Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 7

MATCH and Vaillant
Here is my opinion on these two sections: The MATCH study was "neutral" on AA. Why it gets so much attention here is not clear. As for Vaillant, I would just summarize his work with a short, two sentance paragraph to the effect that he has done a lot of research and concludes whatever it is that he concludes. If I were writing this outside of wiki, I would also point out a huge potential conflict of interest for him as a member of the BOD for AA. Was he on the board when he did these studies? So, I would just refer readers to the Project MATCH entry and reduce the Vaillant dramatically. In actual fact, I think that we are waisting time on these sections at the expense of a description of AA (which is what this entry is supposed to be about).Desoto10 (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * MATCH's conclusion that the three methods of treatment were equally effective, while not dramatic, were vitally important to the treatment of alcoholism. — DavidMack (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added back a link to the Wiki article on Vaillant's book, it's just a few words and the article is good and relevant. Vaillant's affiliation is mentioned, so I guess most readers do have the opportunity to conclude that his research is biased, whether or not that is true. I think your original instinct to remove all studies is correct.Mr Miles 10:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * I don't believe that Vaillant's research it biased at all. It's a remarkable piece of work.  I'm just puzzled at his cleaving to AA despite the results of that research. PhGustaf (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Like a responsible doctor, Vaillant gave support and advice to a group that his research had showed to be effective. Too bad more doctors don't take such initiative. Is an oncologist "biased" for being on the board of the Cancer Society? Some people are so paranoid. Also, the accusation that Vaillant's results were negative on AA are false, as anyone would know by reading the book. The clinic treatment was unsuccessful, but patients who attended AA showed higher rates of recovery (exerpt here). Agent Orange's propaganda is insidious. — DavidMack (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I shortened both Vaillant and Match without changing conclusions (I hope). Both Vaillant and Match have their own wiki entries and so we should just be funneling interested people to those for the full discussions that they deserve.Desoto10 (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous
This is now it's own article (renamed from Research on Twelve Step Effectiveness). This is a good change, and allows for separation concerns. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done.Desoto10 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think .13/MisterAlbert/Melville created the article for things that were previously in this one, I'm just responsible for encouraging a name change. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased you appreciate my humble efforts. This study section should have had its own page. I am surprised no one else came up with the solution. --MelvilleSitter (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This board has gone very silent all of a sudden, not much activity... --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Fred

13th-stepping
The para at the beginning was removed, I checked the archived discussion which hadn't concluded it should be removed. Guess it was an accident so I've put it back for now. Mr Miles 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was moved to, I think "Organization", after discussion. It really doesn't belong there; it sounds like weaseling about the material that follows.  PhGustaf (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry PhGustaf, you're mistaken, I've checked the archived discussion, no decision was made to remove that text.


 * It is there for very good reason and is certainly not weaseling. The issue of 13th-stepping is pretty controversial from both sides. From one side it's terrible that people who seek help for alcoholism could be 'hit-on' in meetings or the other side that people who want help stopping drinking might be put off going to AA because they fear they'll be raped after reading Wikipedia (based on a survey of 55 people out of 2 million). It's a delicate and sensational issue and needs balancing. Saying that encyclopedias wouldn't have a statement like that at the beginning of an entry doesn't cut it, I've checked the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for AA, no mention at all about 13th-stepping. How big an issue is it? I don't know and neither does anyone else here, although I'm sure we all have stories. Mr Miles 00:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify: the passage says nothing about 13th-stepping; it discusses a general (and important) point about AA. Placing it as a disclaimer ("AA doesn't support 13th-stepping") is inappropriate.  Nobody is asserting that AA supports 13th-stepping.  I don't know exactly how common it is either, but it's common enough that we all know what it means. PhGustaf (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it raises an important point but I think it is relevant. The inclusion of this section (which Encyclopedia Britannica chose not to include) suggests AA might approve of 13th Stepping, we certainly need to make it clear that AA doesn't and Trad 3 does that job well - alternatively, in the longer term, we could ask AA GSO for a statement, but wouldn't that be a problem of primary sources?


 * I honestly hadn't heard the term until I read Orange Papers.Mr Miles 00:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was in common usage, or at least I first heard it, in about 1987. PhGustaf (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. There used to be a line in the article about how getting into sexual relations in the first year of AA was discouraged, but no references could be found so it got deleted. Mr Miles 00:30, 15 March 2008


 * How about if we put something like: 'because AA places no external restrictions on membership, stated in Tradition Three, it is unable to place restrictions on individual members' sexual conduct'? Mr Miles 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like editorializing to me. I have no idea why the "no new sex partners first year" passage went away; it certainly belongs somewhere in the article.  One issue is that a lot of AA practice is based on tradition, and is rarely published in quotable sources.  I'd love to see a section on AA slogans; there are certainly plenty of them. PhGustaf (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just emailed AA GSO to see if they have anything published anywhere. Guess we could wait for a bit of consensus from other editors here, if you don't mind. Mr Miles 00:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * They emailed back to say they couldn't help. Tut. Mr Miles 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * Just noticed that little tinker MrAlbert moved this again in complete disregard to our discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we had at least a more-or-less consensus to move the passages you've been shuffling, and it would show good faith for you to put them back. Anyway, I'm out of the discussion until, as you suggest, others voices enter it. Let's please not divide us into good guys and bad guys; it doesn't help. PhGustaf (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is quiet correct, I checked the history and it seemed that User13 had been busy adding a load of stuff (like the Brandsma which was riddled with spelling mistakes) so I reverted to an earlier version, with admittedly less studies but still pro/con, and added back the Brandsma (in better copy shape). Desoto10 then removed all the studies and gave a good reason for doing so on this talk page which wasn't - and still hasn't been challenged. I agree about your good guy/bad guy comment, I suggest we stop going on about 12-stepping. Mr Miles 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I moved a whole lotta stuff by accident when I was trying to deal with the acres of references. This may have been shuffled by me by mistake. Sorry.Desoto10 (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I did it deliberately, per the discussion. PhGustaf (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

More Match
DavidMack writes:

MATCH's conclusion that the three methods of treatment were equally effective, while not dramatic, were vitally important to the treatment of alcoholism. — DavidMack (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. One could also phrase this conclusion that "the three methods were equally ineffective". The MATCH study did not conclude anything about the absolute effectiveness of the three treatments--it could not because that was not part of the experimental design. The conclusion was that matching patients to different treatments was unnecessary. This is an important conclusion relating to alcoholism for sure, suggesting that ANY treatment has about the same effect on patient outcome. As an important study relating to alcoholism, MATCH should be cited. As some kind of validation of the effectivenss of AA, not so much.Desoto10 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is saying that it's a validation of the effectiveness of AA -- AA wasn't even in the study. It had a group with professional TSF used with alcoholics, and that's close enough to include in this article. David said it was vitally important to the treatment of alcoholism, the equally effectiveness/ineffective just semantics - the patients in all groups had similar outcomes. It seems like we all agree that MATCH is important enough to include in the article and that we're more or less on the same page about what the results me. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cults
This sentence:

"Helpful aspects of AA include tolerance, a non-threatening personal style, and acceptance of self and others"

seems new, or I just never noticed it. Besides having nothing to do with cults it makes several assertions that are not obvious or cited. Helpful how? Tolerance of what? Who has a non-threatening personal style? etc.Desoto10 (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * yes, i thought that to, line is removed as no cite. - SandymcT (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I just added a bit of text to the 'cult debate: Alexander and Rollins thought that any thought reform was negative and thus AA was a cult, but Wright in another study (in 1997) found that those techniques where seen as beneficial and thus AA wasn’t a cult, kind of what Vaillant was saying. Mr Miles 16:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * Erm, I take it you didn't approve of my change Coffeepusher?! Mr Miles 17:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * Yes I like the change, sorry for the confusion. it is a long and complicated explination...but I put back your work as best I could.  take a look at it and make shure I did a good job.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. But why wont anyone explain to me why I get signed in twice? Mr Miles 17:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Great Reference
Here is an excellent review of AA effectiveness. http://www.msu.edu/~msujml/dehn.pdf Pitched from the legal aspects of forcing attendance, but the guy goes to great lengths to be impartial. He also seems to come to the same conclusion: most people drop out, but many of those who stay benefit.Desoto10 (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Desota it should be added to the article, possibly under court rulings. put in the references. It is an interesting article. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Fred

Sandy edits
My issues with this edit: Removing the Mary Larimer material; creating the "Other Criticism" second and removing most the Thirteenth Stepping material; the Arthur H. Cain material is an opinion piece from a source that doesn't have a reputation for fact checking. The other changes the wording I don't have any problems with.

Sandy has a point about the Shute reference, but there's no point to having a sentence like "Total abstinence as the only form of recovery from alcoholism has been questioned." This gives the reader absolutely no real information. What in the world hasn't been questioned? The change from vs. to "or" also seems okay. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sandy moved the Mary Larimer material here:, which I'm okay with. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * one of my big problems is this edit in the thirteenth stepping section. it defines the term, and gives the advise from the study, but takes that completely out of context with the study itself.  I think this can be cut down while maintaining the referances and would help to make the article better.  instead of detailed discriptions I propose we offer one sentance (or so) briefs with the citations attached, and mention that a study was done that caused consern in the medical community.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the drama about the group with the sex scandals is probably unnecessary, but I like the summary of the peer-reviewed article as it is. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * P.s. I am sick of using edit summerys and personal talk pages for discussion and ask that sandy either use the talk page itself or stop complaining about edits beeing removed.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm 100% with you. Bold edits are one thing, ignoring editors and discussion is another. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

you have not discussed just reverted! I have made some ok edits, and by wikipedia rules. you can change as you like but you spend to much time on this site changing and controling, that is why this article is bad and has to big controversy at end because you argue all the time. it looks more like a book from a shop now and not so strange like an arguement. SandymcT (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If this is all the work you're willing to put in to justifying your edits, then many of them will probably be reverted. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

HaHa, I have done all you ask, explaned every edit and writen on talk page, what else? You have no problem with my edits except that you have not made them, controling. why dont you let other people write the article for change? it was wrong before why cant you admit that and thank me for my effort?

I have looked at my deletes again, the newspaper from britain from 2000! that does not belong here, why so much writing about this? what is there now explanes the 13thstep.

and the reserch from the journal is there an a link to. why more? -SandymcT (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

and the title for other criticism youll like better now. maybe we can call it 'other very important notable criticism' ;)

-SandymcT (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of arguging here, and it is easy to get controlling, but edit wars go both ways. At any rate, throwing in nonsensical edits with summaries like "my american friend says this is better for yo" is not helping anything. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ok i will change it back, you say you have issue with 'other criticism' but dont say what issue! i dont know why 'other criticism is wrote, it is good for me. SandymcT (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

i like notable, so it is back. i have done, you can control again. -SandymcT (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * are you here to discuss, or here to WP:TROLL? I will not let you take complete controll of the page and then yell and scream at us to let you do it your way, we have all invested alot of time on this page and don't appriciate someone telling us how we should have done it.  so either explain point by point what you feel should be changed, or I will make bold edits myself.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am under the impression he has finnished with his "i have done" which matches his language. personaly I feel assulted and want to undo the entire thing based on his tone and lack of regard for anyone elces edits alone.  is there any real reason we should salvage this whole assult, or should we just revert and go back to buisness as usual. (please note, I am discussing it...rather than outright changing everything)Coffeepusher (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not grouse about a revert, but I've used my ration for the day. Some of his copy edits are quite good, and make the material clearer.  If we could tame him a little, he could help the article.   For now, though, revert away.    00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was already templated for a "revert war" which caused a really bad wikiday. so I am going to sit this one out ...humm, fred just did the same edit that I was reverted for...under an Ip name...and it was an IP that did the origional edit... (sorry fred, I jumped the gun and was unfair) Its been a bad day, and I don't want to get blocked (I so far have a clean record).Coffeepusher (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to undo the damage Sandymac has done and revert to the version by Scarpy but the wiki is set not to do reverts.

