to shamelessly plagiarise AA material for this article.  Step13thirteen (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding See Sharp Press sources under WP:FRINGE
Step13 has pointed out, correctly, a few times that many of the See Sharp Press books (thought not reliable sources) have been cited frequently in scholarly literature. According to WP:FRINGE fringe sources aren't notable based on their own popularity, they need to have other sources discussing them. Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? is at a 31 on Google Scholars citation index (and four results in the news archive - though some might be on George's ). Resisting 12-step coercion has at least eight (and six more in the news archive search). More Revealed has at least six, between both it's titles. Probably a few more could be found with more exhaustive searching, Google Scholar isn't perfect.

Depending on how much is said about them in these sources we could include "fringe theory" criticism from these books. Bufe's book may even have enough sources for it's own article.

This would be doing a disservice to the books, though as there are so many reliable sources advocating the same points of view. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay so how do we get started on this section? --207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ::READ. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned there still doesn't need to be a section spamming See Sharp anymore than there needs to be a section spamming Hazelden for all their AA related books. If someone creates a section like that I'll probably just delete it as giving undue weight to one source.


 * So all you do to start is if there is a See Sharp book talking about some criticism of cults that isn't discussed already then work it into the Cult section, if there is some new criticism then create a new subsection under Criticism for it, etc. Seems like we already discussed this. -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's the exactly opposite of what you do. The See Sharp Books are not reliable sources and only notable under the WP:FRINGE guidelines.


 * Agree that there doesn't need to be a section SSP on the books, but if there was going to be one the WP:FRINGE guidelines are the only way it could be added, and then only for (at most) three of the books. -- Craigtalbert (talk)


 * I guess I don't understand, if you are saying they can be included as fringe views but that See Sharp doesn't need its own section, how is working those fringe views into existing sections not what you do? -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So do we put in the critisim section quotes from Peele as per the news articles or quotes from peele as per his book "Resisting 12 step coercian:"? --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're citing them under WP:FRINGE then you have to discuss them like you might discuss the face on mars, or fringe theories about the Kennedy Assassination. The primary material needs to come from reliable sources e.g. newspapers and academic journals discussing or referencing the books (and there are enough), and then only draw from the "fringe" sources (e.g. the see sharp press books) if needed for clarification.


 * But doing this would be a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It would be taking the legitimate criticisms made in the books and talking about them like they're fringe theories just for the sake of citing the books, when many of them could be backed up by honest to goodness reliable sources. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What are the legitimate criticisms in See Sharp Press' books which are not already represented in this article?


 * Bikinibomb is right, Google Scholar has thousands of citations for Hazelden Mr Miles 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * although I havn't seen "see sharp" in reliable sources, I honastly havn't been looking, could we clasify it under a heading of "Critical spin" or "counter movements". it would consolodate the critisisms we already have in this article, and show that people are not just criticising AA, but also spining the critisism in a notable way, that and we have already covered most of the critism, just not with the spin they put to it.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Been taking a break for a few days, as have just recovered from a nasty cold. Glad to see some quality discussion going on over here, re this matter.  As a side point, I would almost say that Hazledon does deserve to be in this article.  I have obviously mainly heard about the organisation from the "anti" side, and there would be a few sources to show the link, but clearly some more objective sources would be better.  In fact, the whole "93% of US rehabs based on the 12 steps of AA" would be suitable matter for this article, IMO, with perhaps Hazledon at least getting a mention...


 * I like Coffeepushers suggestion of "counter movements" ("critical spin" seemed POV, due to the negative conotations of the word "spin"). I once wrote to Orange, asking him for a general history of opposition to AA.  The link to it is here


 * http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters82.html


 * (just over halfway down the page, a letter by one "stephen r" - me - next to the picture of Orange...)


 * I never did do that article, as I assumed it would be "content forking" (and perhaps a bit of lazyness), but orange gives a general rundown of things and a good few suggestions of where to start research (not all see sharp...). I wondered what people would think of this.... Step13thirteen (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to see that they were notable as a spin to start with. Like 9/11 conspiracies might be a notable fringe/spin relating to Bush policies. But criticism from some little group about his choice of mountain bikes is not headline news.

So what is See Sharp famous for as a spin that differs in any way with all the other entities criticizing AA as a cult, sexual meat market, etc? If they aren't, then whatever they say about these notable issues can be worked in to existing sections without calling it fringe, any other criticism that isn't notable can just be ignored since they aren't getting press about it anyway.

It's not Wikipedia's job to be giving attention to their minor gripes, and not for the editors here to personally determine what might be important. If you can't find some particular issue reasonably sourced outside of their own books then it isn't notable as a fringe or anything else and doesn't belong here.

Hazelden doesn't need special mention here either except as a source at the bottom of the page if we refer to something in one of their books. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 93% of US rehabs based on the 12 steps of AA That might deserve a sentence somewhere in the program/org sections linked to the Hazelden or related articles, or effectiveness section if there is a fact about relapse rates combined with treatment so I shouldn't just blow that off. But there doesn't need to be a whole coatrack section on that either, should let Hazelden or rehab articles explain in more detail how they use AA in their own specific programs, how effective it is, etc. -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Might be worth putting in a section on rehab clinics anyway. I've done that in the History of Alcoholics Anonymous article. --Mr Miles 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it that Stanton Peele a well respected author becomes labeled under Fringe? Is it because he published under Sharp Press????? I suppose Alfred Adler would be Fringe. Then again Carl Jung would be a definiite Fringe given his dabbling in the occult. Since when does Peele come up with conspiracy theories or does he in anyway endorse a relationship with the supernatural as a means of managing life problems? How is he considered Fringe --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Peele is not positioned as fringe in this article, he is credited as a reliable source (mentioned under the Match project). --Mr Miles 22:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * SeeSharp is notable as a "Fringe" because they have the following peer reviews. Others do not.


 * http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1884365124/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books


 * Peele review
 * http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/2012/1/Review-of-AA-Cult-or-Cure/Page1.html


 * Peer Review by Mark A. R. Kleiman (found the actual PDF yesterday from Addiction '97, but now cn only find evidence that it was at least reviewed..)
 * http://www.samefacts.com/cv/cv03.pdf


 * Personally, I would rather see some of their points put into the other parts of the AA articles, but I've agreed that I would abide by the wiki RfA decision. I think that the general opposition to AA seems notable, at least as a Fringe, and that this is the best way of highlighting that notability.  Depending on what info I can get about alternative recovery theorys as a response to AA (I am working on getting that info, so will not be adding it - for now that is a point for another day...), I would like to see a clear "opposition to AA" section in this article, or as a fork.


 * Wiki should document all notable POVs. See Sharps is pretty notable.  It can't be used in other sections, as per RfQ decison, so why not add in a section re "opposition to AA" as per other suggestion, under the guidance of WP:FINGE?


 * Definately put in the thing about rehabs in the US. Step13thirteen (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you wanting to put in there that isn't already covered? The same idea to spam a See Sharp section? A lot of people say AA is cultish and ineffective, Penn & Teller said it and are a lot more notable but they don't need a special Bullshi! section either. I still don't get what you are really asking for. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, I think a "history of opposition to AA" section (perhpas fork it off the main page?) would be good. As I said, I wrote to Orange about 6 months ago, his response is halfway down this page (next to a photo of him...)


 * http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters82.html

I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to do this or not - more appropriate than just referring to SeeSharp, presumably. What do people think? Step13thirteen (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cults
The cult NPOV is a little out of whack now with one paragraph of criticism and three rebuttal, so Tiginaus if you see this, that's why I may be paring it down later. Also removed your BB reference since it was kind of your synthesis of an argument using concepts in the BB not exactly addressing cult issues, anything like that should really be done by an outside source since this is a touchy article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Condensed it a lot now, says the same thing without long-winded elaborating. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Eric Berne
So, mister Albert et al. has added the new section citing a study from Eric Bernie. personaly I don't think the information contained within deserves its own seperate section, however it may be incorperated into the body of the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides that it's not even a criticism, if I'm deciphering what he wrote correctly. It's saying members return to drinking with no newcomers to help, well hell, that's what the 12th Step and Bill's meeting Dr. Bob is all about, saying if you don't help other alcoholics you drink. If anything it verifies what AA itself says. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey at least I took the time to read Berne and Claude Steiner along with a number of source materials...Coffeepusher ...what have you read? I see absolutely zilch from you when it comes to postive contributions, all you appear to do is attack others and delete valuable non bias research as it is posted on this page. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But, he's brilliant when it comes to logging in. Mind WP:FORUM everybody. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * well, check out the exorcism page to see some contributions...or south park...or Xenu...in fact I contribute to Wikipedia alot...I just have other interests than just AA. now that we have that out of the way, can we please stop with the personal attacks (we have had this conversation alot, please calm down before you type) I posted this to discuss your contribution, and if you note I liked the information, I just questioned the placement.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 207 the question is, how is it criticism when the study says oldtimers need to keep helping newcomers or they might drink? It's like, so what, it's the same thing AA teaches. What you posted makes it sound like oldtimers ought to be cured at some point and sustain themselves, but AA never says that will happen, it says the opposite. So if anything it might go in effectiveness or program sections verifying that what AA teaches is correct. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone able to find this study?
"The Abstinent Alcoholic," by Donald Gerard, Gerhart Saenger, and Renee Wile. Archives of General Psychiatry, Volume 6, 1962, pp. 99-110.

Was looking through OP the other day. Orange has taken it from a "see sharp" source. Would be good to integrate the results into the article, imo. Step13thirteen (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

EPSCO was only able to retrieve the abstract, currently I am serching for the article, however no fruits yet. the abstract is as follows:


 * The use of alcohol has an adaptive function and nonadaptive consequences. 299 patients known to the Connecticut Commission on Alcoholism were followed up. 55 had been abstinent for at least 1 year, 41 drank without problem, 123 unchanged, 31 institutionalized and 49 dead. While these groups differed in health, marital, social, and job adjustment as expected, intrapersonal adjustment was poor in 54%, fair in 24%, and independently successful in 10% of the abstinent group, the balance of which adjusted well with great dependence on AA. Abstinence came about by serious fear of consequences. Only one person attributed abstinence to psychotherapy. 12 brief case reports. From Psyc Abstracts 36:05:5JQ83G. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)

that is the official abstract. if I am able to find the article I will let you know.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * i also found the following in my serch, it appears to be a book so check you local library


 * Out-patient treatment of alcoholism: A study of outcome and its determinants. Gerard, Donald L.; Saenger, Gerhart; Oxford, England: U. Toronto Press, 1966. xviii, 249 pp.

Gerard was a psychiatrist in the 1950-1970's who's specialty was addiction, with a focus on opium. at least that is what I can glean from his articles. unfortunatly the only full text I can get is on the "Rorschach responses on Sum C and M" which isn't helpfull for us at all.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, it's a really good start. Much appreciated.  I've been to my local library.  I searched the computer for the words "alcohol", "alcoholism", "alcoholic" and the author "peele".  Nothing of any use whatsoever came up - just a couple of "misery memoirs".  Not even a copy of the big book.  I need access to an "academic" library.  Sucks to be me, huh?  Step13thirteen (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking, the results are almost 50 years old, and obviously not really seen as "groundbreaking" (it only was cited in 5 sources on the databace I used) what "results" are you trying to validate?  I can probably find more recent articles for you, if you just tell me what you are looking for (ie. successfull treatment options, statistics for recovery using "X", scientific foundation for AA methods, are all articles I have seen in my serches).Coffeepusher (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Cited in 39 according to Google Scholar . Science is science no matter how old it is. If the results where some how found to be nullified by another study, it would be easy enough to go through the citation index and find it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically, I am trying to validate (or otherwise - I trust Orange to have taken the Lemanski source "word for word", but Lemanski may be taking the original source out of context - are the abstinant alcoholics all in AA, or not?) what is stated here:


 * http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a4.html#Lemanski  Step13thirteen (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that they are all in AA. For #1 it seems to blame AA because clients are bipolar or something anyway, How It Works says right off there will always be people like that. For #2 it just says they are boring people, for #3 it says they are less boring but should be knitting or golfing or something else instead of enjoying AA people and activities. A pretty dumb and useless study/conclusion, based mostly on some fabricated standard of what true happiness is and what types of things are acceptable to bring that about. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have access to the original study? If so, I would be grateful if you could get it to me.  Step13thirteen (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No I don't, maybe it has some info that would help make this more sensible. Like for #1 AA doesn't claim to cure mental disorders for people self-medicating with alcohol, anymore than it claims to make people happy by curing their cancers. For #2 maybe the researcher thinks people who like to stay home and watch TV aren't leading very interesting lives, like some people might tell any one of us to get off Wikipedia and get a life. It's an opinion but doesn't sound like serious research. Same with #3, the only real argument you could make is if the AA program directly caused people to exclude everything out to the point of being a problem, like if people quit their jobs or got divorced so they could just do AA all the time. And then you would probably also have to show they didn't get obsessed like that with other things too, like sports or video games, so you could pinpoint it to a problem just with AA. So maybe the original study explains more, then it may have more value and not just seem based on researcher opinions. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Step13 - I'll put on it on the list of the ones I'm getting. When the semester is over in a couple of weeks I'll have more time to work on all of this. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Criag. Bikini, without wanting a debate, I assume that the study is based upon the researchers understanding of the principles of psychiatry and addiction, as well as a properly designed study.  I don't think that you, or I, are qualified to say anything much about it at the moment, let alone to write it off as "researcher opinion".  This is what the "Origninal research" guidelines are for.  Unless you (or I) have peer-reviewed or otherwise notable published info on the subject, then our opinions don't really matter.  But, at the same time, I am not sure that the information Lemanski presents is as clear cut as all that, as per his use of the phrase after treatment, and, presumably, continued participation in AA (Lemanskis words, not the words of the original researcher, which imply to me that Lemanski does not know if the studied group were all in AA or not).  I'd really like to take a look at the original study and to then judge its relevance to AA - we simply can't know before then.  Step13thirteen (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the original study might help. But if it says about the same thing without elaborating it's still pretty useless. Like for #2, if the patients themselves said they felt they were lacking interest and purpose, I'd buy that. But if it is just whatever the researcher decides it is, then no.


 * Then for #3 like I said, does this AA activity include simply hanging out with AA people because you've made friends with them? Like, I personally hang with mostly program people, we go to the movies or the beach or I play drums with guitarists in AA/NA or whatever. That's not quite the same as the odd few who seem genuinely obsessed, need to be at every single meeting every day, and even talk about how their spouses and children complain over their excessive involvement. These guys would be a valid candidate for #3, when AA becomes a problem and intereferes with other aspects of life, but I bet $100 it's not anywhere near 10%. People like me are more the norm, at least from my own OR.