I thought they would dissappear after attacking the research and study section and it was designated its own wiki page. --MelvilleSitter (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * then I owe you an appology for my former comment. It seemed suspicious that you "added" the same content that was disputed earlier...and now I understand what you where doing.  if you hit the "edit" function on the origional page and then save it will work just like a revert, only for a much earlier page.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I did the changes...I even saved that picture david left for us (I thought it looked good). well, its been quite a day, and I think I will read some theory and write a paper or two to burn off some steam.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good I agree with your decision. Coffemaker. His edits have been undone innumerable times by most the editors on this board. I was in the process of repairing when I realized you had reverted the page. Scarpy may want to put sandymac on notice notice if he keeps vandalizing the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelvilleSitter (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sandy that the article needs improvement in many ways. But every word in it has been argued about over and over.  Next time, Sandy, just make one simple change, and explain your change on this page.  Do that three or four times, and other editors will start to perceive you as a colleague rather than a loon. PhGustaf (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I Sandy just reverted back again...and I am not interested in dealing with an editor who refuses to discuss changes that have been shown to be contriversial. Yes sandy alot of us believe that changes should be done, however we are not giving you permission to turn the article into whatever you like, you will have to work with us. that means if you want to change somthing...

1. come to the talk page (this page) and type out what you want to change and why. if you use the same tone as you did above and attack us and call us stupid you will find that we will be less likely to accept your change.

2. I recomend that you explain it in a way like "I think that [incert text] should be changed to [incert text] because [rational explination] what do you guys think?"

3. wait for our responce.

4. READ OUR RESPONCE AND ALLOW US TO INPUT INTO THE PROSSESS!!!!!!1!!!!11!!!1111!!!!!!!!!

5. once that part has been discussed...then move to the next major change (go back to step 1).

if you do this, you will find out that many of your changes will be allowed, if you don't then you are just beeing a disruption and will be delt with accordanly.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there - First off, thanks to everyone who has worked so hard on this page and in making sure we all have civil discussion. It is much appreciated.

Secondly, this might not be a popular comment, but I actually like Sandy's edit better, for what the comment is worth. Not to disregard the hard work of everyone thus far, and not to say I support the side comments or the manner in which this is getting played out. Is there some civil way to come to an agreement on some of the changes? Could we go one at a time? Everyone just wants to have the best article possible correct? So I like what some people have said regarding making the changes one at a time, or at least having a discussion explaining why the changes are made. I, for one, would be receptive to them...

Sandy I think the group is just asking for you to try to work within the conventions they have agreed to for editing this highly controversial page. I'd like to see you get some of them passed rather than reverted.

Lucida.ann (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sandy writes very well, and many of his or her copy edits are excellent. But, Sandy, do them one at a time and explain them.  Slambang 3K edits just don't help. 01:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhGustaf (talk • contribs)

Jesus what a debate. I just looked over the C&C section and it looks great, it always seemed unbalanced to me to have a section on Thirteenth-stepping that was bigger than the meeting section. The word count is more balanced now too, so the change gets my vote.Mr Miles 16:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

But, I also added bullets, thought it might clarify that there are separate points made there. Mr Miles 16:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Ok, I don't hate sandy, and I do like some of the contributions, however as I have said before discussion needs to be done. I have transplanted sandy's edits (+ mr. miles contributions)to the new sandbox that I created (see explination below) so as not to loose some valuble contributions. You can link it here my idea is for people to add changes, and then single bracet the edit change page onto the discussion...or you guys may hate the idea and scrap the entire thing. I do believe that this version has possiblility, but it does need input from more than one source.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

since sandy isn't discussing their changes, I have started a wikiedique alert for this entire situation. it is on .Coffeepusher (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving Stuff
I moved some info out of 13th step and into the program information where it belongs. I also removed a POV off the Attrition section. It assumes because people don't stay long the program is not effective, I saw nothing in the reference material that shares that view. --MisterAlbert (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave your edit of the Attrition section, but I believe that common sense suggests that a program of any sort that looses 95% of its members within the first year cannot claim a great deal of effectiveness. The goal of all alcoholism treatments is to help people overcome their dependence on alcohol. If that treatment fails 95% of the time, then it is not very effective.66.120.181.218 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving AA ≠failure. — DavidMack (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that is your opinion, but it does not make any sense. What possible logic do you use to support that claim?Desoto10 (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An attrition rate is not a failure rate. Making that connection is POV. I have used before the example of the gym: 95% of people drop out of gym attendance at the end of a year, so is exercise therefore unhealthy, or did exercise 'fail' those people? The answer is no, but we should acknowledge that gyms have a high attrition rate. Beyond that, we need to find reliable information on why those people left and where they went before we publish conclusions. — DavidMack (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your gym analogy is an excellent one. If you go to a gym a few times a week for a year and stomp on Stairmasters and move metal around you will wind up thinner and healthier.  If you go to AA meetings for a year and make a reasonable stab the Steps you will wind up soberer.  These are both pretty much tautologies.  (And you get a lot of tautology in AA.)


 * Much of the early attrition can't reasonably be called "failure". It includes, for example, friends and relations giving support to "alcoholics", students in psychology or social work seeing what AA is about, and drunk drivers who are there because a court told them to.  And, "AA is not for everybody".  If someone gives AA a fair shot, and decides is isn't for him, this is not a "failure" of either AA or himself.  PhGustaf (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is not, and cannot be, any way to figure out what happened to those 95%. Some of them sobered up, some stayed drunk, others got moderate, others came back to AA, other got dead.  It's a little like Heisenberg's cat.  Study AA too hard and it stops being AA. PhGustaf (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I had just typed up a long explination on the problems with statistics...but you guys really don't want to hear it. I even came up with great examples...they where falicies and I knew it, but they where good (one proved God was dead based on the above logic).  I just wanted to say I liked Alberts editCoffeepusher (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I get a little suspicious when someone needs long explanations to argue what is obvious. AA has an attrition problem. Plain and simple. AA knows it and wants to do something about it (at least the groups that I am involved with). Ignoring it or trying to argue it away does nothing. People go to one AA meeting and never return. The treatment has failed for those people.Desoto10 (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * People go to one AA meeting and never return. The treatment has failed for those people."  What I would argue and believe that PhGustaf and DavidMack are trying to say, is that the leap from the first sentence to the other contains logical fallacies.  First off the treatment never began for those people, if they only attended one meeting.  That is like saying of a person took one treatment of chemotherapy and never came back that "chemotherapy failed for them."  Also, as many of the reference material states, not everyone who comes to AA is an alcholic.  The treatment didn't fail for them.  I think the most important problem with that survey is that nobody yet has come up with a way to get a random sample of everyone who enters AA - how can you generalize to a population as a whole without a representative sample?


 * Does AA have an attrition problem? There are plenty of people who say "yes."  I would not at this point say "no they don't," but I need to see something besides this one study and some rather unfounded conclusions.


 * I think it's more interesting to look at the dropout rate after 30 days or so, where the widely-replicated graph starts. The 30-day people weren't scared away by the first meeting, and hung around long enough to learn at least a little about AA.  But most of them are gone 335 days later.


 * But going to meetings for 30-days doesn't equate to going through the 12 steps, that is the 'treatment' provided by AA everything else is just support. AA should be judged on what number of people have completed the 12 steps and then gone out and drunk or stayed sober. I like Davidmac's gym metaphor, no gym would be judged harshly if people turned up, stood around for a few hours then left without using the machines, then complained after 30 days that the gym didn't get them fit. That pretty much matches my pattern at the gym anyway. Perhaps AA should be faulted for not pushing the steps hard enough onto newcomers - but then the cult-claimers would have a field day. Mr Miles 17:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * It sure would be convenient if everybody were issued a smart card at his first meeting, and had to swipe it every time he went to another meeting or bought a drink. Best wishes on your research, Lucida.  PhGustaf (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am currently researching the effectiveness of several self-help addiction groups, such as AA and SMART recovery, amongst other methods, so I have a vested interest in making sure research is not misrepresented, and also in seeing that people who come to any one of these groups on WIKI have access to the most accurate information possible if they are coming to make a decision about where to go. I do not want to keep someting out of this article that is true and well-supported by research.  I have concerns over the number of items - favorable and negative - in this article which are in here based upon a single, poorly constructed study.  My biggest concern is the 13th stepping "survey" that I will probably write about as an example of how NOT to conduct research.Lucida.ann (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree Lucida.ann, the 13th stepping survey looks very suspect, I checked the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for AA and it made no mention of 13th stepping, I don't personally think it should be in this article at all, although I'm sure it goes on, it just seems like a kind of slur for the sake of it. Anyway Wiki is about compromise I guess.Mr Miles 16:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not helpful to compare Wikipedia with Britannica -- for one thing, wiki is about 20 times as big. This is partly because Britannica gives less detail about, for example, Buffy and Pokemon.  Yes, it's about compromise, and unfortunately about persistence too.  PhGustaf (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's helpful in the sense that Britannica is edited by people (I presume) who are trained to create such content, that would have an instinct for impartiality which we Wikipedian's wouldn't. I'm also suspicious that the info on 13th Stepping - and the idea of putting it in - came from Orange Papers, I don't think a Britannica person (or any other encyclopedia academic) would be looking there for inspiration!. Anyway for what it's worth, I think it should go, particularly as the only reliable source on the subject is a 'poorly constructed study'. Also, even if an expanded article in Britannica did include 13th Stepping (which I doubt) they wouldn't make the entry as large as the one explaining what meetings are!