 * So the big questions for me, which an original study might answer: of #3 how much AA is too much, and of #1 and #2, are these guys really working the steps as the conclusion implies all of them are? I'm kind of doubting that, since if so #1s should be getting at least some relief (with psych meds an entirely unrelated solution), and #2s should really have some sense of life purpose if they are helping other alcoholics for the 12th step. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a digital copy of the article. Emailed to Step13. If anyone else would like a copy please email me through wikipedia. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There's very little surprising in this article. The results the authors found indicate that abstinence was correlated with better outcomes in terms of performance and social functioning, but there were still many abstinent alcoholics who were not mentally healthy. Traditional psychotherapy was not regarded as useful by recovered alcoholics: "The largest category of factors associated with becoming abstinent may be identified as 'fear-motivated.' Fifteen of the patients became abstinent because they were afraid of death in consequence of alcoholism." Of recovered alcoholics, they described AA-Successes and Independent Successes. AA successes were more dependent on and involved in AA. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is little of use in this study, either. Only 4 of the alcoholics became abstinant directly due to AA. "most of the patients have known dedicated members or have been exposed to AA meetings." No cause/effect relationship between AA and the abstinent study group was established. There is some info of interest, but I don't think it belongs in this article. Step13thirteen (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Orange
I put up a rebuttal to Orange with relevant quotes at http://www.geocities.com/agent.green/. Perhaps editors here will find it helpful. — DavidMack (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That nails it pretty good, especially with the Lemanski bit which is only convincing to someone who is really ignorant of the AA program itself, you can't evaluate a program when you don't know what the program is. It's just common sense like 2 + 2 = 4. I can guarantee that the #2s who feel they have no purpose in life haven't cranked out a 10th Step inventory in months, while the AA program says you have to do it every single day if you want it to work. That alone gives people who really do it something to look forward to every night. So I wouldn't really trust much off that site now. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can imagine, I have much to say. Good work David.  You should put some sort of "forum" on your site, for people to discuss the issues that you raise. Or would you be willing to put up letters critical of your site, as Orange did?  It's also a shame that Orange seems to be in active (has been for the last 6 months - nothing on his site has changed and he hasn't responded to a single letter...), as I would be interested to hear his side of the story.


 * Bikini, Lemanski has blatantly misrepresented the study (only 4 of the people studied found their sobriety in AA), so I wouldn't read too much into it. If Orange was still active, I would advise him to take that part of the website down. Step13thirteen (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, sure, I'll post any e-mails that come in. (I notice Yahoo sometimes puts up an ad for Florida Oranges on the sidebar!) — DavidMack (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A Problem I Have Found in A.A.
Has anyone experienced or seen or heard of the following problem which I have encountered first hand in A.A. in Wahington State:

Washington State has much tougher drunk driving laws than in days gone by. There is manditory jail time for many drunk driving offenses. In order to avoid sending everone convicted of DUI to jail, plea bargaining and deferred sentences are a common resort of the courts. Attorneys who specialize in DUI (formerly called DWI) work out deals for their clients that include mandatory alcohol counseling and/or treatment. A probation officer, or some official of the courts supervises this. The upshot is: that the accused is sentenced to unwanted alcohol counceling, which typically includes mandatory A.A. attendance. This sometimes happens in the context of offences other than DUI, e.g. domestic violence etc. I have personal knowledge of this in more than one case. I suspect, that, at some A.A. meetings, multiple attendees are there as part of such programs. The persons who are, in effect, sentenced to be there, by the courts, are expected to keep a log of their attendance, and report back to a counselor/supervisor. Such attendees at the meetings sometimes have no intention of quiting drinking, nor sometimes, of even restraining their drinking. I have first hand experience of this. This is in my opinion, and, I think is very obviously, damaging to the meetings, and has subverted A.A. considerably in this locale if not in many or most. For A.A. to work it is imperative that all those in attendance come there of their own free will, and out of sincere conviction, or desire for help. This has not been the case in Washington State as of late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.178.18.121 (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This page has actualy addressed the "mandatory court attendance" issue a lot. From what I recall, most of the reserch that would be an acceptable source for wikipedia conserns the legality of sending people to AA against their will, and the affects on those individuals. However, if you can find a peer reviewed article that addresses the affects on the meetings themselves it sounds like a good point for this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as forced AA attendance. If you don't want to do self-help, you can sit in jail instead. So it's entirely voluntary, like work release: it's there as a privilege and as a way to get time off for good behavior. However to the point, at least here in California you don't have to go to AA, you can choose alternative non-spiritual self-help like Smart Recovery.


 * Plus a lot of people don't want to be at AA anyway, like the guy whose wife bitches at him to either go or divorce. I've never seen it cause any uproar at meetings, those guys just don't have much to offer that's all. But then again some become active willing members. So all in all the court thing has done more good than not, as I've seen. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FORUM? I'm tempted to delete these last two sections. But, at the moment they're not obscuring discussion about the article. Remember, the talk page is to discuss the article, not Alcoholics Anonymous in general. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We are discussing the article: the possibility of producing reliable data that shows court ordered attendance actually damages meetings. My point is I'm really doubtful it can be found. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Influences on the Treatment Industry
The added information doesn't really say anything about how effective AA is, it only says treatment centers use it. I use tobacco, but that's not evidence in and of itself it is helping me at all. So, I'm moving this up to Program section until there is more data that it actually makes treatment centers more effective. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Papers

 * For your reference, Vaillant excerpts here (PDF 0.7 MB) — DavidMack (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I put 20 good quality pdf papers on AA into a zip file available here (5 MB, R click to download). Geocities only allows one download per hour, if someone could post this on a more accessible site. It's all copyright material, so I'll take it down on Jan 24 or so. — DavidMack (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Loaded language all throughout article
This article uses the AA-specific redefinition of "sobriety" all throughout, wherever it refers to long-term abstinence. This article also has several NPOV issues, especially in the second paragraph of "cult-like behavior," which reads more like a (non-cited) defense of AA than an examination of this particular controversy.

Can we please work to fix this? - Scipiocoon 12:37am 11 Jan 2008 (CST)


 * What you mean, "we", Scipiocoon? Try contributing yourself. PhGustaf (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The cult section rebuttal to criticism is sourced as is most of the article, what doesn't sound factual? Do you have an example of the sobriety issue? -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sourced it may be, but that does not mean that it is un biased. Other criticism sections in better articles than this one do not include the response to the criticisms.  Step13thirteen (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but those criticism sections are adressing somthing that has already been referenced in the article. The cult section offers new information that dosn't appear in the article...and the critisism itself is highly contriversial since it is done based on scientific studies, and there are other studies out there that come up with different results.  hell I have a peer reviewed article that adresses this very topic and the result is "there is no evidance to back up the claim that AA is a cult" but I decided not to add that because the cult section adresses both sides well and it would have just cluttered up the article. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the cult section:


 * The rhetoric and emotional language of AA leads some journalists and social scientists to fear AA is a religion or cult: that the term "sobriety" has taken on a religious flavor and AA members over-rely on dogmatic slogans and are slaves to the group;[73] that AA's need for submission to a higher power leaves potential for abuse, and submission can become the basis for cult-like cohesion.[74] Individual alcoholics attending incompatible AA groups or allying themselves with unfortunate sponsors sometimes tell horror stories about AA. Common to cults, AA members are not encouraged to take a dispassionate or scientific view of their organization, and as with any partisan group, members can be extremely and erroneously opinionated, convinced for example, that AA is the only way to recover from alcoholism.[75]


 * AA is unlike cults in that its program is based on suggestion only, religious conviction does not prevent AA membership since it has no doctrine of any one specific type of God or obedience to charismatic leaders, and it operates on the principle of leadership rotation. Vaillant argues that AA's encouragement of dependence is healthy in the way that dependence on exercise is healthy,[47][76] and it does not try to isolate its members from society and take over their lives by creating an unusual and total dependence on the organization for basic human needs like friends, food, and shelter, as is typical with other cult practices.[77]

The Roman stuff is the criticism. The italicized stuff is response to the criticism. It's POV, and it's synthesis. It's not the encyclopedia's job to respond to the criticism. PhGustaf (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it is synthesis. the responce isn't actually a responce, but rather the other side of the cult argument cited by peer reviewed sources. to leave it out would say that the only sources that we can put in the Cult section are ones who support the claim and no other viewpoints no matter how repritable. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the underlined bit above. — DavidMack (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Other criticism sections in better articles than this one do not include the response to the criticisms. Articles are done all different ways, sometimes criticism comes after each point, not just in one section. Sometimes there is a rebuttal, sometimes not. All I've ever seen from the Big Book and meetings is "hey we're here to help, if you don't want it, go experiment, hats off if you can drink successfully." Plus you don't have to give up your money or first-born etc. to belong there. So in those ways it's not like a cult, and it's good to note that for NPOV.

Although I personally think it is like a cult just in the way that the steps are derived from the New Testament through Oxford but applied to any god you want. Now that's something a source should probably be found for and mentioned here if someone really wants to make a strong case for it, since the criticisms listed now are pretty lame. But again there can be a rebuttal that it's not humane, or whatever, to exclude non-Christians from a solution for their drinking. So it works both ways. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing whether it's a cult. (I think the question is meaningless.)  I'm just pointing out that the section is one quarter criticism and three quarters rebuttal, apology, and preaching.  It's as if the point is brought up solely to be brought down.  PhGustaf (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * what other sources are you proposing to introduce? Coffeepusher (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it's too long already. I'd try something like:


 * The rhetoric and emotional language of AA leads some journalists and social scientists to fear AA is a religion or cult: that the term "sobriety" has taken on a religious flavor and AA members over-rely on dogmatic slogans and are slaves to the group;[73] that AA's need for submission to a higher power leaves potential for abuse, and submission can become the basis for cult-like cohesion.[74]


 * Vaillant argues that AA's encouragement of dependence is healthy in the way that dependence on exercise is healthy,[47][76] and it does not try to isolate its members from society and take over their lives by creating an unusual and total dependence on the organization for basic human needs like friends, food, and shelter, as is typical with other cult practices.[77]

We have a challenge and a reputable refutation, and the length of the section becomes more proportional to the importance of the issue. PhGustaf (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks fine, change it to that. I mean let's be honest, any exclusive club is inherently cultish, from AA to knitting circles. When I began attending AA there was only one group in a small town and its members were always up in your business. Did it hurt me? Not really though I felt smothered at times. Whereas in larger cities with many groups it's not always like that. So yes, AA can be cultish just like any other club, depending. Thus whatever criticism is ok, as long as there is a rebuttal to say there is potential for cultishness, but it's not always the case. -Bikinibomb (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. There's more possibly loaded language under "Thirteenth-Stepping:


 * ''Mutual support and abuse have both been observed in AA groups.[47] AA undertakes no external restriction, screening, or vetting of its members, and the long-form version of Tradition Three states that any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an AA group.[67]


 * "Thirteenth-stepping" is a euphemistic term describing the practice of targeting new and vulnerable AA members for dates or sex. Fifty-five female AA members, ...

The first sentence is trivially obvious; "mutual support and abuse" can both be observed in kindergarten, in convents, and anywhere in between. The second is more appropriate for the "Organization" section, which discusses AA policies. Its placement here seems intended to emphasize that thirteenth-stepping is contrary to AA policy. This is a given in a criticism section, and is POV here. What say you all? PhGustaf (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah remove the first, move/merge the second. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is not trivially obvious; it is a summary of the available research and it reminds both sides of the debate that there is no clear cut "AA is good" or "AA is bad". The second sentence deals with the next question a reader might ask: Does AA, the organization, screen members? The answer is no, for better or worse, each group is an independent community. Both are important concepts for the discussion of whether AA is a cult and who has responsibility for wrong-doings. — DavidMack (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not the responsibility of the article to suggest whether AA is good or bad. The first sentence is, admittedly, documented, but it's out of place here.  The second is about the structure of AA, and fits better in "Organization".  The placement of this paragraph here is just saying, "Well, we have to put this complaint here to be fair, but it's not important, really." PhGustaf (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New AA report on recovery outcome rates
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Recovery Outcome Rates - Contemporary Myth and Misinterpretation. I recommend paying attention. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So according to Submarine Bill, successes for one year can be up to 90%, if you go to at least one meeting a week in a group that sticks to traditional AA principles. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt whatever that the 5% number is deceptively low -- I've only glanced at the paper, so I won't comment. Do note that it's self-published by persons of unknown qualifications who have a point to make.  It says on the first page that it's not an AA publication.  PhGustaf (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That article is clearly a highly biased opinion piece on a website that has a point to make. Let's hope nobody suggests that we use it as a reference for anything here.66.120.181.218 Desoto10 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)(talk) 07:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh. The whole Research section is dumb anyway because they are expecting honest poll results from a group of people who admit to being the biggest liars on earth when they are actively drinking. You'd have to stay glued to them 24 hours a day to know for sure. The best anyone can say in all this is that some people quit for a while, some don't, beyond that is unknown and pure guesswork. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's data. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, they probably have a point to make about the flaws of relying on 1 triannual survey to claim a 5% success rate. It's hardly a scientifically valid study.  But it's something of a straw man, as there are many other more valid studies.  Their claims of a 75% success rate are ridiculous, and rely on cherry picking - they openly state that you should disregard members who only attend for a few meetings.  Ridiculous.  Step13thirteen (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if you are going to do a study that says the AA program works or not, you have to study people that do everything that is suggested as being the actual program: go to meetings regularly, work steps with a sponsor, pray and do an inventory every day, admit right away when you are wrong, stay away from places where people drink, stay out of meetings where people just goof off and go to get laid, etc. I haven't seen a study yet that says subjects do all those things, so studies are already flawed since you don't know if they are really studying the real AA program as it is suggested. It's like studies to see if a drug works to fight cancer or something, and not really knowing or saying if subjects took the drug or not. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nace writes, "Outcome is more favorable for those who attend more than one meeting per week and for those who have a sponsor, sponsor others, lead meetings, and work Steps Six through Twelve after completing a treatment program." (p 592 in Nace, Edgar P. "Alcoholics Anonymous" in Substance abuse: a comprehensive textbook. Ed. Joyce H. Lowinson et al. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005, p 587 - 599.) —DavidMack (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bikinibomb, That is a common misconception about rating AA's success. I don't think that anyone would argue that those alcoholics that go to meetings everyday, engage in service, get a sponsor, do the steps all of the time and have a spiritual awakening as a result do not have a favorable outcome. The trouble is that so very few alcoholics actually do this. Therefore, the program does not have a very high success rate. The problem for AA is not the program itself, it is massive attrition from the program. Disulfiram (Antabuse) works the same way. If you force someone to take Antabuse, they will not drink (most of the reports of drinking "through" antabuse are anectdotal). However, most people stop taking the stuff and start drinking again. So, on the one hand, disulfiram "works", but in the grand scheme of helping alcoholics, it does not. My last comment is that AA's attitude towards research is one of the fundemental reasons that alcoholism research is such a mess. You would think that AA would want to know which treatments work and which do not. Desoto10 (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, like if I'm browsing Classmates and see a guy I used to tease in gradeschool, I'm supposed to make amends to him. Most AAs won't do things like that, and for them it's like cutting dosage on meds, or not taking them at all, even though there's nothing wrong with the "medicine" itself. So it's almost impossible to say whether it's the program, or people working it, that are or aren't successful unless every detail like that is examined. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. People who don't drink are more likely to attend AA.  People who attend AA are 95% assured to have another drink.  That is how the counting is done, that is how other alcohol interventions are measured, so why is AA any different?


 * Hmm... I post a link to non-peer-reviewed paper regarding AA's effectiveness with a favorable spin, and all of the sudden people start making all of the same arguments I have have made for months against non-peer-reviewed material with a negative spin on AA. Funny how that works. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I don't think you are including me in this. I certainly never mentioned "peer reviewed" and have always argued for statistically valid studies.  But, to a very real degree, you have convinced me about relying on, for example, see sharp.  The Lemanski book, where he blatantly misinterpreted the study about the mental health of abstinent alcoholics (claiming that it showed the mental health of AA members to be in doubt) has been the nail in the coffin on that one.  Not that I still don't think we should do a "general opposition to AA" section, btw.