 * Why do I always get signed in twice! Mr Miles 16:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)
 * I thought the 13 step section was helpfull, but way too long. is there a way we could just say somthing like "[incert appropriate definition of 13 step 2 sentances or less] 13th steping has been reported in the news media in relation to some individual groups abusing newcomers and a study that occured in England [citation of both midtown and england study] The orgonizational AA responded that it has no governing authoraty over the community."  this would cut it down to about a paragraph, and leave all the relivent citations for anyone who is interested.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The report in the Guardian was that AA had been deciding what to do after reports of sexual abuse from the Police in UK meetings. It didn't mention 13th Stepping (targeting newcomers for dates/sex). It also wasn't a criticism of AA, on the contrary, it showed that AA head office was possibly over-stepping its own remit in trying to take action against the abuse - it was also quite old. The midtown group wasn't 13th Stepping either, it was a cult, and it was only one example whereas 13th Stepping is a type of meeting behaviour. Mr Miles 17:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've convinced myself, have moved the Midtown junk to the cult section. Bit tabloid though isn't it? That Guardian article shouldn't be there either for the reason I gave, but if I remove it PHgustav will call me a 12stepper or something worse! Mr Miles 17:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * Actually, the Midtown group kind of disproves the cult theory in that it was an isolated example, if AA were a cult that kind of stuff would be happening all the time. To use Midtown as cult evidence is like using Harold Shipman to evidence that all doctors are serial killers - which to my knowledge, they're not. Back off Sign-bot Mr Miles 17:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Sandbox
I had an idea and wanted to see how it worked. I created a sandbox on the top of this page (click "test page" at the top). my thinking is that we would be able to copy sections of the article into it, and referance it into the talk page without messing up the mainspace in the prossess. It would be a great way of saying "here is my idea for a change" and then someone elce saying "I tweeked the language to this" etc. then when we come to a consensus (read 2012)(sorry, my smartass chip wasn't disabled) we can simply add it to the article. What do you guys think? will it work, or am I having a crazy moment?Coffeepusher (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't wish to P on your B, but can't we just make edits on the main article, it's kind of quicker. Plus people who just visit and want to make a change won't know about the Sandbox. Also, the bad guys will just vandalise the article anyway. Mr Miles 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * yes we can make changes in the mainspace, and I agree we should. However for major edits it may be a good place to work on things, and it would relieve tension created by the thought that "right now the article looks like this!!!!".  also on a personal note, I feel like I have contributions to make, but I understand my limitations on minor editorial conserns, so I am aprehensive on adding things to the mainspace because I don't trust my own skills.  this way I would feel more comfortable editing and contributing (I understand that it is kinda silly, but that is just a personal problem).Coffeepusher (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, that seems good to me. Mr Miles 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the Sandbox version of the article:

Moderation vs. abstinence

The debate about moderation versus total abstinence is one of the most hotly contested issues in alcohol treatment.


 * line has been removed, I agree with this as the citation doesn't support the statement.

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 (substantial continued use) following an initial lapse (single use).


 * line has been removed, I agree with this as removal makes the section more succinct and it was moved to studies anyway.

Disease of alcoholism

The concept of alcoholism and addiction as a disease is controversial', changed to: The medical community has not agreed that alcoholism is a disease


 * I agree with this as it is a statement of fact rather than opinion.

Other notable criticism

''"Thirteenth-stepping" is a euphemistic term describing the practice of targeting new AA members for dates or sex. In an article, Why Alcoholics Anonymous Is Not Always a Safe Place for Women, chemical dependency treatment providers were advised to be aware of this trend, and that vulnerable people like those with histories of sexual abuse should be referred to single-gender-only groups''


 * The Guardian and Midtown reports have been removed. This is right, as neither report 13th Stepping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would rather have this than the previous huge section, it covers all the same points and the study is linked if people want to read further. I don't agree with it's inclusion though as the study is so tiny how can it be representative? Don't all organisations have these kind of problems, is this really a criticism of AA? If the issue is not a consequence of AA's policy then I don't believe it to be controversial. It's inclusion is also loaded with POV.


 * The cult section is 'Alexander and Rollins' v 'Vaillant' in this version. I agree with this change, but as no-one seriously believes AA is a cult (in the negative 'Wako' meaning of the word), does this really need to be here?


 * Overall I prefer the size of this section (which is now about a quarter of the article rather than half!) with the less important criticisms as bulletpoints


 * What do I do Coffeepusher, change the sandbox version to how I think it should read in accordance to what I've written? I'll do that, let me know if that's not what you expected. Mr Miles 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that would work, right now the entire page is in the sandbox in order to give sandy's edits due consideration (in spite of personal feelings on the matter, just because s/he won't come to the table, their edits have merit...and they shouldn't be outright thrown out just because sandy dosn't understand/respect other editors opinions...but an endurance war should not be rewarded as well...hence the conflict) once we reach consensus on this issue, I don't see the entire page beeing in there, only one or two sections.  so I would say note your changes like this... ...and everyone can see what you have done, that and it will atomaticly be logged in the history page, so we can go back to it later.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was also just thinking that a couple of controversies are not covered in the article:


 * AA is suggesting a spiritual cure for a medical problem (personally I think this is THE controversy around AA)
 * AA is suggesting that lay individuals (as opposed to medically trained individuals) are responsible in providing/teaching the AA recovery programme. particularly relevant to the US where AA is a major part of the governments alcoholism treatment programme.

I'll try and find refs, if we agree these are 'issues'. Mr Miles 14:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are heading here, Mr. Miles. I don't think that there is any issue over whether or not AA is suggesting a spiritual cure, or that AA suggests that non-professional interactions are key to AA-recovery. It is all in the big book. I don't know if you want to open the can-o-worms about whether or not either of these is truly effective, given that we cannot agree on how "effectiveness" is measured (see the attrition section). In any case, that Tonigan fellow has a massive amount of research on spiritual issues on his website that should be of interest to you. Maybe I have missed your point here. BTW, why is the article protected?Desoto10 (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that there is controversy around whether or not AA is offering a spiritual cure, as you say that is a fact clear from AA literature. But rather, I'm saying that, to the science based medical community, a spiritual cure is always going to be highly controversial (almost regardless of efficacy). I'm suggesting that this IS the biggest controversy of AA and should head the list. The non-professional interaction as treatment is controversial for the same reason. How we Wikify that, not sure. Mr Miles 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

OK, I get it now. Since the consensus seems to be that there is no way to judge the effectiveness of AA, given that you cannot randomly assign people to AA or not-AA groups, then I don't know what you can do other than say that modern science rejects the notion of spiritual cures, much like science rejects creationism and faith healing. Your statement about science rejecting spiritual cures regardless of efficacy is a bit disingenuous. If you can show, using scientific methods a causual relationship (not corellative) between AA and outcome, then "science" would accept it. Naturally, scientists would still object to the "spiritual" cause and claim that other factors are at play, but they would still accept the finding. Apparently, we have agreed tha this cannot be done, so I don't know how you are going to proceed. If I can help in any way, please let me know.Desoto10 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm going to think about this one a bit more. Worth noting, I didn't say the medical community had rejected AA - rather, in a way it has embraced AA (the US mandated attendance for example), perhaps because of the lack of viable alternative - just that the medical community finds it controversial. What do you think of the Sandbox version, have any changes Desoto10? Mr Miles 17:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

You are correct in that the medical community HAS embraced AA. I am surprised that there isn't more about this in our entry. I suggested to David Mack that he could probably find some stronger references to the fact that the vast majority of rehabs use AA concepts and facilitate entry into AA.Desoto10 (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We currently have a section with a short paragraph relating to this. A couple more lines should probably be added to explain the mechanics of referral perhaps? With AA receiving 31% of its membership from treatment centres, that would seem right.Mr Miles 21:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I just took a look at the sandbox version. Some parts are pretty good, some parts less so. In our paranoia about citations, most of it appears simply as disconnected sentances with a reference. However I understand why this is. Any non-cited sentance will be pounced upon by one side or the other as being biased. I am a little concerned about the loss of the 13th stepping (maybe I missed where it had been shuffled off to). It is a well known problem in AA and other addiction recovery groups. I am involved with a variety of AA groups that run "in association" with hospital rehab centers and the therapists involved are all aware of and concerned about 13th stepping. I know that some people claim that this sort of thing happens in all groups, but I think that you have to concede that a group of newly recovering alcoholicsa and drug addicts are fundemenatlly different from, say a group of amateur astronomers, or a book club, or the Elks and their meetings. Freshly rehabed people of both sexes are clearly vulnerable and it is well known that they are targeted by more experienced members in the groups.

The third External Link is a bit weird, being a clearinghouse for "faith-based" recovery. It is clearly biased.Desoto10 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree a group of newly recovering alcoholics are particularly vunerable, and I don't think enough is done at meetings/treatment centres to raise members awareness of potential abuse. However, I don't think the 13th Stepping section belongs in an encyclopedia article, it's not Wikipedia's job to provide this information to AA members. You rightly point out that this sort of behaviour (people hitting on other people), happens in all social situations/groups. I think the important questions are: Does it happen any more frequently in AA than in other social groups? Do the policies of the AA organisation encourage it? If the answer is yes to both questions, and reliable sources can be found, it should go in.


 * I agree with your comment about the 3rd external like being weird, I removed it.


 * Do you agree the rest of the content Desoto? By the way, make changes if you have any, it's a sandbox you can go crazy! Mr Miles 22:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I read the sandbox version, and it seems a little less...well, you know how we have been cramming in studies and research and it read like some people crammed in studies and research...there is a lot less of that. there are enough sub pages for AA and 12 steps that we can link the main page to them and forget about it, so I like that feture.  the point is I like it.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, are we good to go with this sandbox version? Any more comments? Mr Miles 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * Done. Mr Miles 09:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Limitations on Research
The following sentence has been here for a while, but reading the paragraph, it does not seem to fit:

"Membership is voluntary and determined by the individual, not by the group, with no requirements, dues or fees, or membership lists.[49] "

If you read the paragraph without it, you won't miss it. The fact that AA membership is voluntary, etc is covered in sections earlier.Desoto10 (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the last sentence of that paragraph:

"AA is effective, but how well and for whom has not yet been adequately researched.[52]"

makes a conclusion that AA is effective, based on a textbook chapter, which is not the subject of this paragraph and is already covered in the lead. This paragraph is about why it is difficult to study AA in isolation of other factors, not whether or not it is effective.Desoto10 (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, and then I changed the Effectiveness section order and added a subheading for Studies. I think that the Limitations on Research should go first followed by the Studies and then end with the comment on attrition.Desoto10 (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that those two sentences don't add anything, and I think your reordering makes sense.


 * The attrition section has a problem in its use of the word "sober". There are certainly people who have dropped out of AA who are sober and people still in AA who are not; all the attrition data shows is how many people still show up at meetings. PhGustaf (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your changes Desoto. Thanks.


 * The data used in the attrition section does not include people who have dropped out of AA, nor does it include previous periods of sobriety in AA prior to 'slips'. The survey data shows length of time sober AND length of attendance of AA meetings (current sobriety), so the use of the word sober is correct. Mr Miles 21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected on "sober". PhGustaf (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you two talking about the same section? There are stats in the Attrition section and different stats in the Demographics section. I think PhGustaf is talking about Attrition and Mr Miles may be talking about Demographics. Then again...Desoto10 (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the source for the attrition section, the famous 5% paper, and noted that it cited "sobriety" rather than "attendance" for members with over a year. I'm really suspicious (and you gotta be suspicious about data based on questionnaires) but that's what it says. PhGustaf (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert War Update
User:SandymcT put her changes back in again, despite thier discussion being unresolved and a note from an admin saying that that action would lead to her being blocked. She also readded or edited the template that displays the nasty padlock, apparently thinking she could extend the protection by five days all by herself. Doesn't work that way, fixed now, so much for good faith on Sandy's part. Come back tomorrow for another thrilling episode. PhGustaf (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:207.194.108.93 and User:207.232.97.13, the IP addresses of the Sockpuppet account:User:MisterAlbert, have been making substantial changes to the article without entering into discussion and just re-adding material rejected by consensus. I hope the regular editors with give this user the same short shrift that User:SandymcT received for the same behaviour. Mr Miles 21:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

13th Stepping
This one needs work. I think that we could just mention that it happens in a sentence, but I believe that we are placing too much weight on what was essentially a pick-and-choose study. In other words, the presented statistics have no value and our putting them in there makes it seem like they do.

OK, that should piss off the anti-AA folks, now let me piss off the pro-AA group ;) The first paragraph:

Mutual support and abuse have both been observed in AA groups.[18] 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.[63]

should be removed as it seems to be an apology for the next paragraph, but really does not make much sense. Look, for every seemingly bad thing about AA, we don't need to provide an apology or a good factor. 13th stepping is well-known and is a bad thing. If anyone can provide real statistics about it, great, or if anyone can find statistics about it happening in other non-addiction groups, fine. As it is, we have very little to go on and I would like to reduce this section to simply state that it occurs, and reference it as best we can.Desoto10 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish we could get beyond "pro-AA" and "anti-AA". Yes, the 13th-step bit is too long, and yes, putting disclaimers on facts that show bad facets of AA is destructive, and makes the article read like a tract.  Readers notice stuff like that.  I'm fine with your suggestions. PhGustaf (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't promote that attitude. Sorry. Desoto10 (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good discussion. The line: Mutual support... should go, however, doesn't it make sense to keep the AA undertakes no external restriction, screening, or vetting of its members line? Isn't that the criticism, or at least that was my take on its inclusion?


 * I've reintroduced the line "Thirteenth-stepping" is a euphemistic term describing the practice of targeting new AA members for dates or sex. with the original reference. I still have an issue with this, which is basically; where is the criticism? Why are we including this? Are we saying: AA has failed to act on this recurring problem in its ranks... ? Or are we saying: One consequence of AA not vetting its members is 13th stepping... Or are we saying: One unfortunate side effect of alcoholism is transference of addition which can lead to sex addiction and 13th stepping... If we include it in this section (and where else would it go?), then we need to say what is being criticised, with ref of course. (And that what is being referenced is actually 13th Stepping). Mr Miles 19:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made those changes in the Sandbox. Mr Miles 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)


 * I think we are just saying that 13th-stepping happens. We don't get to analyze it.  PhGustaf (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But if 13th-stepping is a negative thing, and I presume that is the point of including it in the criticism section, then who is being criticised? Smoking has many negative consequences, smoking happens at AA meetings, so shouldn't that go it too?

Mr Miles--yes, absolutely we would have put in a section on smoking at AA meetings if we were writing this 20 years ago when virtually every AA meeting was one big fogbank of smoke! "AA" realized that this was an issue and, at first, some meetings had smoking and non-smoking sections, then lots of meetings became non-smoking entirley.Desoto10 (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What about dating within AA, has that been criticised, by whom? If not when does 13th-stepping become dating, after a year of sobriety, who says? What is the definition of 13th-stepping? If targeting newcomers is called 13th-stepping and is a real phenomena and a problem, then there has to be referenced from a reliable source (the survey referenced now didn't base it's results on length of sobriety). It is the inclusion of the topic without clear purpose and with a lack of clear definition that makes it POV (and gossip). In my opinion, it's inclusion is not encyclopedic, because as you say Desoto, we have very little to go on. Mr Miles 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a reasonable effort to find reliable references for any kind of statistics about 13th stepping and, except for that Addictions Nursing article, came up with zilch. I know it happens because I have seen it and I know many therapists who know it happens and they watch out for it, but nobody seems to have made any serious effort to document it. Mr. Miles askes the excellent question "does it occur more often in AA groups than in other situations?". My knee-jerk response would be "yes", but I have nothing other than my personal experience to back that up. Given this I suggest paring 13th stepping down to a sentence.Desoto10 (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I guess we can include the line as it stands (as controversy, not criticism). My problem with the study we cite is that is gives a definition of 13th-stepping (targeting newcomers) then the research was not made from interviews with newcomers! I think it was just a couple of researchers trying to grab some headlines, its a shame we're giving it to them! But if that is the consensus. Mr Miles 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I believe what we currently have for 13th stepping is about all we can say. I think it sums up the truth: it happens, but nobody knows how prevalent the practice is. Apparently the March 2008 edition of the AA Grapevine mentions the subject, but I don't want to subscribe.Desoto10 (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Confidentiality
The sentence:

Twelve-step program members are not legally bound to keep confidentiality agreements

makes no sense. What "confidentiality agreements" are we talking about? Do AA members enter into some sort of confidentiality agreement when they attend AA? No, of course not. If they did and they were signed agreements, then they WOULD be legally bound to keep them. I believe that we mean to say that, even though most members are encouraged to maintain confidentiality, there is no legal requirement for them to do so.Desoto10 (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How about:


 * Although a statement is read during meetings that what is said there should remain confidential (the ‘yellow card’), AA members, unlike lawyers or clergy, are not legally bound to maintain confidentiality.


 * Not sure that's is any clearer than your edit Desoto. Mr Miles 09:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Either one is fine with me. Somebody might want a citation for the "yellow card" bit.Desoto10 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody reverted the sentence (by mistake, I am sure). I put Mr Miles' version (without reference to yellow card in this time.Desoto10 (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Disease of Alcoholism
We could probably use a better reference for the fact that there is a controversy than

Alan I. Leshner. "What does it mean that addiction is a brain disease?" Monitor on Psychology (American Psychological Association) Volume 32, No. 5 June 2001

Leshner, at least in the short summary that I linked to in the main article seems to conclude that alcoholism IS a disease. Granted he mentions that there are some who disagree.Desoto10 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We should also aim for consistency. In the AA entry we have:

The medical community has not agreed that alcoholism is a disease

and in the Disease Concept of Alcholism we have:

The disease theory is generally accepted by the medical community, which argues that genetic, neurological and behavioral studies distinguish those with alcohol dependence from problem drinkers.[

Would anybody object to putting the same language in both entries? Any suggestions for what that language should be? Is there a consensus among an identifiable group that it is a disease, and a consensus among another identifiable group that it is not?Desoto10 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the two articles should agree and would add the disease theory entry to the AA one. From what I have read, which isn't much, it seems there is consensus in the medical community that alcoholism is a disease entity, but agreement is not unanimous (a few dissenters like Peele for example). Mr Miles 09:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I made the edit. If somebody changes one, please change the other.Desoto10 (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Reports of Abuse
Reports of abuse are abuse, the media did not mention 13th steppiing so it was not added to 13th stepping but addresses abuse in general, both sexual and other.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Fred


 * Thanks for your edit. I've removed it for the following reasons:


 * You have re-added material that was already discussed and removed from the sandbox version.
 * There is no clear reason for the inclusion of the reports. Wikipedia guidelines remind us that Wiki is not just a collection of facts.
 * You have added a news report from the UK from 2000, and one from the US from last year, and seem to be suggesting a connection between the two, but you have not made that connection clear.
 * Wikipedia offers us some guidelines on the inclusion of news reports: Routine news coverage and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. And Wiki discourages the inclusion of a news report unless it goes beyond the context of a single event, and is in proportion to its importance to the overall topic.


 * You've added this kind of material so many times, can you give a reason why you think it is so important?


 * Also, can you please use the sandbox before making major edits as agreed.


 * Thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Disease of Alcoholism
We mention that AA operates under the assumption that alcoholism is a disease and point out Bill W's contention of "obsession" and "allergy". The allergy part is clearly not a currently viable hypothesis as there is no classical allergic response to alcohol in most alcoholics as far as I know. I think that we need to add that the currently hypothesized physiological mechanisms for alcoholism (disrupted neural pathways) do not coincide with Bill W's, nor, by association, AA's. In fact, AA seems to have a very special definition of alcoholism as a disease because it would be the only disease that could be put into remission by faith.Desoto10 (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting subject. AA literature retains the original text from 1930s when the physical craving aspect of alcoholism was hypothesised as an allergy. Bearing in mind the medical understanding of allergies has moved on significantly since 1930s, but doesn't current medical opinion still maintain that there is a physical component to the disease? I note, AA's website now omits the word allergy, so perhaps AA's GSO no longer attributes the term to alcoholism? Does the current psychological hypothesis for addition not still match (in essence) AA's description of 'obsession'? This is a can of worms because (my neurologist mate informs me), the psychology field of the medical community doesn't agree with the neurology field regarding definitions/causes of addiction anyway.


 * 'AA seems to have a very special definition of alcoholism as a disease because it would be the only disease that could be put into remission by faith' - hardly that special, what about homeopathy! ;)

Mr Miles (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just throwing it out there. Don't get me started on homeopathy!! I was cetainly not arguing against a physical component of alcoholism. In my worldview, there is no mind-body duality at all. Everything is physical. Note that this view does not at all rule out the power of faith (it just fools with the basis). I will work up a short paragraph and pass it around.Desoto10 (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made a bold move and separated the disease concept AA into the main body of the article as it is neither criticism nor controversial (the medical community generally agrees). The criticism is represented by the Stanton Peele line, which I have left in the C&C section. My reason for making this change is to emphasis this section because I believe the disease theory to be quite significant (regardless of my personal agreement with it), and AA was prominent in spreading this idea. I am not at all precious about this change so move it back if you like (and apologies for not using the sandbox, bit short of time today). Mr Miles (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

SPIRITUAL PROGRAM
I am concerned that AA is being referred to in this article as a "religious" organization. Whatever the courts may have determined in the discussed case, the 12 steps are designed to have a spiritual focus. But AA is not a religious organization by any stretch. Its focus on a higher power which is personally defined by the individual in recovery as he sees it does not qualify it as a religious organization. Does this concern anyone else, and how can we clarify that in this context? EyePhoenix (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your consern. however the summery in that section comes from the quote "requiring a parolee to attend religion-based treatment programs violates the First Amendment," the court said. "While we in no way denigrate the fine work of (Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous), attendance in their programs may not be coerced by the state." from a reliable source.  Please note that the only times "religious baced" is used in this article it is to accuratly convay the meaning of the sources provided.  although we personaly may or may not agree with the said quotes, they are accuratly portrayed and are from a WP:RS, and any modification of those quotes comes close to WP:OR.  if you have a better way to phrase this, I would be glad to hear what you would like to say to summerise this section.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The finding of the case agrees with your point that AA does not qualify as a religious organization EyePhoenix, stating:


 * We do not hold that AA/NA is itself a religion.


 * But it goes on to say:


 * We hold only that, for the purposes of reviewing the grant of summary judgment and on the facts alleged, the AA/NA program involved here has such substantial religious components that governmentally compelled participation in it violated the Establishment Clause.