 * However, if you make a "ruling" about allowed content against one "side", you can expect them to use that "ruling" in their favour when it suits them, surely? 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It was me. Step13thirteen (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no "ruling" to be made here. I never argued for using this as a source for the article (it obviously shouldn't be), or even that it's correct. I just implied that it's interesting and relevant, and it is. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said that you were implying it should be used, but more commenting on you saying we are using arguments you have successfully used in the past. And you're right, it is interesting.  82.0.206.215 (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

11th Tradition Flouted
Given the 11th tradition of attraction rather than promotion, AA has been taking out 30 sec ads on Canadian Broadcasting, Advertising itself and its webpage. I think it should be included in the article. --MisterAlbert (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)MisterAlbert


 * It doesn't sound particularly important to me, except in the sense of its being weird. A catalog of routine breaches of Tradition would be far too long for this article. PhGustaf (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with PhGustaf. Firstly there are no "independant sources" who have stated it is a breach of Trad 11, so would be "original research".  Secondly, there are constant breaches of many traditions (court ordered AA breaches around half of them, depending on ones interpretation of the trads), so such breaches would take up far too much of the article.  However, if you can find an independant source (or even an AA source, perhaps from the grapevine?) who states what you have, then why not put it in?  At the worst, you would go through the "bold revert discuss" process.  If you don't have a source, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on when the edit was reverted.  Step13thirteen (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not about independent sources, it's about reliable sources -- which means having a fact checking reputation. Even if reliable sources could be found for this particular story, wikipedia is not news. We're writing a scholarly encyclopedia article, not a tabloid. Take the "news" to Wikinews. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to have to agree, around in my town AA has a telivision show where people give their stories and information is given on how to contact AA. Granted it is at 3 AM, but it still is advertising in the strictest sence of the word.  besides, I don't think that taking out ads that say "to contact AA call...our web site is..." really breaks this tradition, but that is another discussion entirely WP:TALK and I have a feeling this issue won't be persued on this page. Coffeepusher (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

They have done that for years as a public service for how to contact AA, much like a phone book listing, assumption being everyone already knows that AA might help drinkers, question is how to find them. So it's not a promotional vehicle but an informational one, and not a case for breaking 11th tradition. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Publications by Health Canada
Is for Wiki purposes a reliable source and meets the criteria. It is a government produced web page by people with the qualifications to do the reasearch and submit a review. It is put out there for use by its citizenery. First you attack it because it is in violation of copyright material and then you attack it as a non reliable source. It stands because as a publication it meets wiki criteria. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your copyright violation does not stand stand Craig:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/home-accueil/important_e.html

It can be reproduced for non commercial use, the page has been put out for educational purposes. Your reasoning is getting fuzzy. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's not compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, it's a copyright violation.


 * Just because you are no longer blatantly breaking copyright, that doesn't mean that Health Canada is reliable source. You're not citing research, you're citing the opinions of "Health Canada." Can you tell my why Health Canada's opinion is more important than the opinion of the public health services in the other 193 countries in the world? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2008

( Health Canada is a meets Wiki Criteria, much the same as Edwards, Peele and other sources on this page.  It is well researched, provides references  it is for educational purposes, it has no particular bias. It is completely unreasonable to delete it! Acknowledgements:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/adp-apd/bp-mp-abuse-abus/acknowledge-remerciement_e.html

Methodology: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/adp-apd/bp-mp-abuse-abus/intro_e.html

Fred207.232.97.13 (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You ignored my question. Why is that?


 * The page you cited is far from meeting wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. What is and is not a reliable source has nothing to do with the author, and everything to do with peer-review and fact checking. Here's another question for you, can show me that the particular page you're citing on Health Canada's website meets the the first criteria for a reliable source (straight from WP:RS)?
 * The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.


 * We're writing a scholarly article on Alcoholics Anonymous. This is Wikipedia, not OMG-GUYS-LOOK-WHAT-I-FOUND-ON-THE-INTERWEBZ-opedia. If you're going to poke around the web, stop using whatever you're using, and go here. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with Craigtalbert, it is a literature review...nothing elce. Its like quoting Wikipedia in a class...shure it has great sources, but it dosn't stand up as a primary.  Now you can use it as a bibliography and track down the origional studies, but it didn't actually do anything but synth together a bunch of studies And They Shall Call Him...Coffeepusher(Sit down, tell me what bothers you)06:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is preposturous. Health Canada, as a government organisation, is certainly a viable source for wiki. Government studies are well known for their reputation for fact checking. Government sources are also well used on wiki, for example the United Kingdom article demogrpahic section relies heavily on info from the governement department of statistics. I doubt severly this information was peer reviewed, yet is most certainly appropriate for that article. Similarly, the UK National Health Service has published a document around addiction called "Models of Care". This is something similar to the Health Canada document, as in it lays out a program for the administration of addiction treatment in the UK. On the matter of the twelve steps, it states that addiction treatment professionals should refer to AA, NA etc whenever the client asks for something that sounds vaguely like it (eg, peer led, spiritual, self help). Would this not be included in wiki? Even though it is referenced in a variety of UK academic sources on addiction treatment? I believe we have looked at policies which talk about narrowly defining what is and isn't an acceptable source to suit ones own needs before. Please see WP:GAME for re-education. This is an important behavioural guideline, with info on "wikilawyering" and its relationship with being overly narrow on attempting to deny policies which go against an individual editors viewpoint on an article. I implore all to read it.

Despite being "on the same side" as Fred, I have found his interpretation of reliable sources and interpretation of wiki policies to be sadly lacking (as he has done some interesting work and research, even if it is mostly internet based). However, this time, I believe him to be positively in the right. I actually couldn't care less about the information that he has put in the article, but the source really is ok. The only thing from it that I would like to add would be the contention that brandsma and ditman show that AA doesn't work as a coerced treatment (combined with some recent research that I have seen on coerced treatment being as effective, and often indiscriminate from, non-coerced treatment).

Fred, for once, I encourage you to keep up the work. You have done nothing wrong here. The only thing that needs changing is the wording and placement of your text (like all controversial wiki edits should). Stick to your guns. I will be right on your side on this. user:step13thirteen 90.192.179.178 (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read the article he's citing? It's not a "government study" it's a literature review posted on the website. He's citing the opinion of whoever wrote the article. If it was a government study, and published in a peer-reviewed journal, as government studies usually are, then I would have no problem with this. .13/Fred/Whoever is citing an article of unknown authorship, and then citing an opinion of the mystery author in the article that is also uncited -- obviously, because it's an opinion.


 * As you have conceded, "I doubt severly (sic) this information was peer reviewed," if you had read WP:RS (or even the rest of this discussion) you would know it doesn't meet the most rudimentary requirements for a reliable source. I'll quote it for you, again: "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." As you stated, the opinions in the article have not been peer-reviewed, and neither has the article.


 * Why is it every time you don't get your way to start citing WP:GAME and "wikilawayering?" It's as clear as day that this not a reliable source. Just because you cite wikipedia policy in your temper-tantrums, doesn't make them anything more than temper-tantrums. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thirteen, you are correct that government studies are allowed, however this isn't a study it is a lit-review used to establish policy. Government studies are when the government funds money to do scientific reserch.  This "study" used money for people to review the avalible reserch and summerise it.  If Fred was citing it while talking about the policy of canada, then it would be admisable much like your UK study would be used to varify that in the UK clients "can be refured to AA under the following conditions..."  However the citations that where reviewed where pulled from this source, they didn't come from this source.  as I said, this looks like a great biliography, and if you can find the origional sources they will probably be accepted. you have all the citations right there, what is the problem? Coffeepusher (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Craig, yes I have read the source and I stand by everything that I said. I see no problem with using a literary review as a source.  In fact, It's probably sensible to use such sources when they are published by organisations with a reputation for fact checking (such as the Canadian Government).  To state that it is the opinion of its author (when it is probably authored by many different people and is a compound of the research of many others) is sort of silly.  Who cares if it was peer reviewed or not?  It is published on a website owned and operated by the Canadian Government.


 * Having just browsed the WP:V talk page, someone is having a similar discussion there on the appropriateness of government publications for wiki.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Government_statements


 * The outcome is "Since Wikipedia works on a principle of verifiability not truth, I suggest that a government source be considered verification of a government's own position on a topic. Loosely put, you can use a government source to say "according to the government of ....." and if there is a contradicting source that should be noted afterwards."   To me, this is exactly what Fred did.  He reported the policy of the canadian government, which is backed up by a whole load of research, much of which we have acknowledged on this page.  Personally, I would move it to the "AA influence on Treatment" (which should be less US-centric, incidentally) and leave much of the information.  Where it talks about MATCH, it could be used in the MATCH section - it would prevent people who wanted to "fact check" the article having to go around finding several (possibly difficult to source) papers on a subject - it would be one click away on the web.


 * I doubted the UK Census was peer reviewed. I doubt this has been Peer Reviwed.  To remind you, there are many instances when non-peer reviewed sources are acceptable.  You take your quote out of context - it is describing what a Peer Reviewed source is.  It is also in WP:RS (a guideline), which is superceded by WP:V (a policy) in any inconsistancy.  WP:V has the following to say.


 * "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context."


 * I will continue to site WP:GAME on these issues. That is what it is there for.  I don't see challenging an incorrect decision on a talk page as a temper tantrum.  I'm surprised that you would say that.  Please remember WP:CIVIL.  Also be aware that stating that I am having a temper tantrum when I quote a guideline does not invalidate that guideline.


 * Coffee, what is the problem with using this as a source? It is quick, easy and gathers together much of the available academic info on the subject.  Step13thirteen (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * &lt;scarcasm&gt;Of course the Canadian Government has a reputation for fact checking. Governments are always so scrupulous about facts.&lt;/scarcasm&gt;
 * No, you can't just say that a source has a reputation for fact checking and expect everyone to accept it as truth. You'll actually have a much harder time showing that the Canadian Government has a reputation for fact checking (how would you demonstrate that WHOLE Canadian Government fact-checks everything it writes? Obviously it doesn't.) than you would showing that this particular literature review did. But, if you can convincingly demonstrate either, have it at.
 * Not that it matters because I see that you're changing your argument here, it's almost like you started doubting yourself midway through writing this. First you say that it's a reliable source, then it's "but, well, uhh... even if it's not, uhh... sometimes non-academic sources are acceptable." Which is also true, and also completely depends on the context.  If .13 had used it as a source to cite what was in studies that he doesn't have access too, that would be fine because I would be happy to fact-check situations like that. As you know, I've offered to, and have done this many times before. But, that's not what he did, have a look at this .13ism:
 * Alcoholics Anonymous is not really a treatment for alcoholism but a community resource for those wishing to stop drinking. Uncontrolled studies of AA have shown that people who affiliate with AA tend to stop drinking and find that their lives improve in many respects (Emrick et al. 1993).
 * Here it's pretty obvious that the Health Canada author(s) is editorializing in the first sentence (this is why you don't cite literature reviews) and then summarizing the results from "Alcoholics Anonymous: What is currently known?" There is no source or research backing up the first statement, and as much as I may agree with it, that doesn't mean it gets to be in a scholarly encyclopedia article. Sorry, we're not collecting opinions here. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And, yes, it is uncivil to have temper-tantrums, and it's also frustrating to cite policies that don't apply in and attempts end discussion on a topic. Pepper your sentences with WP:GAME all you want, it doesn't mean that I'm going to let you or anyone else get away with making this more of an embarrassment than it all ready is. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm is all well and good, but in actual fact, government organisations looking to inform their own policies will generally be well resourced and sensible enough to realise that a literature review would be best if it was unbiased and took into account the best and most up-to-date research available. Civil Servants in Western democracies are generally very intelligent people a who are not subject to any sort of political bias.  Therefore, I don't have to prove their reputation for fact checking, rather you have to prove their repuation for failure to fact check.  If you can convincingly demonstrate otherwise, please do.


 * It is a reliable source, as non-academic sources can be also. There is no inconsitency in anything that I have said. I have never claimed that this is a peer reviewed source, but rather that it is reliable because the Canadian Government has published it.  Where did My Argument change?


 * You wouldn't have to fact check the other sources, because this one is fine. I know that you have done fact checking on sources before, and have always respected such work that you have done.  But it is not neccesary in this case - Health Canada is not See Sharp, it is civil service answerable to a democratic government of a massive country.


 * Craig, I have to ask, what do you consider to be a reliable source which is not peer reviewed?


 * Find me the Wiki policy that says don't use Literature Reviews, and your argument may have some weight.


 * The source backing up the first statement is the canadian gov. They don't have to abide by wiki policy.  A lit review is something that takes all the best research available and uses logic to come to a valid position.  This is not against wiki policy.  In fact all research does this in the "conclusions" section (one individuals perception of the outcome of their research could be very different from the next individuals, especially in statistical studies, such as all the ones done about AA).  Basically, it is a "tertiary source" and these are allowed in wiki (check WP:NPOV).
 * "Opinions" litter the AA article. The Vailiant section, for example, is littered with his  novel interpretations of his own research.  Peele states that the same research shows that AA is as effective as no treatment (ie 0%).  Becuase it has been "peer reviewed" it suddenly becomes OK?  What about peer reviwed tertiary sources?  They most certainly do exist.


 * Really, I am not showing, nor have I shown, the slightest bit of emotion (let alone a "temper tantrum")in relation to this subject. I ask you to not mention that again and to re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.


 * Anyway, I don't think that we are going to agree on this, so will be WP:3O in the next day or two. I don't see the point in arguing anymore.  Seem fair? Step13thirteen (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work like that. You don't assume that every source in the world has a reputation for fact checking, and then ask people to prove otherwise. You also don't get to say that all civil servants in western democracies are some how infallible and that anything they publish has to well researched and fact-checked. There's nothing about the in infallibility of publications from western democracies in WP:RS. The fact that a discussion about what is or is not a reliable source has now come down to what political system the author(s) belongs to shows just how far this has degenerated.


 * What would be a non-academic reliable source? Newspaper and magazine articles are probably ok for establishing dates and easily reportable facts. But when you're going to start making claims about what is and isn't treatment, or analyzing results from Project MATCH, you're talking about science and those sources need to be peer-reviewed. Scientific claims require scientific sources. As I've pointed out before, even though I know you somehow you think social science research should be exempt, ArbComm agress with me. As much as you might hate to admit it, social science is still science.


 * Look, the bottom line is this, you pitch a fit every time you come up with some source that you love but that you can't use. It happened with the See Sharp books, and it's happening now. You keep arguging and arguging and arguging after it's clear that it's a bad idea. You waste your time, and you waste my time when you do things like this. I've went out of my way to get you peer-reviewed material, and you don't want anything to do with it. I've went out of my way to collaborate with you in good faith -- more than I've done with anyone else on wikipedia -- and you just throw it back in my face.


 * Can you understand why this is enormously frustrating? How do you think this makes me feel? You are obstructing progress on this article, because you want to argue about the reliability of publications to from western democracies to justify putting pseudoscience in the article.


 * I'll go ahead and put in a 30 right now. I'm tired of wasting time on this. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Hello, I am from Third Opinion and I will be rendering my discussions momentarily.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The following are comments and are meant to be used as suggestions and points for future reference:
 * Text cannot be copied outright from another web-site, as it would be in violation of policy. In addition, the disclaimer at Health Canada specifically states: "The material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Next link will open in a new window Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission."
 * Citing the disputed Health Canada source is in question by other established users, and I will agree with them in whole. All users should be actively agreeing to avoid sources that summarize or attempt to bullet point material derived from another source. Such reviews can lead to unintended or intended bias and may influence the reader towards one viewpoint.
 * Academic and peer-reviewed documents are vastly preferred over reviews or government web-sites. Make all attempts to verify the source if possible through other means. The the greater the degree of scrutiny that is involved, the better.