 * Do you think that's clear enough in the article? Mr Miles (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we cover the spiritual nature of AA as well as possible. Nowhere is it claimed that AA is a religion. One would be hard pressed to argue that AA is not religious, however. Indeed, it would be difficult to argue that in the US, AA is not Christian. Most AA meetings begin with a plea to God (not a "higher power", but God) and end with the Lord's Prayer. I am not saying this is bad, just that it is. It has always seemed to me that "spirituality" is just highly generic "religion".Desoto10 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked. Relig* occurs only in the references and in the Court Cases bit.Desoto10 (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, AA's 'spirituality' has a lot in common with the religion Unitarian Universalism, but AA's focus on a specific problem denotes it as a 'spiritual treatment' rather than religion, although I would say AA is more complex than that and involves psychological effects. The confessional aspect of 4th/5th Step is a good example of AA's psychological/spiritual duality. Mr Miles (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You know how we keep having the same discussions over and over on this page?
So, I was reading the Barack Obama talk page, and saw their FAQ box. It would say everyone a lot of time if were kind of summarized the questions and conclusions of common discussions it in. Just click edit, and add to it. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The value of a FAQ is that it stays on top, while the archives get buried. Keep in mind that we have the same discussions over and over because new people come on board.  Just because an argument was "resolved" in the past does not mean that a new person would see it as resolved now.  People also change their minds or learn new stuff.  For example, I suspect that we will never fully resolve AA's spirituality vs. religiosity or the disease concept of alcoholism no matter how many times we discuss them.  But that's OK, Wikipedia articles are always chsnging which is why it is different.Desoto10 (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to hear that you agree with me? -- Scarpy (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a FAQ can be useful. I am less concerned about rehashing old discussions.Desoto10 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Disease of Alchoholism
I suggest that the following sentence be removed, since it has nothing to do with alcoholism as a disease:

"Alcoholics, he argued, can never safely use alcohol in any form at all, since once forming the habit, they cannot break it.[27]"

I wish that somebody with a little more knowledge about philosophy, spiritualism and religion would step in and write a paragraph about the seeming paradox of how AA contends that alcoholism is a disease that cannot be put into remission by willpower, but can be put into remission by faith in a higher power. There seems to be a disconnect there. In fact Bill uses the disease model as a reason why willpower cannot work.Desoto10 (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. In that statement, Silkworth gives a definition (AA's) of addiction. Disease of alcoholism = disease of addiction, the two are the same (to AA, hence there are 12-step programs for other addictions). whether or not he is correct that addicts can never learn to take their substances moderately again, is a separate issue, but the line is a most important statement of AA belief.


 * Personally, I'm becoming more interested in Neurology and the advancements being made there in the area of addiction. For example, the frontal lobe is responsible for controlling the other functions of the brain including its ability to 'multi-task' (shutting down one thought process before it has finished in order to begin another). If the frontal lobe isn't working properly (injury, disease or development reasons), thoughts are not shut down. Neurologists connect this with obsessional thinking - addiction for example (the thought of having a drink enters the addicts mind and he can't let go of it). Meditation is considered a very effective way of exercising the frontal lobe, improving its function and ability to 'let go' of thoughts. Trying to force through conscious effort (willpower) the same closing down of thoughts doesn't work as well. I imagine that prayer and faith might act in a similar way to meditation, without any recourse to the supernatural.


 * From the point of view of this article, AA's model of addiction is a combination of religion/spiritualism (Oxford) and science (Silkworth), a deeper study of AA's model should probably be approached from both sides. Mr Miles (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One other point. There is no disconnect between AA's statement that alcoholism is a disease and AA's recommendation that its spiritual program is the answer. Firstly because the 12-step program is not JUST spiritual, there is sound psychological basis for some of the steps (Step 9, removal of guilt, for example). And secondly AA promotes its program as a solution explicitly because there is no scientific cure for alcoholism currently available: "although there may one day be" writes Bill Wilson. Mr Miles (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to leave it in, just checking. Interesting that you bring up the frontal cortex. I know a neurosurgeon in Toronto who is putting deep brain stimulation electrodes there to alleviate some OCD issues. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't thought of addictions.Desoto10 (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cutter v. Wilkinson
Interesting. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW - I found it while researching for the LifeRing Secular Recovery article. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks Good Ladies and Gents
I was here a few weeks ago - I don't know what changed, but the article is far more solid and continues to evolve. Quality work! Lucida.ann (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Moderation Management
I finished an article on Moderation Management. Would appreciate some of your lively feedback. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up
Finally, someone cleaned up this article. It use to be an advertisement for converting. Good Job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.126.200 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
207.194.108.93/Fred Woofy/207.232.97.13/MisterAlbert/MelvilleSitter has made the usual POV pushing edits which I have removed. Apologies if I removed any genuine editors work, please feel free to discuss the changes.

Thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2008 (UTCYou h

You have removed genuine work. You also weaseled the study section which shows POV on you part, all studies or reference to studies are in the effectivenss section where they should be, not pieced mealed throughout the article --207.194.108.93 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)A guy sitting in the library


 * I have not removed genuine work, you have been banned many times for vandalism. The study section is not POV on my part as I didn't write it. Ironically, it is you, under various sockpuppet accounts, who have been POV pushing on this article for years despite counter arguments from many other editors. You waste our time again and again because of a personal grudge. Absolutely crazy. Mr Miles (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted these edits as I believe they need debate - I believe that putting discussion of AA as a cult under the heading "Religious based" is a misleading and potentially inaccurate interpretation of cult. While AA has religious elements, I would argue that it is not a religious cult, only that it has cultlike elements - the heading should be changed to be more representative.

Secondly, the reference to Vailliant citing Nace is misleading - having checked the source, Valliant does not actually quote Nace directly as I believe this sections suggests - he paraphrases Nace and this citation should be reworded to be more representative of this. The subsequent reference to an earlier work by Vailliant is non specific and I believe it needs to be more detailled (indeed, the two works by Vailliant referred to in this section are but revisions of the same work.) Kipoc (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please ignore my comments above - the edit I was attempting to discuss has been reverted - two POVs exist on the matter obviously. I've left my comments on the page should the topic be revisited again.  Kipoc (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comments were relevant and would have been useful to a discussion, however User:207.194.108.93 will not enter into a discussion but would rather edit war. Incidentally, he did not write the material contained in the section "Religious based", but has pasted back in material already discussed and removed. Mr Miles (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * .13/.93 and his sockpuppets add a lot of original research to the AA articles and use plenty of unreliable sources, but I do admire his spirit and tenacity. We should be taking a lesson from him. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

this is a wiki and people are encourage to add information, information should not be deleted without a discussion. The only edit war is from the idiot who continues to vandalize others contributions --207.194.108.93 (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)a guy at the library doing research...

P.S. Why was the religious base section eliminated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk • contribs)


 * There is an obvious dispute at hand here. To prevent a potential edit war, I've protected the page for two weeks or until such a consensus can be achieved. Pushing a specific agenda is not the way to go about it, and after reviewing the edits, you seem to be doing some housecleaning to remove most negativism of AA; that's simply unacceptable.
 * Discuss it here, reach consensus. And please be more civil with your comments, and refrain from making any more personal attacks against other editors. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note the POV pushing in the studies selected to discuss in the AA section and those left out. A review of the Natural History of Alcoholism 1983, and The Natural History of Alcholism 1995, Vaillant changed his results. "The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited" page 191 Dr. Vaillant clearly stated that he counted dead people as "sober" and  that improved the  numbers from the 1983 edition. Also those who cateqorized  "in stable remission" only needed  to be sober for 51 weeks of each year to qualify as "sober for 3 years".

I believe this should be taken into account when reviewing Vaillants work. Also left out of the discussion on the AA page are studies by Alan Marlatt and Brandsma. It skewers the studies into a POV therefore the others should be added for balance or all of them removed and left in the "Effectiveness Section".

This is a wiki and information pertaining to other studies by Alexandeer Rollins etc should be left in. The idea is to provided information and information that is not favourable to AA is constantly being deleted from this page. --MisterAlbert (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC

Vaillant in the Natural History of Alcholism Revisitedp.266
Quote: In a balanced review Nace 1992 has examined some facets of AA that attracts criticism. First because of its idealogical nature members are not encouraged to take a scientific or dissionate approach to the study of its effiacy. Personally based loyalty to the ideology of AA comes into conflict with the empiricism of the research community. Second AA does not hold opinions, individual members like any partisan group can be extremely and erreonously opinionated. Third, AA certainly functions as a cult and indoctrinates its members in ways common to cults the world over. The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited, George E. Vaillant, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995, pages p. 266

--MisterAlbert (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments under Regligious Based (one section up) regarding Vailliant & Nace - the two sections are essentially linked in my opinion and this could be double handling. Kipoc (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is up for discussion:

Also note Vaillants comments concerning treatment of which AA attendance was part of:

After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease. Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling. The Natural History of Alcoholism: Causes, Patterns, and Paths to Recovery, George E. Vaillant, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983, pages 283-285.

the same inforamtion can be found in  The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited, George E. Vaillant, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995, pages 349-352.

--MisterAlbert (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Was this a result of a particular study conducted by Vailliant or was it a seperate study by another researcher(s)? Is there further information on it to clarify the reference to death rate, the sample size, what the compelling evidence is?  Kipoc (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. This article relies too much on summarizing Vailliant summarizing other research. We should be working with the original studies when possible. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In short Vaillant returned to his original study and altered the results. He included those dead as now in stable remission he also altered criteria for the year abstinence to produce a different result.

My advice is to take a look at this and open it up for discussion.

If you want to quote Vaillant direct Vaillant views AA as a religion and it indocritnates like many religions. This can be found in the Natural History of Alcoholism 1983. It was posted originally but deleted.

--207.194.108.93 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)a guy sitting in the library

A critic by Peele should be added to show more light on the Subject of Vaillants study. "Dr. Vaillant reports that 95 percent of the patients treated at his clinic, where A.A. attendance was compulsory, relapsed following treatment. After two and eight years, they showed no greater progress than comparable groups of untreated alcoholics. In acknowledging this, Dr. Vaillant confronts the dilemma of how to justify his faith in the efficacy of therapy. His resolution is to encourage the therapist not to interfere with the natural healing process."

http://www.peele.net/lib/vaillant.html

--207.194.108.93 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)a guy sitting in the library

Kurtz sees it as containging religious components and specifies what they are, nace sees the cult like eleements, and Vaillant states it is a religion and cites Nace. Rolling and Alexander see it as a cult. Hence there is agreement more or less on this issue. This is a wiki and hence the information should be posted for the readers benefit. Whether AA want to view itself as relgious not spirtual is not a matter of concern for the wiki. --207.194.108.93 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)a guy sitting in the library

Vaillant change the criteria and altered the results
It appears Vaillant changed the criteria and reduced the number of weeks sober without a drink to qualify for a total period of 3 years sober which increased the number that quailified,  all one needed was 51 weeks out the 52 without a  drink to meet the criteria of three years sobrieity. He appears to have  included those people who were no longer alive, who had  passed into the stable remission caterqory,  thereby increasing the number of people in  stable remission. Check out page 191 The Natural History of Alcoholism revisited 1995.