Hope this helps. Leave me a note, I'll be watchlisting this page for future replies.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 07:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Reference
^ Krista Conger. "Study points out value of 12-step groups in treating substance abuse." Stanford Report, May 23, 2001. Retrieved 2007-05-05.

This is some kind of informal newsletter-type article and is certainly not peer-reviewed nor indexed in the major databases. I think that this ref should be replaced with the ref to the actual study. Desoto10 (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Match citations
If references to Health Canada are innappropriate then I suspect that press releases from NIH would also be innappropriate? Specifically, ref 34abc:

^ a b c NIAAA Reports Project MATCH Main Findings, Press release from National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Dec 1996. Retrieved 2007-05-25. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desoto10 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * well, the press release is used to discribe the methodology of project match "project match investigated the following methods" and had a quote from "Gerard Connors, Ph.D., chairperson of the Project MATCH Steering Committee " who is a reliable source for project match. None of this information is contestable (Joking comment:"NO! PROJECT MATCH DIDN'T INVESTIGATE THE FOLLOWING!!!") and I seriously doupt that the national institute of health misquoted the projects chairman. Coffeepusher (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, it is NIH's spin on a published study, just like the Health Canada piece. In any case, why are the press release AND the study referenced? Presumably the press release didn't add anything, right? Desoto10 (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * the difference is that NIH financed the actuall study, and as already stated they arn't beeing cited for anything you can actually "spin". while the Health Canada piece is a lit review.  Coffeepusher (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If the press release does not cite anything, then why is it included at all? Presumably all of its content is already in the actual study, right? Desoto10 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * its accessable, and the information is correct. The study itself isn't readily web accessable (it costs $40 from what I can find out)(which is about right for a peer reviewed article). Coffeepusher (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * oh, and it cites the origional study, and quotes the chairman (which is the source for the quote).Coffeepusher (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess that I didn't realize that web accessability was important for sources here. It still seems odd to me that both the study itself and a press release announcing the study are included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desoto10 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Web accessibility is nice, but not as important as having a reliable source. It is unfortunate that it's so hard to get to articles in many academic journals, but that's how it is. I'm 1/3 with Coffeepusher on this one and 2/3 with you. :)


 * The first citation (a) of this article that describes the logistics of Project MATCH it's probably adequate for -- it's just saying what agencies where involved, the cost, duration, etc. The second two citations (b) and (c), (c) in particular, should probably be supported by something other than a newsletter as (c) is reporting scientific results and (b) is describing TSF, a definition that should have scientific rigor. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a closer look at this section, most of the sources are sub-par. As the references are numbered now: 36-41, and the last two citations for 34. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a closer look at the MATCH study report and the press release, I now strongly suggest removing both the statement and the reference. The MATCH study made no conclusions about the quality of alcoholism treatment. The press release from NIH simply reflects Gordis' opinion and is not shared by all of the study authors.Desoto10 (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I like the Culter and Fishbain paper, the current description is way too long. In addition, C and F are arguing against a position that was not taken by the MATCH study. Perhaps trying to justify the $27M, several NIAAA folks made statements to the press and in other informal articles about how the study demonstrated the high quality of current treatments, but the study itself says nothing about absolute effectiveness. And so, I don't know what to do. Maybe something like "Despite the fact that absolute effectiveness of the three alcoholism treatments was not evaluated by the MATCH study, statments were made by some associated with the study suggesting that the study demonstrated the high quality of current treatment. ref to the NIAAA Press Release and the Rebuttal to C&F  Follow-on studies, such as Culter and Fishbain ref conclude just the opposite, that current treatment effectiveness is very poor.Desoto10 (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would restate it to "Culter and Fishbain argued that the treatment itself had little to do with the results, and that people who are commited to quit drinking have an equal chance regardless of treatment methods" they phrase it better. even though your statement is correct, I would stick closer to the wording of their conclusion.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll let it fester for a day or so and then make the change if nobody objects. Desoto10 (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness
As I have mentioned before, AA's refusal to facilitate scientific research studies with AA members is a huge hindrance to alcoholism research. This is widely appreciated amongst the alcoholism treatment community and should be mentioned here, however, I have no reference to back this up. Anybody else? Does anybody know why AA does this. Which tradition does it violate? Desoto10 (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard of any refusal by AA to facilitate scientific research studies. The tradition that has to be respected in such studies is protecting the anonymity of members (#12). Though I could imagine some people arguing against it based on the sixth tradition. There are people in all of the fellowships who get really pedantic about this kind of stuff -- it's really more about the keeping the spirit of the traditions than the letter of the traditions, in my opinion. But, for the demographics section of the EA article I cited this study which touches on the issue.


 * There are plenty of studies that use AA members...take your pick. The orgonization itself dosn't call people to sign up, but members themselves are free to sign up to any number of studies they chose.  The major problem is that since you are dealing with such a diverse croud, it is really tough to isolate contributing factors and to get a good controll group...but I believe the burdon in that situation lies on the resercher themselves. Coffeepusher (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that my wording was a bit off. What I mean is, if you look at other diseases, such as diabetes, CF, MS, Parkinson's etc., advocacy groups go out of their way to facilitate research on their disease. These groups often fund research themselves. Why is AA so different? Maybe it is not an advocacy group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desoto10 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, general research is probably an outside issue and affiliation AA leaves for others to handle. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bikini is right, AA is not an advocacy organization, e.g. it's an Individual Therapy (inner-focused) group, not a Social Reform (outer-focused group), although I'm sure there's been times with the AA World Service Office and other AA-related groups have crossed the line. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Other Studies
I changed the second study description to emphasize that the "12-step" groups were not actual AA meetings, but rather professional therapists who encouraged the participants to continue with AA after treatment. Also, the fact that this is a "quasi-experimental" study is a little bothersome. Desoto10 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading the study described in the second bulleted item in "Other Studies" I suggest that it should be removed from AA and placed in "12-step programs" or whatever it is called. This study is not about AA, but rather is about professional implementation of a 12-step program in order to facilitate the entry of patients into AA. As it is written, it gives the false impression that attendence at AA meetings gave a better outcome than attendance at CBT meetings. Most studies by these authors are designed to determine the most cost-effective ways to treat alcoholism and their opinion is that they should be funneling patients from the VA into AA, rather than treating them in-house. Desoto10 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have ordered a copy of The Outpatient Treatment of alcoholism and will be adding its findings to this page. I tried to add it on this web page from this source, I have the physical copy of this book by Peele,  but it was deleted as not having a valid publisher,  even though Peeles work is accepted. http://www.morerevealed.com/library/resist/r_chap_2.htm My general thoughts on this are the Match Study with all its flaws should go to 12 step page and a reference of where to find it left on this page. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Fred

Brandsma et Al.
Cited by Both Health Canada and United Kingdom National Health Service{pdf file}

One thing both these government health pages have in common is they both the failings of  the  Project Match Study.

Health Canada may be a review, but it reviewed qualified controlled studies, there is no references to Vaillant.

What we have on this Wiki page is more emphasis placed on Project Match with all its failings and shortcomings, as well as the somewhat muddeled research of George Vaillant given considerable emphasis and the qualified research of Brandsma, Holder etc not even considered!!!

The idea that this is a scholarly page is somewhat of a laugh.

My wiki editing may be sadly lacking and I certainly do not have the skills of some on this page but my research is GOOD. If you look at the material I have dug up and brought to this page, it has been a improvement. When I first arrived it read like more like a piece of AA literature.

Step Thirteen I suggest we both get a copy of Brandsma and edit this page to bring to a higher scholastic standard. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of Brandsma's book, I've been meaning to scan parts of it for Step13. But, you have an excellent idea. It is great research with a very useful bibliography. There are nine used copies on amazon . -- Craigtalbert (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * and we arn't opposed to you using the Holder, all we asked was you found the actuall article. you got so hung up on the health canada debate you missed my point that it has an excellent bibliography, and you can probably find those sources...or ask if you can't and you want one.  I am in college, as well as craig and probably many other people we have access to databases because of this and can get you origional articles.  I can get the Holder article for you, it will take a bit of time (I have to do an inner library loan) here is the abstract...let me know if you want it.
 * By Holder H, Journal Of Studies On Alcohol [J Stud Alcohol], 1991 Nov; Vol. 52 (6), pp. 517-40; PMID: This study undertakes an analysis of cost effectiveness of alcoholism treatment modalities based upon (1) findings from clinical trials, (2) costs for treatment in settings and/or by providers and (3) recommendations from treatment experts about appropriate settings, providers and treatment events. This analysis, which assumes a prototypic patient, suggests that modalities with the most evidence of effectiveness (based on three or more clinical trials) are not the most expensive. Within this study, total cost of care was negatively related to effectiveness. Modalities categorized as having insufficient evidence of effectiveness (i.e., lacking three or more clinical trials) are in the higher cost categories. The results of this first effort to establish initial cost/effectiveness considerations are intended to stimulate researchers to conduct the types of clinical studies where both cost and effectiveness are carefully measured to increase the scientific basis for future cost/effect policy considerations. The authors expect future clinical studies will revise the results of this initial effort."
 * based on his past studies, he is a specialist in elderly care and community efforts. I found another article by him that argued for a systems approch to alcoholism (looking at the problem as a whole rather than isolating it to "the alcoholic" "aa" "prevention") and argued that education+ an increse in sales price would curb alcohol abuse (gross simplification, but that really was one conclusion).Coffeepusher (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

APA Guidelines
I just waded through ref 5, the APA "Practice Guidelines" and I could not find where they claim "Although AA is not for everyone, there is growing evidence supporting the effectiveness of AA as a treatment for alcoholism.[5]" from the intro paragraph of this article. The APA guidelines certainly do encourage practitioners to utilize AA, and that is what we should say. In addition, ref 5 is every bit as much of a review article with a synthesis of new conclusions made by the authors and is definitely not a source for claims of "growing evidence". I would change the sentance in question to something like: "The Practice Guidelines for Treatment of Patients with Substance Use Disorders by the American Psychiatric Associations encourages practitioners to consider AA or other psychosocial support groups as part of their treatment paradigm".Desoto10 (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Check again, p 98 - 99:
 * "The effectiveness of AA, per se, has not been evaluated in randomized studies. However, other sources of information provide growing support for the utility of AA and 12-step-oriented treatments. ... Thus, most patients should be encouraged to attend at least several AA meetings to ascertain the appropriateness and utility of AA in helping them remain alcohol free. Individual patient needs and concerns should, however, be taken into consideration when making this recommendation."


 * The wording as it is now looks like a pretty accurate paraphrase to me.
 * Yes, it is a review article, with references, and it represents expert opinion that there is "growing evidence". If a wiki editor just read the research on their own and concluded that "there is growing evidence," that would be original research. Also note that this professional review refers to MATCH as a "landmark". — DavidMack (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry I missed p 98. Now that we know the primary sources for that statement, should we not put those in rather than the APA review article?Desoto10 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)  Well, I just looked up the appropriate references for that statement (259, 261, 956, 958, 959).  They are either review articles themselves or "other", meaning book chapters, expert opinion, etc.  I don't see that they are referencing studies at all.Desoto10 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the references cited by our reference: I think you're splitting hairs. If you want to help make a good article, recognize reliable sources like the APA study and use them. — DavidMack (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [259] primary source Humphreys K, Wing S, McCarty D, Chappel J, Gallant L, Haberle B, Horvath AT, Kaskutas LA, Kirk T, Kivlahan D, Laudet A, McCrady BS, McLellan AT, Morgenstern J, Townsend M, Weiss R: Self-help organizations for alcohol and drug problems: toward evidence-based practice and policy. J Subst Abuse Treat 2004; 26:151–158 [G]
 * [261] could be primary source or literature review McCrady BS: Recent research in twelve step programs, in Principles of Addiction Medicine. Edited by Graham AW, Schultz TK, Wilford BB. Chevy Chase, Md, American Society of Addiction Medicine, 1998, pp 707-718 [F]
 * [956] primary source Miller WR, Hester RK: Inpatient alcoholism treatment: who benefits? Am Psychol 1986; 41:794–805 [G]
 * [958] literature review McKay JR, Murphy R, Longabaugh R: The effectiveness of alcoholism treatment: evidence from outcome studies, in Psychiatric Treatment: Advances in Outcome Research. Edited by Mirin SM, Gossett JT, Grob MC. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Press, 1991, pp 143–158 [F]
 * [959] primary source Moos RH, Finney JW, Cronkite RC: Alcoholism Treatment: Context, Process, and Outcome. New York, Oxford University Press, 1990 [F]

Maybe you missed that the APA graded each of the references and placed them in this order:

The following coding system is used to indicate the nature of the supporting evidence in the summary recommendations and references:

[A] Double-blind, randomized clinical trial. A study of an intervention in which subjects are prospectively followed over time; there are treatment and control groups; subjects are randomly assigned to the two groups; both the subjects and the investigators are blind to the assignments.

[A–] Randomized clinical trial. Same as above but not double-blind.

[B] Clinical trial. A prospective study in which an intervention is made and the results of that intervention are tracked longitudinally; study does not meet standards for a randomized clinical trial.

[C] Cohort or longitudinal study. A study in which subjects are prospectively followed over time without any specific intervention.

[D] Case-control study. A study in which a group of patients is identified in the present and information about them is pursued retrospectively or backward in time.

[E] Review with secondary data analysis. A structured analytic review of existing data, e.g., a meta-analysis or a decision analysis.

[F] Review. A qualitative review and discussion of previously published literature without a quantitative synthesis of the data.

[G] Other. Textbooks, expert opinion, case reports, and other reports not included above.

All of the references that you listed were F or G (just look at the end of each of your references). Hardly the most convincing to the APA, apparantly.Desoto10 (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * F and G are a category, nothing to do with quality. — DavidMack (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they are rated for quality and F and G are the lowest.Desoto10 (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it give a reference for landmark status:)? I am now totally confused about review articles.  You guys have been here for a while, what is the deal?  In most scientific studies, review articles are often included as references for things that are generally accepted as true simply to keep the reference lists manageable.  They are also often discussed in papers when the review author synthesizes new information from the references that he/she studied.  When are references to peer-reviewed review articles acceptable on Wiki and when are they not?  Thanks.Desoto10 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Who said there was a problem with peer-reviewed literature reviews? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ... to elaborate a little bit more. It would be best to work with the original studies than a review of them, unless the review compared the data and found some kind of result not obvious from the original studies. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We can cite as many references as we'd like, and when/if articles get to big, we can split them up -- as was all ready done with the history section for this article.


 * That being said, and as is stated in WP:RS, I'm ok with people using peer-reviewed literature reviews from publications that have an established an established fact-checking record (e.g. academic journals). If someone uncovers something horribly wrong with one of these reviews, or something about it is disputed, then it can be discussed. But such reviews meet the criteria for a reliable source. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Brandma et al, had a Control Group and evaluated the participants improvement based on actual attendance in an AA group. Project Match lacked a control group and provided 12 step treatment {not AA} through a highly trained therapist. Why has Brandsma been excluded from this web page?--MisterAlbert (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Depression and Alcoholism, I always believed there was a connection, this is probably off topic but I thought I would pass this on. Research around the World. http://www.cmha.bc.ca/enews/enewsmar07.htm --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought I would pass it on --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Gordis comment
This comment by NIAAA Chief Gordis is troubling:

NIAAA Director Enoch Gordis, M.D. said that treatment providers and patients can have confidence that, if well-delivered, they represent state of the art in behavioral treatments.[34]

Yes, he said that, but no, the MATCH study did not address the absolute effectiveness of any one of the three treatments. Do we just leave it there because he said it, or what?Desoto10 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In re reading it...it really dosn't say anything that we would use (in this article). I would not oppose its deletion, In fact I will support it.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DoneDesoto10 (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Project MATCH
Well I could hardly believe project match, all treatments are equally effective! How to justify a 27 million dollar rip off of the tax payers money. Do treatment centers have a lobbying group? --207.194.108.93 (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)The Library
 * The findings from MATCH, although undramatic, provided desperately needed information on the best ways to treat alcoholism. Academic sources frequently cite MATCH as a major landmark study. — DavidMack (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That some sources cite MATCH as a major landmark study suggests that they didn't actually read the study or are biased. It is a horribly flawed piece of work. You really do need to have a control group in an experiment like this (that is if you want to make any claim about the effectiveness of the treatments). The problem is that the study directors were so sure that there would be a big effect of matching patients to treatment groups that they figured that a real control would not be required. Don't forget, MATCH can make no conclusions about the effectiveness of ANY treatment, only that assigning patients to different treatment modalities based on the criteria used for the study makes no difference in outcomes. Desoto10 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * MATCH was a comparison study, so no control group was used. Also, it may help you to actually read the studies you discuss as well as some of the responses from other professionals in the field. Reading Peele alone puts you in a "yeah, whatever" frame of mind that makes it hard to participate in the debate at an objective level. — DavidMack (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments. I have read the main Match study and several follow-on studies that used Match data. Comments from professionals do not interest me unless they are providing evidence for their utterances. I don't think that I have ever mentiond Peels. If you cannot be objective, then don't contribute. I don't get why anybody wants the Match study in this article with anything other than a brief mention. It didn't support or denounce AA, it had precious little to do with AA at all. Desoto10 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There was the "zero treatment" group that dropped out right after the initial visit--scientifically speaking not a control group, but data is data-- as characterized in the article that Fred/.13 is so fond of.

There is a pretty blistering rebuttal to that article by one of the MATCH researchers, found here:  http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/76 Desoto10 (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Data may be data, but dropouts from a study do not a control group make. Don't forget that pretty good outcomes result from simply paying attention to an alcoholic, whether by the primary doc or allied health people. Dropouts would have no such attention.Desoto10 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for repeating nearly exactly what I said? :) -- Craigtalbert (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I try to help where I can :)Desoto10 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * At any rate, save the abstinence violation effect, Brandsma's study pretty much shows the same thing. His lay-RBT groups did just a little better (not significant) than an authentic AA group, both significantly better than the control group (his had one). -- Craigtalbert (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll get the book, but do you know how "control group" was defined in the Brandsma study?Desoto10 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's how Brandsma's description of the control group for his study.


 * The control group was composed of 31 randomly assigned subjects. These individuals did not receive any active intervention on our part to treat them, but, of course, they could avail themselves of any of the treatment opportunities available in the community. Thus, this was a control for life experiences and "community treatment" of whatever kind actively utilized by the patient. We composed a mimeographed sheet listing community agencies that could provide services to alcoholics, a description of their services, their addresses, key people to contact, and their telephone numbers. This list included hospital alcoholism treatment programs, halfway houses, other AA groups, the comprehensive care center (Community Mental Health Center), and a private sanitarium. Our social workers encouraged the men to make use of these various services and even counseled them briefly on where they might begin seeking individualized help. However, the project social workers did not make arrangements for them. If the men made other contacts with us after this would only do more of the same i.e., give them the sheet having a compilation of services on it and some brief counseling.


 * Forgot to sign. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Craigtalbert. More evidence about how difficult it is to study AA and addictions in general. How do you come up with a valid control goup? I guess since I can't come up with an answer myself I shouldn't complain that others cannot either.Desoto10 (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a copy at home, will give you the word for word when I get home from work. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The truth is, there is no such thing as a perfect study; every sampling technique is flawed (read Sampling (statistics). The mature reader/researcher evaluates every study with an eye to what its strengths and weaknesses are and how the results can best be applied. MATCH is a very high-quality study that compared treatments; no control group was needed because it was a comparison — what's so hard to understand about that. Peele et al. are not interested in an objective view of the strengths and weaknesses, they just want to pick out and magnify the weaknesses. Why? Because Peele has his pet theories and he doesn't like objective research that challenges him. — DavidMack (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to bring up anything about or from Peele. You are absolutley correct, Match was a comparison study and was not designed to provide measures of absolute effectiveness. Therefore, nobody can use it for that. You cannot say that it determined that AA works or that AA doesn't work. It is silent on that issue.Desoto10 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Match Edit
I changed one of the sentances in the description of the Match study section to emphasize that this was not a study of AA, per se, but of a professional implementation of 12-step methods. This is a critical distinction that is often overlooked by both supporters and detractors of this study. AA does not involve professional psychotherapists and so to compare an AA meeting to a session with one is invalid. It is probably arguable as to which is better :)Desoto10 (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We discussed doing this before, I kind of though Step13/.215 would make the changes as it was his idea. But, at any rate, thank you for doing that. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I did not catch that this has been discussed before. There is such a ton of "discussion" for this topic that I just skimmed most of it.Desoto10 (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, I did some clicking to find out how this sentence changed and eroded over the months. I just want to check, is the current version correct? Did the references actually state that "actual AA meetings were not included"? — DavidMack (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At 20:34, 5 May 2007 the MATCH section was added including the following sentence: "All the programs were administered by trained psychotherapists, which in the case of 12-step meant that it was the method and not AA itself that was studied."
 * At 13:56, 8 November 2007, it was amdended to "The programs were administered by psychotherapists and studied twelve-step method, not necessarily AA."
 * At 03:50, 25 January 2008, the sentence was amended to its current version, "The programs were administered by psychotherapists and, although twelve-step methods were incorporated into the therapy, actual AA meetings were not included."

I would use the term "evolved" rather than "eroded". As it stands now, the sentence is correct and makes sense. Desoto10 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

DavidMack, that is correct. In order to allow oversight of the therapy, professional counselers were used for all methods. However, one aspect of TSF is to encourage attendance at AA meetings and so one would expect that more subjects from the TSF group would have attended AA meetings. But such attendance was not part of the MATCH study. Desoto10 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * AA is by nature a difficult topic to research. (Quote from before:) Because of the inherent limitations of research on AA (discussed in the article), you either get a direct study of AA that is vague with suggested results, or you get an indirect study of something similar to AA that may give high quality results. The MATCH study is the latter type. I believe the best option is the current version: to state the results and note that they apply to TSF, not strictly to AA. To make things more complicated, the press release states "Many patients in the three treatments also participated in community meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous..." — DavidMack (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

MATCH relevant?
Given that the Match study did not directly study the effects of AA attendance on alcoholism I think we need to move it out of this article and put it in "12-Step Program" article. For better or for worse, including it here leads people to believe that AA, itself was studied, which it was not. (running for cover) Desoto10 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can make a convincing argument that it some how applies to all twelve-step groups -- or even most of them -- then sure. But you haven't yet for the other information you ported, and I don't see how this is any different -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't understand your logic. Project Match studied the effects of matching alcoholics to three treatment programs, none of which were AA. Alcoholics and 12-step facilitation therapy were studied, not AA. AA meetings never involve professional therapy. For sure the study relates to AA because AA is a 12-step program for alcoholics. It deserves a mention in the AA article, but is far more relevant to the Alcoholism and/or 12-step program articles. Where have I gone astray in this logic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desoto10 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll explain it for the third time. The twelve-step program article is about twelve step programs, of which there are more there are at least 50+ notable ones. Of those, maybe 1/5 are for addicts, and less than 1/50th are for straight up alcoholics. You're trying to turn the twelve-step program article in to a "well, this isn't exactly about AA so I guess it belongs here" article, and that's not what it is.


 * As far as the project match research goes, if it's twelve-step related and deals explicitly with alcoholism, then it seems relevant here. Just keep the language should be clear enough that readers know what the difference is. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A "mention" is in fact all MATCH did get. The article gives a super-brief summary of MATCH; and most of that section is on the rather dubious criticisms of MATCH, such as the supposed lack of control group. — DavidMack (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The comments on lack of a control group apply only when someone brings up an "expert opinion", such as that of Dr. Gordis where he makes claims about the study that are not supported by the study. Now that that is gone, the references to control group are not required and should be removed. What I am trying to say is let us take out the entire section on Project Match and replace it with two sentences, one saying what the study demonstrated, and one pointing out that there is controversy. The rest should be sent over to Alcoholism and/or 12-step. Why are you so hot to keep this study, which was not about AA here on the AA page?Desoto10 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See my sentence above starting "AA is by nature a difficult topic to research ..." — DavidMack (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other Studies should become Studies or Research. Then both Match and Vaillaint should be moved into the Study section.

Match should not be given its own section, A brief description of Match, what it accomplished and a brief citation of its flaws should be cited with references. If someone is interested they can opene the references.

Vaillant Should be moved into the Other Studies as well.

In fact other studies should be studies. It would be worth noting in the study section the difference between a control and non control group for example:

"Studies were excluded if they did not use a proper procedure to equate treatment, if they did not use control groups (randomization or case-control), or if they did not use at least one outcome measure of drinking or drinking problems. Studies without control or comparison groups were not considered because they cannot show how the study subjects in treatment might have fared without treatment or when treated in other ways. However, many of the studies that were reviewed had other shortcomings that limit their interpretation. These shortcomings will be noted at various points in what follows and at the end of Section 7."

Perhaps we could do an brief description of the importance of a control group and then define those studies cited on the page as lacking them. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Fred

Other Studies
This sounds like an interesting study, but it appears to reference a dissertation. Is there an actual peer-reviewed published full study on this?

The largest benefit associated with AA attendance was increased abstinence, followed by reductions in alcohol-related consequences. A slight positive association was also found between AA attendance and increased purpose in life – the study found that AA attendance was associated with psychosocial improvement.[54] Desoto10 (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Hmmm, more likely it is a book, eh? SorryDesoto10 (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, but since all my references have been so rigourlessly scourged from this web page for not having a peer reviewed source, I feel it is only right this one be deleted as well. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Fred
 * Which study are you discussing here? Maybe it got separated from the original thread. — DavidMack (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

David and '13, The reference in question was:

^ J. Scott Tonigan PhD. "Benefits of Alcoholics Anonymous Attendance" (University of New Mexico, 2001) pp 67 - 77 I initially thought that this might be a dissertation which are difficult to obtain sometimes and are not always peer-reviewed (at least mine wasn't). Looking closer, it appears to be a book which I guess is OK. Tonigan has many peer-reviewed publications in this space and is a strong proponent of 12-step community-based self-help groups. If necessary, it shouldn't be too hard to find backup refs for this book.Desoto10 (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It was published in Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly: . -- Craigtalbert (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Italian Study
Thought I would post this and open it up for discussion. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/health/25drin.html

--MisterAlbert (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. We could quote the actual study for sure, although it is a review.Desoto10 (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks to me that the conclusions are the same as MATCH: "researchers ... found little to suggest that 12-step programs reduced the severity of addiction any more than any other intervention," which sounds like a negative way of saying that AA is equally effective. Another MATCH-like statement is "None of the studies compared A.A. with no treatment at all, and the researchers said that made it more difficult to draw conclusions about effectiveness." It looks like this study may have covered Project MATCH, since it mentions "cognitive-behavioral therapy" and "motivational enhancement therapy", which both featured in MATCH. Anyway, those are just comments, it looks like relevant and reliable research. — DavidMack (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro
I just cut out a chunk that Craig had worked hard at, concerning AA's effectiveness. That matter is dealt with later; the intro mostly has to say that AA is there. A sentence starting "The Big Book asserts" might work to close that graf. PhGustaf (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It does read better that way. Thank you.  -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you cut out a clumsy last sentence I made to that entry some time ago, so thanks back. I think the passage is pretty good as it stands, and that an NPOV cloture to it is unneeded and impossible. PhGustaf (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to put the following sentence in the opening "Although AA is not for everyone and the issue of AA effectiveness is controversial, there is growing evidence supporting the effectiveness of AA as a treatment for alcoholism". Lead section says "The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." — DavidMack (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it's easy to find a one-liner cite, as well documented as yours, that can be quoted to suggest that AA is irrelevant or destructive. The Intro is, well, an Intro, and should strive to avoid any hint of a POV.  I've said my piece here; other opinions heard with gratitude.  PhGustaf (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The one-liner cite is from a peer-reviewed professional journal whose mandate is to give evidence-based treatment guidelines to psychiatrists. The litigious U.S. environment gives even more incentive to provide objective rationale, otherwise patients could sue if they felt their referring doctor harmed them by referring them to AA. This is not POV (my own personal bias). This is an objective statement from an extremely reliable source. If there is another one-liner cite from an equally reliable source based on wide survey of the literature, then we will take that into account. Untill then, the intro should stand. — DavidMack (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the following material, revised for more objectivity: "The issue of AA effectiveness is controversial. Although AA is not for everyone and attrition rates tend to be high,[5] there is growing evidence supporting the effectiveness of AA as a treatment for alcoholism.[6]" I hope this is acceptable to all editors. It summarises the most important and controversial discussion.


 * PhGustaf, when you deleted this material last time your edit summary said: "The issue is too complex to address with a one-liner of questionable context. The matter is already better addressed below." Lead section says that the opening should be both an introduction and "independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." (See also Writing better articles.) If the topic is important, it should be in the opening. I don't see how the context is questionable; its relevant, reliable, and on-topic. — DavidMack (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We should probably worry about WP:LEAD when the article is a bit more stable, until then keeping it as an accurate summary of the entire article is going to be kind of tough. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I still see the line as, at best, cherry-picked. But I won't hack it out again.  More opinions are solicited:  A consensus would be nice. PhGustaf (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On making major changes
It's usually better, I think, to work out major changes to an article in a sandbox or in preview pages than to post a half dozen intermediate edits on the way there. At least this keeps such careless editors as myself from slashing in at the middle and leaving a worse mess than existed before. PhGustaf (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And, someone should 'splain to me how I managed this too-small font. PhGustaf (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Brandsma Et Al
Have just received my copy of the Oupatient Treatment of Alcoholism p. 115

Note 1/3 of the Book is comprised of Appendices.

Overall the results indicate coerced attendance to AA is not recommended. Chapter 9 conclusions:

1. AA had the most dropouts of all therapies 2. AA & RBT had the least number of sessions for those who didn't drop out 3. Treatment of any type was better than the control group 4. Insight and Pro RBT were the best in the number of days dry.

In 3 month after terminating treatment,   the AA group had  increased their binge drinking, some in the AA  group said it made them feel superior. p. 106--Freddydog (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an alcoholic personality, there are some common traits.p. 25

1. strong tendency to regress under stress 2. Primitive defense mechanisms..acting out in aggressivley and sexually when drunk but acting different when sober 3. massive usuage of denial 4. Dependency on enviromental supports..he has learned to provoke the enviroment to act on his behalf 5. Naricissitc, ego centric and  passive demanding behaviors  other individuasl are objects to be manipulated into taking care of ones needs.