--Fred Woofy (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

POV
Would be the inclusion of a study for special mention such as Project Match which did not study AA, unlike The Brandsma study which did. Vaillant sits on the Board of Trustees of Alcoholics anonymous and giving special reference to his viewpoints certainly is POV.

POV is also reflected in the ommission of vital information and the small details that paint a more complete picture.

It is amazing editors  such as Mr. Miles forgot to mention that Wilson was being treated with drugs when he underwent his conversion!!!! -- Fred Woofy (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Fred Woofy


 * It would be much easier for me to discuss the article with you if you could stick to using one account -- Scarpy (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That, and it would also be useful if the discussionw as not as scattered as it is - I find it very confusing to follow the threads and to understand the links between them. A bit of reflection and synthesis of the debate about changes would be useful. Kipoc (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Separate the two Issues of Religious in Nature and Cult Similarities
AA and its relgious aspects were not only described by Edgar Kurtz in "Not God"  but it goes back to the tensions  tension between  of  two original but separate groups of early AA, the cleveland Group which grew out of Akron and New York group. Certainly there is room for discussion in this page of Edgar Kurtz observations drawn from the History of these two groups. Parts of the book can be read online with a search in Google Books."

A separate section can be used to allow for the Alxexander and Rollins study into cult behavior and Dr. Arthur Cains observations and one to discuss the religous based aspects of the program taken from the court documentation and that of Edgar Kurtz.

--MisterAlbert (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Mister Albert


 * Ernest -- Scarpy (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right, Ernest Kurtz.

However, Edgar Nace's observations could easily be added to the observatons of Alexander and Rollins. --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. If you can confuse Fred, Albert and Melville, I totally see how you could have made a slip here. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious Based section
Below is the text proposed for re-insertion by the multi-account user 13/Melville/Albert/Fred/93. I have added his version to the sandbox Test Page above and suggest we make changes to take in order to find agreement before changing the main page - this worked previously and avoided edit wars.

Dr. Arthur H. Cain, in 1963, examined AA as a religion or cult: it was his view that the term "sobriety" has taken on a religious flavor and thought AA members over-rely on dogmatic slogans and became overly dependent on the group. In 1985 two sociologigists, Alexander and Rollins measured AA against criteria developed by Robert Jay Lifton, in his work on Thought Reform and concluded “AA uses all the methods of brain washing, which are also the methods employed by cults,” George Vaillant, who sits on the Board of Alcoholics Anonymous Trustees, in his book The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited cites Edgar P. Nace ,1992: "AA certainly functions as a cult and systemically indoctrinates its members in ways common to cults the world over " though its negative effects are benign in comparison with other cults he has known. Vaillant in an earlier much eariler written work in 1983 described AA as a relgion. Ernest Kurtz holds alcoholics anonymous contains religious aspects, in that it holds both the pietist belief that salvation is an end to human alienation and the "humanist belief that God appears through people and their activities, these two attitudes have shaped religious in America and appear in Alcholics Anonymous.


 * Just a reposting of my thoughts on the above section - I believe that putting discussion of AA as a cult under the heading "Religious based" is a misleading and potentially inaccurate interpretation of cult. While AA has religious elements, I would argue that it is not a religious cult, only that it has cultlike elements - the heading should be changed to be more representative. Secondly, the reference to Vailliant citing Nace is misleading - having checked the source, Valliant does not actually quote Nace directly as I believe this sections suggests - he paraphrases Nace and this citation should be reworded to be more representative of this. The subsequent reference to an earlier work by Vailliant is non specific and I believe it needs to be more detailled (indeed, the two works by Vailliant referred to in this section are but revisions of the same work.)  Kipoc (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then the best way to address it is cult like elements in the heading and repost. --207.194.108.93 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)a guy sitting in the library


 * Issues I have are:


 * * The section is critical and if it were included would belong in the section allocated to criticism.


 * * The heading doesn't make sense.


 * * The section contains two unrelated arguments 1. AA is a cult, 2. AA is a religion. If these points were found to be notable and backed by reliable sources they should be presented in two separate sections.


 * * The argument that AA is a religion is already covered in the Court Section (Supreme Court found AA is not a religion but has religious components).


 * * The argument that AA is a cult, falls into the category of conspiracy theory and is unsuitable for an encyclopedia (in that the argument is just not serious enough).


 * * Alexander and Rollins attempts to apply Lifton's techniques could be applied to many mainstream organizations and render them 'cults' (Wright, K). A&R's work hasn't been read by 13MAF93 either, just appropriated from other sources, so it would need to be verified.


 * * I agree with Kipoc re Vailliant/Nace.


 * * The Cheever quote is confusing.


 * Thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mr Miles on most points - The suggestion that this section should be put under the criticism section is valid. I believe Mr Miles is correct in his assertion that there are two separate arguments - I'm not entirely convinced that a decision by the court should eliminate a brief section about religion in the criticism section, however I can see that POV.  I'd personally have to do my own checking on the veracity of the sources Mr Miles is debating (A&R), but that's an aside.


 * The only point I disagree on, at least for the moment, is the assertion that the argument that AA is a cult or has cult like elements is a conspiracy theory and not worthy of inclusion. I personally don't think it is however from a NPOV perspective I think that if the section can be written with reference to reliable and appropriate sources, then it should be included.  The rejection of it as a conspiracy theory doesn't appear valid to me at present as there seems to be enough sources discussing it...  I'm definitely open to spending more time looking closely at those sources and looking for others to determine their reliability and bias (or lack thereof). Kipoc (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is most certainly plenty peer-reviewed literature documenting some specific things about AA that are cult-like, but nothing that says it is a full-blown cult with any kind of scholarly reputation. I could see a enough material for a sub-section like "cult-like practices" under criticism would not be terrible. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would add that I think peer-reviewed literature documenting some specific things about AA that are cult-like would be notable, but do those sources use the term 'cult-like'. A question might be, can something be 'cult-LIKE'? Isn't an organization either a cult or not a cult? AA members are certainly capable of being dogmatic (although that may be argued by some as being necessary, I guess Vaillant does that). Kipoc, your statement that you don't believe AA is a cult but some statements (in the literature/meetings) could be interpreted in as cult-like, I've heard many times and I agree myself (although I'd probably use the term dogmatic or doctrinal for the reason just given), our challenge is perhaps to communicate that without adding fuel to cult-conspiracy theory which Scarpy pointed out has no scholarly basis. Agree, discussion on expanding the religion/spiritual debate. Mr Miles (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting question, but it's really not for us to decide (at least, not on wikipedia). If the reliable sources use the terminology "cult-like" then we cite them as saying so. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how there is a cult conspiracy? Please elaborate on what is a cult conspiracy?

The information I have provided has come from a variety of sources.

The Alexander Rollins research state in their findings they suggest AA is a cult, Vailliant suggests in 1983 it is a relgion and in his book in 1995 cites Nace who states it is like any cult it indocrtinates. The courts state that AA engages in relgious activity and prothelization. Susan Cheevers acknowledges AA is relgious and cites Kurtz. The courts point out AA mentions God 12 times. It is simply gathering information and presenting it. There are enough reliable sources to open up a chapter. Bill Mahers has said all religions are cults. --Fred Woofy (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, my response here is twofold-


 * 1) Being religious, religious activity and utilisation of religious elements does not make an organisation a religion - Schools (religious, state or otherwise) that have religion subjects or utilise religious elements are not a religion... neither is Alcoholics Anonymous.  Using this evidence to declare Alcoholics Anonymous a religion is inaccurate and misleading.


 * 2) Bill Maher (assuming you are talking about the comedian and that Mahers was a typo) is most certainly not a valid source in this instance in my opinion - I don't believe that he has NPOV or that he would represent the scholarly source needed to make the connection you are trying to.Kipoc (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bill Maher comment was humor, I am fully aware he is not a reliable source. Alcoholics Anonymous is not a school. It is involved in religious activities as defined by the courts, it engages in prayer, it mentions God,  It invokes God {however one defines him} to be active in one's life , to remove character defects and the courts have ruled it is engaged in  Proselytism. In fact a more detailed description of religious based as defined by the courts shoul be added under court rulings. --Fred Woofy (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Scouting involves religious activities, engages in prayer, mentions God, and is involved in Proselytism. Is Scouting a religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Picking up on Scarpy's earlier point that it is the reliable sources which decide content and not us, I don't really agree with that. I could, for example, base an article around Wikipedia authorized reliable sources which state AA not only saves all alcoholics but could solve many of the world's problems. Conversely, I could dig up other reliable sources which portray AA as an abusive and parasitic cult. AA is neither of those two opinions, and as editors we do get to choose. To answer 13MAF93's question what do I mean by 'cult conspiracy', I mean an attempt to portray AA as the second of those two opinions when it is clearly not. And I use the term 'conspiracy theory' because, like it or loath it, AA is (effectively) promoted by health authorities and legal systems around the world, no cult ever has been. To suggest AA is a (Jonestown like, or even Scientology like) cult is to mislead the readers of this Wiki.


 * The real-world AA has it's critics, who make valid points about zealous dogmatic members and overly doctrinal aspects to parts of its literature, in my opinion it is this which should be discussed in the article - as should some counter opinions of the 'alcoholics are deeply troubled and need strict guidance in order to recover' kind. Attempts on this Wiki to promote the AA is a cult POV will just lead to edit wars. What do you all think? Mr Miles (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly I never said AA was a school - I was using another example based on your argument - regligious activity, etc does not constitute a religion - that's the point I was trying to get across. Secondly, noone is suggesting that AA is at the level of cults you mentioned, Mr. Miles.  AA has religious elements and cult like elements - I think that to some degree that has been accepted even on a simplistic level.  If they are considered criticisms as has been suggested, then put them under the criticism section.  Just reading through the last two comments from you both, it is obvious (and was before through the edit wars) that there are two completely opposite POVs here being debated and, like it or not, a compromise has to be made.  What elements of each others arguments are you both willing to concede have some validity?  If we can determine that and decide what can be added (or removed) on that basis then we are at least one step closer.  Kipoc (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to re-state my earlier point that there is no such thing as 'cult-like' - an organization is either a cult or it is not. The POV I am opposing is attempting to claim AA is a cult, not that AA has 'cult-like' elements. I don't believe AA is a cult any more that the Boy Scouts is a cult, and yes, that is my POV. Mr Miles (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to buy into the idea that AA is promoted by legal and health professionals around the world, considering the number of court cases in the U.S. around this very issue. I do wish you would provide references, if this is true. In my part of the world I have asked four qualified, licensed, psychologists { two with Masters degress },about their view on alcholism and the disease theory. Well all four were in consensus, they view  alcohol usuage as a choice.