People with these structures in their personality get caught in cycles of frustration and pain,

--Freddydog (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Project MATCH fork
Project MATCH should really have it's own article. There were almost 70 peer-reviewed articles based on it. It is arguable about whether or not it belongs in this article, but is at least worth mentioning in it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian 2008 Study
[http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/10550490701756393 Do Alcoholics Anonymous Groups Really Work? Factors of Adherence in a Brazilian Sample of Hospitalized Alcohol Dependents]

Abstract: This study was designed to determine factors affecting adherence to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) groups. This cohort involved 300 alcoholics committed to three hospitals in Porto Alegre, Brazil. They were interviewed again in their homes after six months. The SCID-I and a questionnaire focusing on patient relationship with AA groups were used. The responses obtained through the questionnaire were independently evaluated by two researchers. AA adherence was below 20%. The main factors reported by patients as reasons for non-adherence to AA were relapse, lack of identification with the method, lack of need, and lack of credibility. The factors reported by patients as reasons for adherence were identification with the method and a way to avoid relapse. Although AA is considered an effective intervention for alcoholism, its adherence rate was excessively low. The identification of these nonadherence factors could help health professionals in referring certain alcoholic patients to therapeutic interventions other than AA.

Would provide more of an international world view. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks interesting and relevant. Is it a reliable source? — DavidMack (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Most definitely. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a good source. I would love to see the whole article. I am particularly interested to see if there is any mention of the impact of Catholicism on AA adherence. This is just an assumption, but I assume that the study group would be close to 100% Catholic.Desoto10 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Atkins 2007
Chins up fellows:

This was added to attrition, I moved it to studies, however I do have my doubts as it was a survey not a study. Input appreciated:

Randolph G. Atkins Jr Ph.D.a, and James E. Hawdon Ph.D.b aThe Walsh Group, Bethesda, MD 20817, USA bDepartment of Sociology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA Received 29 January 2007; revised 15 June 2007;  accepted 1 July 2007. Available online 20 September 2007.

Abstract Mutual-aid support groups play a vital role in substance abuse treatment in the United States. A national survey of mutual-aid support groups for addiction was conducted to identify key differences between participants in recovery groups. Survey data indicate that active involvement in support groups significantly improves one's chances of remaining clean and sober, regardless of the group in which one participates. Respondents whose individual beliefs better matched those of their primary support groups showed greater levels of group participation, resulting in better outcomes as measured by increased number of days clean and sober. Religious respondents were more likely to participate in 12-step groups and Women for Sobriety. Nonreligious respondents were significantly less likely to participate in 12-step groups. Religiosity had little impact on SMART Recovery participation but actually decreased participation in Secular Organizations for Sobriety. These results have important implications for treatment planning and matching individuals to appropriate support groups. Freddydog (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here it is on CiteULike: http://www.citeulike.org/article/2002656


 * I recommended this article privately to Step13 awhile back, I think it's worth adding. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This also seems to be the opinion of many steppers . -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some more opinions on how AA changes their lives  -- Ezeeyza

What happened to craig?
Been off of wiki for a month or so now, due to sheer annoyance at an old WP:3O decision. Come back to see craig is banned, and also seems to have deleted his account. Anyone know the whats and whys behind this? I may email him when I get back to work, as i have his email there, but if he has deleted his account, then he may not want to hear from me. Wondered if anyone else could shed some light. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Craig was blocked for apparent repeated vandalism on the Justine Ezarik page, and soon after invoked his WP:RTV privileges. My guess is that he just had a bad few days, and I look forward to seeing him back under a new name. PhGustaf (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Shame he left over something so innocuous as that - sounds like a pretty tame case of vandalism, a reasonably deserving target and an excessive ban. I also hope that he will be back - it probably is only a few bad days, but sometimes it can be good to get a break.  Despite some major fallings out, I always enjoyed "sparring" with Craig.  He also put in an awful lot of work to this page and did a whole lot of research.  Would be a shame to lose him.  82.0.206.215 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment about Peele in Project Match Section
This comment seems odd: Other researchers stated that "AA has rarely been investigated with the kind of rigorous methological attention it received in Project MATCH." [41]

As has been mentioned before, Match did not evaluate "AA". So, just like Dr. Gordis' statement, I don't know what to do about it. The investigators apparently did say this in a peer-reviewed journal article (that I have not read), but it is wrong. If we need to say something positive about Match, then I don't think that should be too difficult.Desoto10 (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case it should be deleted --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Fred


 * I put it back in. It is a comment on MATCH from a reliable, academic source. — DavidMack (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It still seems to be gone, as far as I can tell66.120.181.218 (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * MATCH evaluated AA indirectly. As stated in the article, direct, randomised trials are difficult or impossible with AA, so the best research available on AA is always indirect. — DavidMack (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states that Cutler and Fishbain criticise MATCH based on results from zero-treatment group, and also that Peele accuses MATCH of not having a zero-treatment group. Can someone please explain this? Also, would the person who put in the Cutler and Fishbain critique be willing to add the MATCH rebuttal? Thanks. — DavidMack (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it is clearly stated Project Match did not evaluate AA. Your comment does not belong in Critics of Project Match.

Science for Dumb People. A control group is a control group, it is not people who sign up to take part in one of the three treatments then drop out.

There is no real data provided on AA attendance, regardless of Tonigans claim. In fact if you put Tonigan in, there was no real data in the study to back up Tonigans remarks. --MisterAlbert (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC) In fact The Project MATCH Research Group (1997) reported that only one hypothetical "match" was clearly supported by the data. This proposed that clients with low psychiatric severity would do best in the 12-step facilitation condition. The results showed that these clients had more abstinent days during six and twelve months of follow-up than those treated with cognitive behavioural therapy. However, the extent to which clients in either condition became involved in AA during the follow-up period has not been reported.

That is not rigouress investigation. --MisterAlbert (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the qualifier on research follow up: in the outpatient group only, less psychiatrically severe subjects had 4 more abstinent days per month on average in TSF than in CBT treatment. from Peeles article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterAlbert (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that we might be arguing about two distinct issues:

1. Did Project Match "study" AA?

2. How to handle the views of critics of Project Match.

As for 1, it is clear that TSF therapy is NOT AA, but, as DavidMack keeps saying, it is pretty much all we have to work with if we want studies that randomly assign subjects to different therapies.

The second point seems to me to be more difficult to deal with as much of the criticism of the Match study does not relate to the results of the study itself, but to the (sometimes incorrect) commmentary about the study. My take is that the Match study did what it set out to do: determine if outcomes were better for patients assigned to different treatments based on the patient's scores on psychological tests. By and large, and certainly for the initial reports, there was no such effect--subjects did pretty much the same no matter what treatment group they were assigned to. All fine and good so far. But then some individuals made claims about how the study showed how good current treatments are, resulting in a dogpile of criticism because the study was not designed for determining absolute treatment effects. Does this make any sense? I think that the Match study could be summarized in one or two sentances (maybe just the way it is now), with the caveat that some investigators made claims about the results of the study that are not backed by the study and that others critisize both the study and the claims. The rebuttle to C&F by the Match PI strongly implies that the statement by Gordis was either wrong or taken out of context.Desoto10 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in this article certain users tend to generate a flood of copy, and others have to pare it down to what is concise, reliable and relevant. — DavidMack (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to repeat a question from above: The article states that Cutler and Fishbain criticise MATCH based on results from zero-treatment group, and also that Peele accuses MATCH of not having a zero-treatment group. Can someone please explain this? Also, would the person who put in the Cutler and Fishbain critique be willing to add the MATCH rebuttal? Thanks. (Again.) — DavidMack (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

David--Yes, go ahead and add it. I like the rebuttal because it points out that much of the complaining about MATCH is due to that fact that it was misinterpreted by the media and, indeed, even the director of NIAAA (or he was misquoted).Desoto10 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like the rebuttal ever got added. Somebody should, if they can - they present some extremely complex arguments and it will take someone with a sound understanding of stats and an ability to translate those stats into "laymans terms".  I for one struggled reading through the whole thing.  82.0.206.215 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference needed
Fred/13, could you add a journal title and volume to the info you added? Thanks. — DavidMack (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tonigan quote
This quote by Tonigan: "Tonigan and colleagues stated that "AA has rarely been investigated with the kind of rigorous methological attention it received in Project MATCH." [41] seems out of place. We went to great lenghts to emphasize that MATCH did NOT evaluate AA, but, rather incorporated 12-step facilitation.  Then comes a quote saying that it is the BEST study ever of Alcoholics Anonymous.  Yes, I am sure he said it, just like Gordis said what he said, but I wonder if quotes from experts when the subject (and their opinions) are controversial really help out.  If I were a reader of this section, I would be confused.Desoto10 (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.morerevealed.com/articles/match.jsp in which TSF is clearly distinguished from AA
 * and
 * http://www.peele.net/lib/projmach.html in which Peele references the above article


 * I think we should remove said quote. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I say leave it in. It is a reliable source making relevant commentary on MATCH. Disagreeing with the source is not a reason to remove it. Research on AA is always imperfect because self-selecting members can not be randomized. Although the research was not directly on AA, it is still among the best studies of AA available. — DavidMack (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with the source. It was a very methodical study, on TSF.  It just wasn't about AA.  Directing people to believe that it was is actually misleading.  I believe that the differences between TSF and AA should be highlighted, rather than hidden behind such a quote.  It makes no sense to me.  Keep the first sentence and ditch the last.


 * Stating that a randomised trial is impossible is ridiculous. Like saying a randomised trial of the effectiveness of paracetamol compared to aspirin for head-aches is impossible, simply because people self select which medicine they will take.  It literally dows not make sense.  If it were so impossible, why would so many people put so much weight on such trials?  We might as well cherry pick all of our subjects for all such studies, if that's the case.  82.0.206.215 (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just do not see the point of the quote. AA was not studied, as we have made clear in the article. This quote makes it sound like AA was actually investigated, which it was not. Davidmack, I am willing to consider TSF studies as being potentially related to AA in some respects, but until someone demonstrates that AA and TSF give the same results, then it is a mistake to consider them the same. We both know that. So, if you want the quote, then we will need yet another disclaimer stating that it was TSF and not AA studied. This disclaimer will make Tonigan's quote sound idiotic.Desoto10 (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed this quote. I think it should go, Davidmack thinks it should stay. I say it is misleading without additional comment, while David says it is a relevant quote from a reliable source. What do we do? Vote? Have a delete war or something?Desoto10 (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Voting is not the normal dispute resolution process. Revert wars are discouraged. Discussion is generally what is required.  If a consensual decision cannot be reached, it is time for a WP:3O.  If either party is not happy with the WP:3O, then it would be time to take it to the next step in the dispute resolution process.  Really, we should have been doing this for some time, with the amount of times we have been unable to come to a decision which satisfies all parties.  Step13thirteen (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Davidmack--Do you want to get a third opinion?Desoto10 (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. How do we do that? — DavidMack (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh crap, I thought you would know.Desoto10 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, cant be bothetred to sign in (step13thirteen, for those that care - would have been easier to sign in than type this...).  Anyway, WP:3O (as in click on the link!) gives clear instructions on how to get a third opinion.  Just go to the page.  It aint hard.


 * Just remember, a 3O isn't binding. It is also reccomended that if people on this page can come to a resolution without going there, it would be better.  I think that attempting to reach consensus is the best way forward.  If we had to do everything by the dispute resolution process, making decisions round here would be a difficult thing.  82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We have tried to come to a resolution, but we both seem firm in our convictions. Davidmack wants the quote in, I want it out. Since only one other person seems to care (and, I might note, that person also wants it out :)) I don't know what else to do. I suppose I could just delete it, but then David will just put it back in.  I understand that a third opinion is not binding.  I just thought that it might help.  OK, I'll go look at WP:3O.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desoto10 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, lets look at this and see if both your wishes can be accommodated. As I understand it, the quote seems out of place where it is correct? Is there perhaps a better place in the article? What about a cited statement to the fact that Tonigan says one thing and MATCH says another? Would that be an acceptable compromise? Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I would keep the quote but add the word incorrectly in front of it. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I broadly agree with you geoff. Just not sure if any of your suggestions would conform to wiki policy re verifiability and original research. What sources do we have to show that TSF is different from AA? The only thing I can find is the More Revealed thing by Jeffery Schaler (which is backed up by a slightly more reputable internet site...), but I am not sure if this counts. I just honestly don't know. How do others feel about those sources? Does anyone have any better? step13thirteen 90.192.179.224 (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, geoff. I believe that the burden is on those who want to demonstrate that TSF is the same as AA. There is no question that it is different for the reasons that have been stated over and over--TSF=Professionsl Counselers, AA=Anybody; TSF=open only to study subjects, AA=open to anyone. If someone can come up with a reference where TSF is shown to be the same as AA, then Tonigan's quote fits, as is. However, as we all know, that reference does not exist, so I would begrudgingly offer the compromize of leaving the quote, but qualifying it (which I still think would make Tonigan sound like an idiot). Something like:

"Although it is acknowledged that the TSF treatmeent group used in the Match study was not a true implementation of Alcoholics Anonymous (cite the Match Study and others)some investigators believe that it represents the most rigorous investigation of this group."

OK, I obviously changed my mind halfway through the sentence. Would something like this work for you Davidmack?Desoto10 (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. — DavidMack (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Peele on Vaillant
I don't believe that we should include Peele's comments on the Vaillant study, otherwise we'll have to include the whole story, which actually will not look good for Peele. Peele did obtain more data from Vaillant and criticised Vaillant's conclusions. But Vaillant then did a 15 year follow-up study on the group Peele referred to, and found that controlled drinking was a mirage. The "criticism" that Vaillant's data did not support the disease theory shows Peele's dishonest tactics: Vaillant actually never claimed to support the disease theory! See The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited, last paragraph. — DavidMack (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph? The one where Vaillant refers to "the disease of aloholism"?  Vaillant the guy who is on the board of AA (who promote the disease theory)?  Vaillant who writes books talking about when he learnt of the "disease of alcoholism"? (back at Cambridge Hospital, aparently....)  I don't accept your point there.


 * Would be interested if you could get the information in about the "mirage of controlled drinking". I think that would have every place in this article, surely?  82.0.206.215 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, in Natural History Vaillant does not conclude that alcoholism is a disease, although he does look at all sides of the issue. Vaillant concluded that by the time an alcoholic gets to the point of seeking clinical treatment, controlled drinking is usually no longer an option; i.e. for less severe alcoholics it is an option. I'll dig up the page if you're interested. In general, from what I have read, AA seems to be set up to deal with the more severe alcoholics, hence their skepticism towards controlled drinking. The topic of controlled drinking should also be inserted in Alcoholism. — DavidMack (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "and the disease of alcoholism can be as well defined by a sociological model as by a medical model."


 * This is what Vaillant said. He is clearly calling alcoholism a disease.  These are your contributions to wiki, so I don't really see that you have a leg to stand on.   In any case, Peele uses Vaillants study to question the disease theory, which is fundamental to the AA article, if not (according to you) fundamental to the Vaillant piece.  Step13thirteen (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the key conclusions of Vaillant's work is that the causes of alcoholism include cultural, economic, psychological, genetic, and medical factors; i.e. it's not valid to characterise it as a medical disease. That's the broad picture you get from reading the whole book, rather than picking out single sentences. Peele criticized Vaillant on the grounds that his data did not support a disease theory, but as you can find out by reading the book or other peer reviewers, Vaillant did not actually push a disease theory. (From Nat Hist:) However, there are some grounds, Vaillant argues, for considering alcoholism a medical disease in the most severe cases. As the disorder worsens, conscious choice becomes less and less important and the alcoholic needs medical assistance to detoxify without risk to life. Thus AA's disease theory is NOT scientifically valid, except perhaps in the more severe cases. It is more a concept that is used to assist recovery. — DavidMack (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Personnally, I like the way it's set up now, with the disease theory noted as being controversial and a reference to Disease theory of alcoholism for more info. — DavidMack (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Peele believes that Vaillant uses his research to conclude that alcoholism is a disease. What he does say, paraphrasing, is that the data from the book can be used to argue both sides.  It happens that Peele argues that it does not support the disease theory.  He also compliments Vaillant on his even handedness in analysing the results of the study.  This doesn't mean that he can't use it as a basis to criticise the disease theory.  Remember, this is a page about AA, not about Vaillant - we should report Peeles opinion about AA and the disease theory, not Peeles opinion about Vaillant.  Surely that makes sense?  We could do a whole article on the "disagreements" between the two, and use pratically both our arguments from this talk page (in fact, I would recomend putting in Vaillants response to Peele in the Nat His article, if you haven't already....)


 * Quite frankly, I think that, in light of craigs untimely departure, the best outcome would be us all trying to work together rather than endless disputes on talk pages. To an extent (ie you having left Peeles analysis of Nat His in the article) you are already doing this better than me, but I think we could both improve.  I guess it is all about concensus.  We should be looking up on concensus policies, and also good article/featured article criteria, and be trying to work together to achieve both.  Not easy, esp given the history of the article, but perhaps a period of "peace" would be best.  I promise it is better than going to dispute resolution every time we disagree.  And by this, I am not suggesting that either party "backs down", but that we try to remain calm.  We simply need to look at new ways to come to conclusions that satisfy all.


 * I know I went off on a tangent with the second paragraph, but please tell me if you agree or disagree. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Peele on Vaillant is not very relevant to this article. — DavidMack (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Move MATCH
Craig suggested moving the MATCH study out of AA and into its own entry. I think that this would be a good idea. Like it or not, we spent $26M or so on the study and it has generated tons of secondary studies using its data. It achieved its primary endpoint. Subsequent misinterpretation by supporters and detractors has also led to a slurry of articles. It has been pretty much a distraction in the AA entry. The coverage on the AA page could simply be that the study was done and showed that matching didn't make much difference. There were criticisms by some and commendations by others. Point out that TSF, while not AA, may be a useful alternative to the direct study of AA. Any takers?Desoto10 (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, until someone writes a separate MATCH article, I believe the article should stand as is. — DavidMack (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too.Desoto10 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Desoto, above you are agreeing that we should get a WP:3O about the PM section. I assume you mean that we should leave Match in this article, rather than that the content is 100% sound as it is.  Corrct me if I am wrong....82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues. One is the Tonigan quote about which Davidmack and I disagree. He wants it in, I want it out (wherever the Project Match stuff goes). We would like to get a third neutral opinion.

The second issue is that having the Project Match in the AA entry, along with the praise and criticism of the study is distracting to an entry about AA. Project Match was primarily about matching alcoholics to treatments. The study's primary outcome was that matching did not matter much, if at all. The study was not meant to study the absolute effectiveness of any of the treatments. The only connection to AA is that one of the treatments, TSF, borrowed from the 12-step program of AA, but it was administered by professional counselers and was closed to outsiders. Thus, it only vaguely resembled AA. It is for this reason alone that the study should be mentioned in this article, but only briefly. If someone is motivated enough, it should be moved out of the AA entry to its own entry where all of the positive and negative aspects of the study could be described in detail without having to worry about stepping on pro- or anti-AA toes as so often happens in this article. For sure, there will be battles over the new entry, but they won't disturb this one. The Project Match study is not the place to haggle over the value of AA because it really didn't have much to do with AA. The place to haggle is with papers by Tonigan, Humphries, Moo and others.Desoto10 (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, broadly. Haven't got the time to do it right now as I'm round my GFs on a sat night, but will happily move the main body of text to a new article soon.  I'm not too sure what needs to be in left in the article, but I would agree that it should be kept to a minimum, with the difference of TSF to AA highlighted.  I'll be bold, unless someone beats me to it. step13thirteen   90.209.21.9 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Moved to Project MATCH.  Took out one or two bits that made it feel "AA-centric" (it was never a study specifically of AA, or even TSF) and added a web link.  Am going to work on it, but this will be slow.  Any colaborators interested, see me on that pages talk page.step13thirteen   82.0.206.215 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Studies
I am wondering what others feel about this section. It is essentially one or two sentance blurbs about studies without enough detail to really make a decision about the validity of the studies or their conclusions. It is kind of an annotated bibliography. Could this be condensed into a couple of sentances saying that studies have been performed with some supporting and some not supporting the effectiveness of AA?Desoto10 (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do believe a written description is better than a list, otherwise the list can degenerate into a dumping ground. The written description takes a bit of work, though, to put everything in context. — DavidMack (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It does seem a bit over-populated, mainly because half of the studies seem to show that affiliation with AA increases likelyhood of abstinence. This should be summed up in one or two sentences with references to all the studies left in.  Other studies showing more interesting results, such as the faith-matching one, or the BSTP v 12 step one, should be left in (but some perhaps shortened - breivity, after all, being the sould of wit).  Well, that's my take on the situation, anyway. Step13thirteen (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Brandsma, Welsh, Maultsby
I tried to clean this up a little. If I messed it up, please fix it. I also removed reference to the fact that this study was funded by NIAAA, as virtually all US studies on alcohloism are funded by NIAAA.Desoto10 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Studies
I am tempted to remove this section entirely. There have been hundreds of studies that either directly or indirectly relate to AA effectiveness. The studies that have been included here seem to have just been thrown in with no systematic thought. Many of the descriptions use words that imply causation rather than correlation when the studies themselves could not have demonstrated causation. To make any sense at all of these studies you have to read them yourself, or at least read the abstract if available. These descriptions are too short to be of any value and there is no reason for this section to exist at all. I would like to replace it with a simple summary to the effect that, as we have mentioned earlier, AA study is difficult, but many studies have been undertaken and many reviews of the literature have taken place. No unequivocal evidence for dramatic success or failure of AA emerges (citation).Desoto10 (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.59.169 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dry drunk
This phrase is used by 12 steppers against people who will not convert to the 12 step witchcraft religion. It has no valid meaning other that its religious persecution use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.138.30 (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an entry in Wiki for "Dry drunk". I have just finished editing it and have explained my reasoning on the Dry Drunk discussion page. Maybe it used to be here and was removed? I don't know that it deserves its own entry, but I would not argue strongly to bring it back. It is AA-speak, is it not? If anyone has any scientifically valid references about it, maybe you should take a look.Desoto10 (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)




 * Such articles can be found using the research method I suggested previously. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Which shows you the value of that particular technique! 1955? Oh come on.Desoto10 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The value of psychodynamics? I wonder what Freud would say about someone asking for scientifically valid references, who then responds sarcastically when somebody offers one? If you're looking for something newer than 1955, not only would be be a good idea to say so when you ask, but you'll also want to have a look at the other 247 Google Scholar results. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the value of using "Google Scholar" whenever somebody requests a citation. If GS is so great, why not just put a link to it at the top of every page? Oops, I see you have been banned for a month. I hope it was not about anything here--you aren't THAT bad.Desoto10 (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A free search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature from almost every scientific publisher in the world and uses a powerful ranking algorithm to return useful results is pretty great. Before asking questions, I check to see if a simple Google Scholar search can answer them. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was blocked because I had some fun at the expense of the Justine Ezarik article . -- Scarpy (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a look at it, and it seems to have been writen based on this source which is the first source referenced, and also the source they copied the entire article from at first.  Personaly I wouldn't include it, since in my experience it is a phrase used to "other" (to use a cultrual studies phrase) people in recovery, and shame them into doing what you think they should be doing...and its definition varries depending on who is using it or it is beeing used to.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea where all of the Bush stuff was coming from.Desoto10 (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It could follow under 13th stepping in the criticism section, it is used alot in 12 step meetings, I agree with Coffepusher assessment, but possibly it could be put in under criticism as it has no medical merit to back it up.-- What the article in counter punch is addressing is a personality disorder, {very hard to treat} that AA'ers believe their program will cure. 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Fred
 * Vaillant did some research on personality change after sobriety. The 'alcoholic personality' can take months to fade. If you're interested I can dig it up. — DavidMack (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also more recent evidence of persistent physiological changes in some brain regions which take months to revert back to normal. I would not argue against the idea that there is a period after the major manifestations of alcohol withdrawl are over during which the brain is healing (for want of a better word).Desoto10 (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are none so blind as those who cannot see. Some must die so others can live. The progam works for those who want it to work. That's the beauty of it. B.Brogan (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Disease of Alcoholism
The following uncited sentence appears:

Others state bona fide medical researchers do not view alcoholism as disease.

I don't know who added that or when, but we need a reference for it.Desoto10 (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph
The effectiveness of AA, per se, has not been evaluated in randomized studies because of a host of ethical and practical problems associated with assigning patients to a group that does not attend AA (261). However, there is growing support for the utility of AA and 12-step-oriented treatments from a range of sources (reviewed by McCrady and Irvine [1115]).

This is the source of the last sentence in the opening paragraph (APA Practice Guidelines). Reference 1115 is a 1989 review of literature. Therefore, while there might have been "growing support for the utility of AA" in 1989, that is almost 20 years ago. Unless someone can come up with a current reference (not just a newer addition of the APA Practice Guidelines) I am going to change the sentence so that it does not suggest increasing support at this time.Desoto10 (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I just took out "growing". I think that we ought to cite the literature review rather than the APA Guidelines, OK?Desoto10 (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That into is relevant and from a recent, reliable, peer-reviewed, academic/professional source and should stay there. It is not a POV sentence: non-POV refers to us Wiki editors, not to the sources we summarize. It is actually non-POV to remove a material from a reliable source just because you do not agree with it. The full text reads "The effectiveness of AA, per se, has not been evaluated in randomized studies. However, other sources of information provide growing support for the utility of AA and 12-step-oriented treatments (259, 261, 956, 958, 959)... a large number of studies have documented that greater AA participation is associated with greater rates of abstinence from alcohol (1112) as well as with better drinking outcomes (260–266, 289, 1113, 1114)." i.e. it is a wide survey of the available literature. Remember, this HAS to be reliable information, otherwise the psychiatrists who rely on it to treat patients would be sued for malpractice. — DavidMack (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Added your text to the controversy section. The lead para should be neutral, adding that text to the intro is POV-pushing regardless of whether or not it is from a reliable source. I could add a hundred negative surveys on AA, all from reliable sources, and no positive ones, that would be an example of POV-pushing too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.59.169 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice to see that despite being gone for an month, everything is more or less the same here. :) -- Scarpy (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, while you were gone, Google Scholar got to shut down two servers. But nice to see you back.  The move of the material to the Controversy section was just what I was about to suggest.  PhGustaf (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, good to see some of the reasonable people are still here too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.59.169 (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Studies are studies, they are referenced and they stay. Rather than trolling the board, why not sign your name. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Fred


 * Who told you you were in charge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.59.169 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Davidmack, I was looking in the section titled:

IX. Review and Synthesis of Available Evidence where the text is slightly different as are the references. All I wanted was to remove the "growing" part, since that applies only at the time that the quote was written or the research that it describes was done. You might consider adding a section reporting that the APA does indeed recommend that all patients be referred to AA. You could probably include practice guidelines from a few sources that are relevant.Desoto10 (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.
 * About the sentence "Although AA is not for everyone and attrition rates tend to be high,[25] there is evidence supporting the effectiveness of AA as a treatment for alcoholism.[26]" I strongly oppose moving this to lower down. An editor commented above that the lead article is supposed to be neutral. That is not true. The lead paragraph "summarizes the most important points of the article ... so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail." Thus if the article and relevant sources indicate that AA is effective, that should be in the opening paragraph. Whether there are negative articles on AA is also not relevant here; the peer-reviewed source says that overall, research shows that AA is effective. Moving this relevant and properly sourced sentence shows bias and POV, contrary to Wiki policy.
 * — DavidMack (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't look at me. I was happy with it where it was. I did my little one-word edit, left and came back and the whole article was messed up.Desoto10 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Moderation vs. abstinence
Added a NIAAA study on abstinence vs. moderation. It is on the alcoholism page.Desoto10 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Page being vandalized
someone has noted it. 207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Fred


 * Yes, you have been warned many times:


 * 82.35.59.169 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and you have a bot, your editing is disruptive and extremely POV, this page has been the taken the contributions and consensus of a number of editors. You delete without discussion. Welcome to the bot club. 207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)FRED


 * Fred, I actually agree with many of your changes. But making slambang reversions isn't the way to get your point across.  It makes you look like a vandal, it wakes bots up, and it makes your edits less credible.  Talk about changes here first.  --PhGustaf (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Page being vandalized you may as well check the source hint : {Mr. Miles} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.232.97.13#March_2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

More Stuff About Vandals
Thank you PHGustaf, and yes you are correct, it is frustrating when someone comes along and attacks the page. However your comments are appreciated, it opens the board up to discussion, and consensus.


 * The preceding had nothing to do with "Autoarchive". I suppose I could fix the organization better, but this is at least less bad.  PhGustaf (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Desotas summary of the Brandsma study was an improvement however I lost it in the edits so reverted to an earlier version. I have been reverting the vandals however it looks like such a mess, I have time on my hands tonight so was prepared to do so. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)FRED
 * Who are you and what have you done with Fred? — DavidMack (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Would like to note on the comments that were also undone:

"Page being vandalized you may as well check the source hint : {Mr. Miles} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.232.97.13#March_2008 "

There seems to be an ongoing dispute with Mr. Miles who has arrived in the last day and has disrupted this web page even to the point of remoing the above comments off the discussion board. I have reinstated them for discussion. --MisterAlbert (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with disruptive editing
Studies that do not favor AA are being edited out, leaving a skewed and biased article. This is in violation of Wiki's neutral tone. referenced comments that present an alternative view are being deleted.

Comments on this discussion page are being deleted.

--MisterAlbert (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The problems with disruptive editing are from the user MisterAlbert/207.194.108.93/207.232.97.13. 207.232.97.13 has been blocked now for 48hrs.


 * Back to the article, the Brandsma, Maultsby and Welsh section is badly written and is completely negative synthesis of the study - is this study noteworthy outside of its appearance on Orange Papers? Google Scholar only gives places it in 49 documents? If it is noteworthy, perhaps User:Scarpy or someone else who respects Wiki could make a summary. I can't find an abstract. The 'other studies' section has 7 negative studies and 4 positive, is that a reflection of the academic communities view on AA? I would suggest, as Desoto has, that this section is removed, we're never going to agree and are we really qualified abstract studies like that? User: 207.232.97.13 has made it look a right mess. 82.35.59.169 (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try to reedit the Brandsma, et al study back to a short paragraph. I will also try to generate a neutral statement that could substitute for the "other studies" section. This time I will save my edits off-line as well. The study of AA and other 12-step groups is interesting in itself and, if someone is motivated, might make an interesting entry on its own. The US government has funded and is funding millions of dollars worth of studies that relate either directly or indirectly to AA.Desoto10 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Please use the book The OutPatient Treatment of Alcoholism to construct your Brandsma paragraph. 207.232.97.13 just copied his version from Orange Papers, an unreliable source. Yep, I think the study of AA etc would make for a large interesting article. 82.35.59.169 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read Brandsma's documenting the work on the SHARP study, and commented on parts of it before, it is good scholarly research and is definitely worth including in the article. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the whole Brandsma bit is gone now. Is that the consensus? Also the "other studies" took a beating.Desoto10 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Brandsma is back in now, based on Scarpy's excellent analysis - I'm sure this was put in before and then vandalised.Mr Miles 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Organization
There is an assertion in this section that visitors and non-members are not asked for donations which references this:

Over the years, Alcoholics Anonymous has affirmed and strengthened a tradition of being fully self-supporting and of not seeking, or accepting, contributions from nonmembers. When outside contributions are received at the General Service Office, they are returned with a note explaining A.A.’s position on the question of self-support.