The purpose of the Wiki is to provide information, not to restrict it, Do I hold with Alexander Rollins that AA is a cult, no, but I do hold with the idea it has a number of characteristics of a cult or relgion in that it indoctrinates. Yes I do. That is the point being made by Vaillant and Nace, it indoctrinates. So I suggest rather than approaching it as a cult. The article should contain some inforamtion regarding the "Indoctrination process". --Fred Woofy (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC) --Fred Woofy (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen a editor advocating a prevalence of AA promotion among professionals. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor Mr. Miles, scroll on up and you will read this:

"And I use the term 'conspiracy theory' because, like it or loath it, AA is (effectively) promoted by health authorities and legal systems around the world, no cult ever has been. " --207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, I disagree with Miles. You could not dig up enough reliable sources to write articles concluding that AA will solve the worlds problems or that it is a parasitic cult. I don't know the percentage of professionals that are "advocates" but I'd imagine the statistics are similar to self-help groups. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The study section needs a revision. First off equal mention should be given to Brandsma et al, as well as Marlatt {disease theory} A revision of that section that outlines some of the other study findings in short sentence form rather than only a special mention  of Vaillant and the controversial study called Project Match. --Fred Woofy (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's like pure energy. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ...or pure chaos :)


 * "I find it hard to buy into the idea that AA is promoted by legal and health professionals around the world, considering the number of court cases in the U.S. around this very issue." The court cases exist because in the US individuals ARE mandated to attend AA meetings, the court mandating process is an (effective) promotion of AA. AA receives 11% of its membership by this promotion by the courts. The same is true of the medical profession which regularly 'perscribes' AA attendance. What other cult receives membership in this way? Mr Miles (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Miles..United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on this issue in September 2007, and clearly stated  that a   parol officer could be sued to ordering attendance at AA meetings, The survey you are citing from AA was undertaken in the year of 2004. I have added the above information to the section "Court Rulings" to avoid further confusion. --207.194.108.93 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 13MAF93, in the US, AA receives 11% of its membership by promotion by the courts, the 2007 case will not change that. Actually the 2007 finding reiterates the earlier Warner v Orange County case which stated that AA programme was 'famously successful'. So, as I said, the US legal system activly promotes AA, which it is unlikely to do if AA were a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs) 12:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've changed 'upheld the earlier decision and went a step further stating' to 'stated', to make it more concise and because the line reads like a lay person giving an analysis of the legal consequences of that decision - unless a quote from a lawyer explaining the consequences can be found, let's leave opinion to the experts.

I've changed instances of 'religious spiritual' to 'spiritual', as it reads better, the two terms are interchangable in this context and as already discussed the AA program contains religious elements, rather than being a religion.

I've added the words 'what he believed to be' in front of Bill W's spiritual experience, because as User 13MAF93 spotted, it wasn't NPOV before.

I've removed the extended piece about the Belladonna treatment from the (supposedly) concise version of the history, that is a minor detail, already covered in the main History article, why does it need to be here?

Please be careful not to add unnecessary spaces all the time, else the article will look a mess.

- Mr Miles (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that two AA historians, Pittman  in " AA the Way it Began "  who went into great depth on Wilson and this cure, and much  of the same information was given by  Robert Thompson "Bill W", makes it important. Your continued harrassement of editors by deleting their contributions to make this article fit to your POV has given rise to a  number of edit wars Mr. Miles. I have added it back. The fact Seicer had left it intact when he locked down the page and that is good enough for me. --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said in the above post, that line is a minor detail in the whole AA history, it may be notable to the full history but is given undue weight here. I'm changing your revert back to my edit for that reason. I'll ask again, why do you think this line is so significant that 5% of the whole history needs to be dedicated to it? Mr Miles (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In the past You have deleted the entire study section leaving only two studies intact, those Pro to AA attendance, a separate page had to be created to contain the information , otherwise they would have been lost to the wiki. Your POV has been constant through the continued ongoing deletion of other editors contributions. You have been cited by Seicer for this, yet you continue to do so. The fact is a number of AA historians have made it clear {Pittman, Thompson, Cheever}    made that Wilson  was treated  The Bella Donna cure, when he had his spirtual awakening. Pittman went into incredible detail and research on this point and it warranted a number of pages in his book. Wilson, himself, stated  he was given the Belladonna cure, Check out Alcholics Anonymous 1984 Pass It on.

This is the Wiki, this is the place for facts. This fact has appeared again and again in AA history. To state he went to the hospital, what hospital, Towns hospital. Towns hospitqal is significant in each and every AA historians account of AA history, yet to continue to delete.

It appears you are on the Wiki to sell AA, and you do it by trying to control and restrict what other editors can and cannot post here. You have been called on this by Seicre once when he locked down the page. --MisterAlbert (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll restate what I've said before, that line is a minor detail in the whole AA history, it may be notable to the main history article but is given undue weight here. I'm changing your revert back to my edit for that reason and remind you of the 3R rule. I'll ask once again, why do you think this line is so significant that 5% of the concise history needs to be dedicated to it? Mr Miles (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, let's get some perspective here - The edit warring has taken off in force once again since the page went unprotected. I'm going to break down the most recent edits into sections - can you both just give one considered response to what I'm saying and we'll see if there can just be a consensus? Items in bold were added by Mr Albert and reverted by Mr. Miles and are essentially what we're dicussing. Please try and keep your feedback limited to those specifics.


 * Wilson was treated at Charles B. Towns hospital
 * - To me, this edit seems fine. The information added is minor but provides detail.


 * Silkworths care, It was under Silkworths care that Wilson was administered the The Belladonna Cure which induces hallucinations.
 * - I think this edit may be useful but it needs to be trimmed. As it stands, it potentially misleads the reader into linking hallucinations with the spiritual awakening mentioned in the next line.  If it is to be kept within the article, I suggest it should read "During his stay in hospital, Wilson was administered the Belladonna cure by Silkworth."  Leave out references to hallucinations, etc. as such descriptions are irrelevent here but there administration of the cure may not be.  When you look at the trimmed down version I've suggested though...  is it really necessary?  Personally, I'd say absolutely not - it has no bearing on the topic imo - but if it does have to be in the article, that's my suggested phrasing.


 * He laid claim to a spiritual experience versus While in the hospital, Wilson underwent what he believed to be
 * - Arguing over semantics here in my opinion - both suggest it's his own personal belief and noone elses. While in the hospital gives location but that's about it for this edit.


 * and Smith also found sobriety through the Oxford group religious practices and spiritual means
 * - According to referenced links in wikipedia (and thats as far as I've personally gone here), the bolded section appears more or less correct. To remove some of what the controversy appears to be, my suggestion would be to make the line "and Smith also found sobriety through spiritual means including Oxford Group practices."

Feedback please? Kipoc (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job checking the references. I made changes as per Kipocs suggestion. Dropped the hallucinations. Pittman elaborates on that. Added in utilizing the Oxford group practices. Smith was very involved with the Oxford group. --Fred Woofy (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Pittman did careful research on this, he even gave the weather conditions on the day Wilson re-admitted himself for the fourth time. It was while under the influence of the Belladonna, Wilson had his spiritual awakening, yes it does matter. Robert Thompson in his book "Biill W" goes to some to great length discussing this very issue.

Saying that Me, you or anyone went to a hospital and had a spiritual awakening, and failing to report that me, you or anyone had been administered over a 50 hour period a drug cocktail containing  deliriants, is sidestepping the issue. Aldous Huxley had spiritual experiences,  he had them in California, can you imagine wiking that information and leaving out the fact his  experiences  were induced by LSD!

Did you ever wonder why Wilson would embrace a  drug, such as LSD. so enthusiatically, to even promote it and encourage other AA members to take it. He obviously had an accptance of drugs as a means of ehancing a spiritual experience. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We all agree what you're saying is true. But let's be adults, as interesting as the "OMG! BILL WILSON TOTALLY TOOK LSD AND WAS ON BELLDONNA WHEN HE HAD HIS SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE" stuff is, it's pretty old-hat now; if it's relevant anywhere it's in the History of Alcoholics Anonymous article, not in this one. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, lets be adults "CraigAlbert/Scarpy", it is relevant, you are speaking of the founder of AA, who laid claim he underwent a spirtual awakening ,

the experience went much like this: All at once I found myself crying out, "If there is a God, let Him show himself! I am ready to do anything, anything!" Suddenly the room lit up with a great white light. I was caught up in an ecstasy which there are no words to describe. It seemed to me in my mind's eye, that I was on a mountain and that a wind not of air but of spirit was blowing. And then it burst upon me that I was a free man. Slowly the ecstasy subsided. I lay there on the bed, but now for a time I was in another world, a new world of consciousness... and I thought to myself, "So this is the God of the preachers!" A great peace stole over me... Alcoholics Anonymous Comes Of Age (1957), William G. Wilson, page 63.

According to Pittman this experience took place on the second or third day of his drug treatment., Wilson himself describes he suffered delirium tremens. Why do you object so? You would think in the interest of a good wiki you would be horrified that Miles deleted the entire study section, but not so. You did little to balance the study section, WHERE MILES deleted all the studies but the two that favored AA. A new page perserving the study section had to be added by another person. All you did was change the name to make it the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous from Effectiveness of Twelve Steps and then add later how poorly written it was all the while allowing POV  to remain unchallenged on this very page. It took a review by Seicer to realize you were blocking information.

And now this, more facts are added and you object again. Do you have a problem with facts, after all it is only one line and it is true and factual. So let it stay, BE AN ADULT. --Fred Woofy (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Miles deleted copyrighted material that you keep reposting. I've done nothing to "balance" the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous, as I haven't really edited it. I did suggest correcting the title as nearly all of the content was AA-specific (most twelve-step groups are not even for any kind of substance abuse recovery), an admin agreed with me and changed it.


 * Just because something is a fact doesn't mean it belongs in this article. Things about the History of Alcoholics Anonymous should be in the article about the History of Alcoholics Anonymous.