I don't think that this means that if you show up for a meeting that someone won't hand you the basket, but that AA does not go out and seek external funding.Desoto10 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I took that line to mean an announcement is made at the beginning of a meeting to the effect that Visitors and new members should not donate - I believe this only happens at Open meetings. 82.35.59.169 (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was my assertion, based on my observations at meetings. The announcement was one of the standard bits.  But, that's original research, and for all I know it was only a local custom, so it was probably right to whack it out. PhGustaf (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it is not a tradition in the Bay Area!Desoto10 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm in the Bay Area. But my experience is some years old.  Good job taking the line out. PhGustaf (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Brandsma
If poster 82.35.59.169 had read the book he would realize that the Brandsma study is almost verbatim from the Book. The book is easily obtainable, I have a copy from the university stacks. Any credible institution will have it available.

The findings do show favorable results for other therapies. The book goes into great detail on the process of follow up for those partipants who dropped out. AA had more binge drinking and a highest drop out rate. Then again this may be the very reason this study has been deleted from the page. Wouldn't you agree?

I noticed that studies from other countries have been excluded. The studies which are most current done in Brazil and Sweden have been deleted. Any reason why? Is the Wiki an American only system. Studies done in other countries are not considered valid?

Why so much emphasis on Vaillant. He sits on the Board of trustees. Isn't there a conflict of interest within his studies? Is this open for discussion? He is certainly in favor of the 12 step approach. Then again, this is probably why he remains and by far better studies have suffered the axe. Wouldn't you agree?

I put the study regarding Sponsorship in twelve steps where it belongs, any objections? I would be interested in hearing why?

--GeorgeLM&amp;LM (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AA Meetings
Holy crap, I just realized that there is no description of what goes on at an AA meeting! Does anybody object to adding a section on this? I can't imagine that this would be controversial (ha ha).Desoto10 (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's been noted before. The Program section would probably be the best place to flesh out the details of what an AA member experiences in the organization. There are plenty of published sources describing the process. 82.35.59.169 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be controversial at all as long as opinion is left out and the Primary Source rule is respected. 82.35.59.169 (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I took a shot at it. I have to ferret out the references, but my description is sufficiently generic that it should not be difficult. I didn't dare touch on "what an AA memeber experiences in the organization". I can predict that there will be objection to the inclusion of The Lords Prayer as a common ending of meetings, but I suspect that there is reference to that. Desoto10 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference that I found: Kirkpatrick, Kayla EJ. "Interpreting AA (and other 12-step) Meetings." American Sign Language Interpreting Resources, 10 Decmeber 1999. . 12 March 2008. does a pretty good job of describing meeting formats from an interpreter for the deaf perspective. Very unbiased description by Kayla.Desoto10 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * oops, I've made some edits since then, just condensing mainly, hope that doesn't screw your ref.Mr Miles 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * Are you sure about that "No group is allowed to exclude any member" bit? Men's and women's group exist because some members feel more comfortable in single-sex fora, and I've certainly seen women accidentally happening into men's meetings shown straight to the door.  I almost but not quite reverted it, but there's already too much reversion going on.  PhGustaf (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, it needs a reference, quite an important point if true though.Mr Miles 01:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * whack it out if you want, i'm not precious - just don't mess with my new subheading sizes!Mr Miles 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * Your new subheading sizes are just fine. PhGustaf (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the Desota link. Question? Why would an organization that declares itself spiritual, not religious need to engage in a Prayer?--GeorgeLM&amp;LM (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, is praying a spiritual practice or a religious practice, or both?! I'm all of a muddle. Hey, this isn't a discussion board. Mr Miles 01:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

George, that is an excellent question and has been the subject of massive debates here and elsewhere. The separation between spiritual and religious is not clear to many people, me amongst them. However, this section is for commentary on the bit about AA meeting structure, not whether or not it is religious. They have prayers in many AA meetings--that is a fact. Whether that or other things makes them religious is for discussion elsewhere. Thanks.Desoto10 (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Autoarchive
I changed the autoarchive interval from 10 to 21 days. I don't think that this file is oppressively big, and it often happens that it takes more than 10 days for us to resolve a matter. PhGustaf (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The talk page is getting pretty crowded again. Let's say two weeks instead of three.  -- Scarpy (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit function removed from the Main Article
Any reason why the edit function has been dismantled? --207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Jossi write protected the page a couple of days ago. Mr Miles 22:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * The page is semi-protected. That means it can be edited only by people logged in under usernames, not those posting from anonymous IP addresses.  In addition, the user account has to be at least four days old. PhGustaf (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Biased Editing
Quote from Mr. Miles "I 'whacked out' lots of the other studies because that whole section was becoming a mess. The intro to this article ends with: 'there is evidence supporting the effectiveness of AA as a treatment for alcoholism'. Then there was a studies section predominantly finding AA to be ineffective - that is a contradiction which I wanted to correct."

What you did Mr. Miles was edit out any reserch that did not support AA as effective, put up a heading speaking to the effectiveness of AA and then went and edited out the original studies when they were reinserted and then cried fowl and vandalism. Your personal bias reeks all over this page.

It certainly was a contradiction of the facts as you wanted them presented, and how you present is by ommission of any facts that could dispute your world view. Other people are very aware of what is going on and one posted has called you on it --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk)


 * Diatribes like this don't help your credibility, nor do they encourage cooperation. Take a few deep breaths, and Assume Good Faith. PhGustaf (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And for the record, I put the Brandsma article back in, it was removed by someone else. Mr Miles 00:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Studies removed from this board
Brandsma, Maultsby and Welsh

Other studies


 * All the studies you have listed are still linked from the article.


 * How many studies have been made of AA? What percentage showed positive results and what percentage negative? Unless you can answer those questions putting studies into the article is always going to be biased. Mr Miles 22:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your just playing games. take Vailliant and Match out and stick them in the pro list. While leave in descriptions. I am for resubmitting Brandsma and Ditmman in a small descriptive form. Sorry they correlate with your world view but we want an unbiased wiki.

I am tired of your games, this article was quite until you showed up Miles, I want equal weiight given to Marlatt, Brandsma and the other studies the same as you have given Match and Vaillant. It is about an unbiased wiki Mr. Miles --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Fred

Please see my comments below about these studies. It is not our purpose here to prove AA effectiveness one way or the other. You guys waste all of your time arguing instead of providing a description of what AA is.Desoto10 (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Influences on US Treatment Industry
I was surprised not to find any information about how AA has influenced the treatment industry in this section. Virtually all rehab centers now routinely incorporate AA concepts in their programs and often go so far as to drive patients to meetings, bring AA members into the treatment facilities for "mini-AA meetings". Some AA groups are very tightly associated with outpatient programs. This is not necessarily a good thing as it presupposes effectiveness of the AA approach. The vast majority of professional addictions specialists will advise their patients to attend AA because that is the current APA guideline. I know that this was one of the major issues expressed by Jack Trimpy of Rational Recovery. If good references can be found for these assertions would this be fitting here?Desoto10 (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That treatment centers drive patients to meetings is already mentioned, as is AA influence the the treatment centers' recovery programs. AA's involvement, as an organization, in providing "mini-AA meetings", should definitely go in.


 * That addiction specialist advise patients to attend AA, in accordance with APA guideines, is not a criticism of AA (which can't turn-away members - tradition 1), but of the treatment industry and APA, that criticism doesn't belong in this article. In my opinion. Mr Miles 10:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of it as "criticism", just the way it is.Desoto10 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Conferences, Telephone offices and Prison services
All are part of the AA organization and should get mentioned, probably under the Program/Meetings section, not a big one but notable. Mr Miles 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Vaillant and Match to influence public perception?
Other studies that are more current that were deleted. Please explain? This is an encyclopedic article is it not? This is to provide information to the public? Am I right?

Why were these deleted, why do they need to be condensed? Why so much weight to Match? Why none to Bransma?

I shortened the MATCH entry without changing the conclusion, that matching was not necessary.Desoto10 (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't Vaillant undertake the most extensive research on alcoholism and AA? I presumed his prominence in the article reflected that.82.35.59.169 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

2007, A two year study of 556 University students. Students were assigned to one of three groups: a brief skills-training {BSTP}, alcohol-intervention program; a 12-step-influenced alcohol intervention program {TSI}; or a control group that received no intervention. The Brief skills-training program included interactive lectures and discussions and was derived from the University of Washington's Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students program. The 12-step program provided lectures by therapists trained in the 12-step approach. All groups reduced their alcohol consumption. The Twelve step approach showed no significant difference from the No Treatment Control Group in terms of reducing consumption within the group of students that had high-risk alcohol consumption audit scores. Students with high-risk alcohol consumption scores that were assigned to the Brief Skills training showed significant differences in reduction when compared to the Control Group and had a tendency to show better results than the Twelve Step intervention. This study suggests that a BSTP is effective as an intervention in students with high-risk alcohol consumption

Two-Year Outcome of Alcohol Interventions in Swedish University Halls of Residence: A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Brief Skills Training Program, Twelve-Step-Influenced Intervention, and Controls Authors: Ståhlbrandt, Henriettæ1; Johnsson, Kent O.1; Berglund, Mats1 Source: Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research, Volume 31, Number 3, March 2007, pp. 458-466(9)  Publisher: Blackwell Publishing http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/acer/2007/00000031/00000003/art00014

--GeorgeLM&amp;LM (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2008, A study was undertaken to determine factors affecting adherence to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) groups. It involved 300 alcoholics committed to three hospitals in Porto Alegre, Brazil. They were interviewed in their homes six months later, a questionnaire focusing on patient relationship with AA groups were used and the responses were evaluated by two independent researchers. AA adherence was below 20%. Factors that contributed for non-adherence to AA were relapse, lack of identification with the method, lack of need, and lack of credibility. The factors reported by patients as reasons for adherence were identification with the method and a way to avoid relapse. The identification of these nonadherence factors could help health professionals in referring certain alcoholic patients to therapeutic interventions other than AA. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/10550490701756393

George--I don't know what happened to "other studies". Somebody has whacked out lots of stuff in the last day or so. Of course my opinion has been and remains that we should just have a short summary statment to the effect that some studies show an association between good outcomes and AA attendance, while others do not and just leave it at that. If someone wants to start an entry for "Investigations of AA effectiveness", then I would certainly support that. Otherwise we just get people dumping random studies that they find on Google Scholar that support their particular opinion. Perhaps the best answer is to find a recent literature review that has a relatively neutral tone and put that in?Desoto10 (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I 'whacked out' lots of the other studies because that whole section was becoming a mess. The intro to this article ends with: 'there is evidence supporting the effectiveness of AA as a treatment for alcoholism'. Then there was a studies section predominantly finding AA to be ineffective - that is a contradiction which I wanted to correct.


 * I think most of the studies added were selected because of their negative conclusions in an attempt to influence public perception, and nobody corrected that situation because the guy who kept adding them would just revert, over and over, any attempt to reinstate balance. That guy is now banned for two weeks so perhaps the other editors will have some peace to gain consensus and stick to it. Mr Miles 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, perhaps you are right Desoto10, with your summary statement idea. The research doesn't seem strongly conclusive so maybe the public interest would be best served by leaving actually studies out - that seems like a bit lame though, a bit like giving up because it's difficult. Mr Miles 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it is lame at all. Nobody here is qualified or has the time to do a complete unbiased review of current AA research. For one thing, you would need to be at a university so that you could have access to the articles, not the abstracts. I do not think that an encyclopedia entry should be an extensive literature review anyway--it is enough to note that there is research out there and that this research often comes to different conclusions. I am going to be bold and just do it. I await reversion.Desoto10 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not too happy with my edits and I suppose it should be reverted. Since somebody removed all of the studies that had less than glowing statements about AA, that part is a little bleak. Can anybody retrieve them? Not to beat a dead horse, buy why do we give Vaillant his own section rather than just lumping him in with the rest of the studies?Desoto10 (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it looks great, I've gone back into the history and added the extra reports from the 'other studies' section. Didn't Vaillant undertake the most extensive research on alcoholism and AA? I presumed his prominence in the article reflected that. DavidMac, one of the other editors here and resident Vaillant expert could perhaps comment, he's pretty neutral and had good instinct for Wiki.


 * That was a good point you made about encyclopedia's not being literature reviews.- Mr Miles 10:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe Vaillant has carried out good quality research on AA. In AA - the story historian Ernest Kurtz mentions that Vaillant put AA on an empirical basis. I don't think there's an intention of putting Vaillant in a 'prominent' position; we just want to summarize relevant research on AA and Vaillant is one source. — DavidMack (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Could not agree more that there is undue weight. Have returned from a short break (the article was quiet and I was roughly thinking that it seemed about as fairly representative as it could be...) when the whole research has changed.  All critcism of Natural History taken out, Brandsma taken out.  All other studies bunched into "positive" and "negative".  The other studies say so much about the pros and cons of AA that it is ridiculous to do this.  I would have suggested bunching in all the ones that say "AA attendance is associated with higher levels of abstinance", but several of the positve studies said much more than that.  The removal of information on the "abstinance violation effect" is beyond rediculous.  The section was overpopulated and messy.  Now it is underpopulated, messy and biased.  This simply will not do....  82.0.206.215 (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "I was roughly thinking that it seemed about as fairly representative as it could be"


 * But StepThirteen13 you are self confessed to be very biased against AA, your main reason for visiting Wiki. Therefore if you found it to be "fairly representative" it's likely the article was very POV.


 * Anyway Brandsma is still there and the negative research has been treated the same as the positive. Desota10 made a very good point: "Nobody here is qualified or has the time to do a complete unbiased review of current AA research". And I thought you said you were going to "back him up" or was that when you thought he was more Anti-AA?


 * There is a whole section of the abstinance violation effect which ends with the text 'Belief in the disease theory of alcoholism and high commitment to total abstinence were found to be factors correlated with increased likelihood that an alcoholic would have a full-blown relapse following an initial lapse', what more do you want? Mr Miles 22:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But Mr Miles, your a self confessed AA 12stepper who loves putting in really nice thngs about AA because your in a cult that you worship?


 * I don't think that I have ever been asked to back up desoto10, but the offer still stands, simply because he seems to be wanting to remove the pro AA bias which is what I want to do. I did not see the new research page - much more satisfactory.  I think we should now remove all studies from the main page.  Otherwise we are left with one that isn't about AA at all (MATCH) and one which is written by some guy who sits on the AA board.  I have had next to no interactions with desoto, but that is roughly because we have agreed with each others editing, surely? 82.0.206.215 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Knock it off with the name calling. No one here is a "cult worshiper." If you can't make you're point without the drama, calm down and wait until you can. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is messy, poorly written and biased, By the way the Edit Button has been removed on the main ariticle page, will someone please explain. But then again David Mack and Mr. Miles is a member of 12 steps, go to the archives, it is a deliberate attempt to sway public opinion and in complete violation of wiki principals.


 * Check your talk page, you've been banned for Wiki violations. Repeatedly undoing changes made by a Wiki Moderator was probably what did it! - Mr Miles 22:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)