 * Everytime I read any of the AA-related articles, they strike me as horrible embarrassments to wikipedia. But, working on any of the AA articles is like hearding cats and I rarely have the patience for it. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the last sentiment. I can't say anything more really and to be honest I don't think I can do more to try and gain consensus at this stage.  Kipoc (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you two joined in, you seem to have got my point that I think the Belladonna line IS notable to the main history article but is given undue weight in the concise history of this article. With regard to consensus, Kipoc's suggestion has my vote too, so I guess we're all in agreement. Happy days. Mr Miles (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Horrible Embarrassement!!! Horrible embarrassment CraigAlbert/Scarpy was your most recent attempt to delete further information from being added to the History of Alcholics anonymous. Since Seicer intervened and called you on your obstruction and your removing of material, I wasn't able to add anything without coming under attack. The History of Alcoholics has been greatly improved, with details given to Dr. Bob and Bill Wilson's involvement with the Oxford and the influences that the Oxford in the developement of their religious/spiritual cure. I add religious spiritual because Miles has now taken the position religious and spiritual are one and the same. Certainly my editing has had faults, and they can be pointed out, but nothing justifies the ongoing abuse of editors and their contributions by your aggressive and unfounded deletions, that Seicer picked up on and called you out on. Embarrassesment was you allowing Miles to POV with introductry chapter with study info while deleeting anything that could pose another viewpoint. Embarrassement was leaving the Vailliant study intact without even addressing at how he altered or fudged the results. or quoting his viewpoint that he sees AA as a religion. I will be adding Vaillants viewpoints as to how AA indoctrinates. After all CriagAlbert/Scarpy one cannot be like Dick Cheney, on the Wiki one does not  cherry pick information to support a POV while deleeting information from the same quoted /referenced source would bring more light to the situation.--Fred Woofy (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fred, I don't understand this - It's very emotive and I'm left slightly unsure of exactly what you are going to add, where you are going to add it and the basis upon which you are going to add it. I'm not sure if you are talking to Scarpy, Mr. Miles or to the 'editors' causing the 'ongoing abuse'. Please take a brief while to consider your position, what the article needs and what you are going to add to the article.  After this, it may be useful to type up what you propose changing the article to (like I did earlier) and post it here for discussion and we may be able to come to a consensus - it would save the edit wars occuring on the article. Kipoc (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think I've touched any of these articles in months, and I don't know who Seicer is. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My last edit wasn't waring (adding back DavidMack's intro line), although I'm sure I will be accused of it. That endline to the intro and summary of issues raised in the article was carefully constructed by one of the other regular editors to this article and had consensus among the others for many months. It has been removed sneakily, under the cover of a barrage of changes. Removing it again with the lame excuse 'removing pov', simply will not do. Come to the discussion pages, make your point and if your point doesn't get agreement, accept it like a grown up. Mr Miles (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Other notable criticism section
AA as religion and AA as overly dogmatic. I've had a quick stab at addressing these two (separate) issues using the existing references. I think we should probably find a more up to date one than the Arthur H. Cain. What do you think? Mr Miles (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC

REMOVED POV in the opening paragraph, attrition rates being high is covered in its own section and doesn't need a special mention and the issue of effectiveness is covered in its own page. If the information if returned then I suggest we balance it with the with information I have obtained from Stanton Peele.

What I am going to add is a section that allows for the differences in  viewpoints regarding  AA's indoctrination process. It is a section that will take into account the observations of Vaillant, Nace, Alexander and Rollins etc. Whether I agree with them or not is not the issue.

Now as far as AA being a religion under the criticism section, I disagree. I plan to add information in the Court Ruling section. What constitutes relgious based? In a brief paragraph I will be adding some information as to what activities and wording in the program that the courts detemined to be religious.

Source Material will be from 1996, DAVID GRIFFIN, APPELLANT, v. THOMAS A. COUGHLIN III, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, ET AL.. RESPONDENTS. In this case there was an extensive extensive review of all of AA's literature that aided the court in coming to its decision. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Second Circut, 1998 Robert Warner Vs Orange County.

--Fred Woofy (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RE Removing Mr. Miles Edits

This edit I removed was this one:

"Although not a religion, AA has been described as having an issue which secular recovery groups have attempted to address.  The reference cited was from the Inoyue Vs Kemna court case. AA being religious based, may not be seen as a criticism by those who are religious.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6FA63303852632AC8825734F0059D078/$file/0615474.pdf?openelement Inouye vs. Kemna page 11889],

AA having substanitial religious components has already been discussed in Court Rulings and what constitutes Religious components as per various court rulings has been spelt out in a short sentence.

I removed Mr. Miles edit, it is not congruent with the referenced  material. It is totally out of context with the reference source. The reference sourced is a court case, that ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, even though it has not ruled on AA being religious it  has ruled that AA is religous based yes, but secular recovery programs addressing  this issue, is not tied into the reference.


 * Rewritten, with additional reference for secular recover program (SMART), which makes clear that a secular approach is one of its main differences with AA. This seems to me to be an unsensational approach to raising the point that AA has been criticised for its religious content. I've added the ref from the Court case section. It might make sense to merge my point with the whole Court section (probably condensing it) and bringing it under criticism. We don't want a whole list of court cases which mention AA, very boring for the reader.


 * This line has been added "Eric Berne who developed the theory of Transactional analysis in his book Games People Play (book) stated that lack of newcomers to function on caused an entire chapter in AA to empty out with members resuming drinking. There was no way to continue the game without people to rescue". What does this mean and how is it criticism? It reads like trivia right now and needs its point stating more clearly.

Mr Miles (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A sentence has been deleted and reverted, a sentence that describes in a brief sentence how various courts determined what consitutes religious components or religious based. Two more references have been added. If the reader wants to explore further, he can do so. Miles reasoning for removal does not stand. "Boring to the reader" is little more than POV, and POV creates EDIT WARS. --MisterAlbert (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fred, the alternate account identifier is on your talk page(s) to let other editors know that 207.232.97.13 and 207.194.108.93 are your IP addresses (which you regularly edit under). And to let other editors know that you have two other accounts - MisterAlbert and MelvilleSitter. This will avoid any confusion, for example someone mistakenly thinking that you are more than one person. Hope that explains why I added the identifiers to your talk page, if you want them removed I suggest you delete the MisterAlbert and MelvilleSitter accounts and always sign in before you edit. Thanks.


 * And Fred, you seem determined to get you own way and make the article read how you want it to with no room for anyone else. There are a couple of problems with this. Firstly, you're ignoring the collaborative idea behind Wikipedia, a core concept and entirely necessary for a bunch of amateurs to succeed in compiling a comprehensive encyclopedia. Secondly, your grasp of English is poor and, because you are unwilling to collaborate, other editors will be reluctant to help you, which means the article will read badly. A shame, good luck. Mr Miles (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Account 93 is a lbrary, and considering the thousands of users in the library, I would be careful, for what you attribute to one editor.


 * So Fred/Albert/Melville, are you stating that some of the edits being made from IP address 207.194.108.93 are not being made by you? Mr Miles (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Miles, but if you look at the history of edits, you blew off most of the studies, a separate  page  had to to be created  to contain the studies and deal with the damage done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcoholics+Anonymous&diff=197618867&oldid=197618528

Your determination to keep off the page studies that were not favorable to AA, caused an edit war, and a misuse of the three revert rule causing another editor  to be banned for reverting your deletions. For this reason Administrator Seicer called you out, saying a  housecleaning anything that was negative of AA, was simply  unacceptable.

Then you complain other editors are determined to get their own way!!!!! You talk of collabartion? So is collabartion on this page soley undetaken to keep anything off that you you may  construe as negative???? Poor English is the reason for another editors refusal to help???? Your pattern of editing on the Stanton Peele page is not a collabartion, in my humble opion, and I use this as an example, since you have brought up collabartion. Miles, a word of advice, "denial " is not a river in egypt. --MisterAlbert (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Transactional analysis point
This copy has been added:


 * Eric Berne who developed the theory of Transactional analysis in his book Games People Play (book) describes The Transactional Analysis of Drinking. The role of organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous, the people in it assume the role of the rescuer and without new members to involve themselves with, there was no way to continue the game, resulting in an entire chapter of AA losing all of its members. .[70]

Please explain its relevance to the criticism section, else I'm going to delete it. Thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It is very simple. Without newcomers to function on, save, rescue work with, the game collapses with old members leaving. It is Berne's observation. --207.194.108.93 (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So, who is being criticised and what is the criticism? Mr Miles (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

the discussion page
Mr Miles I do believe we first should discuss what could or should be deleted before there is a full scale edit war. Your ravage attacks on this page are at times a little overwhelming.

I have done my best to establish a compromise. The Alexander & Rollins material could possibly be construed as criticism, hence I have moved it to the criticism section.

The George Vaillant comments have been placed under tactics. I do think there could be more added to this section.

The Court Decisions have been outlined with a brief description as per relgious based, though AA is not deemed to be a religion, and the last court decision in 2007 that upholds the earlier court decisions and its further ruling on parol officers can now be sued for ordering AA attendance. All of it neatly referenced.

The cultural Identity section is a cut and paste from the 12 step program  page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-step_program#Cultural_identity

To separate issues, to provide clarity and understanding, to diminish confusion,  and to prevent the editing wars. The cultural identity section has been separated, one into Cult and the other into cultural identity. The referenced work being cited is that  of  Rollins and Alexander in which  they   defined  AA as a cult using a specific set of  criteria. The other referenced material disputes "rollins and alexander" specifically by naming them and discussed AA ideology. Read the referenced material.

Cutuaral Identity has its own section with the reference material discussing that issues.

Stanton Peele has been added back into criticism in particular his views on AA and twelve steps.

He is also mentioned by name in the "disease vs moderation " section where his reference "The diseasing of America " is a book where his focus is on recent studies that dispute the disease model as well as  disputing  the claims of the  multi million dollar  treatment industry i.e.  rehabs.

--Fred Woofy (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the talk page is invaluable. An explanation of my amends follows:


 * The Stanton Peele line needs removing. His personal opinions are not notable. 'A leading Critic' is completely POV (who says?). 'He presents research on alternative treatment' WHAT?! Wikipedia is not an advert for Peele's 'treatment program'. He is already mentioned in the 'moderation or abstinence' section, that is quite sufficient and has been discussed to death and consensus found previously.


 * The Eric Berne line I've removed, it's incoherent and how relevant is TA anyway, a quick survey of the net reveals it to be a pretty much discredited pseudo-science. I've asked for an explanation of this line twice already, so now I'm removing it.


 * All of the serious editors have agreed that AA is not a cult, so the cult section is inappropriate. The material taken from the 12-step program (thanks Scarpy) was study exclusively of AA anyway and covers the A&R material in a very mature and unsensational way. Highlighting the 'cult' statement infers AA is a cult and would be POV pushing.


 * The title 'Tactics'. What does that mean? Do you mean 'methods'? The AA method is already described in the 'program' section. The Vaillant quote is just restating what A&R are saying which is already present in the cultural identity, we don't need both - I would prefer Vaillant but don't really mind. This point doesn't belong in the 'effectiveness' section.


 * Court rulings, Morerevealed.com is an unreliable source, please don't use it. This section is over-long, I've condensed it.


 * Mr Miles (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Baileyanddrew
I know it's a lot of work to get "sockpuppeters" banned, but now may be a good time to start. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not doing anything as I've probably blackened my username by my (almost) edit warring, but I don't like bullys. His 207.194.108.93 IP has been blocked for 48hrs by Gwen Gale, perhaps try complaining there or maybe Seicer again. Cheers. Mr Miles (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just noticed that he had switched IPs and continued after the block, I notified Gwen Gale of that. Mr Miles (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Spiritual Experience and Belladona
The spiritual awakening of Bill Wilson while in the hospital under Dr. Silkworth's care is fundemental to AA. Without it, AA would consist of alcoholics talking to and helping other alcoholics. Without this spiritual experience of the founder of AA, the fellowship would bare little resemblance to what it has become. Because of the central role that this event represents, I argue that the inclusion of the well-cited reference to the fact that this spiritual event occurred while Bill was under the influence of belladona and other deleriants which may have (very likely did have) some effects on his mental state is justified. All controversy cannot be shuffled off to other articles. Even if the subject is covered in explicit detail in the "History of AA" article, the main result of that discussion must be included in this main article.

In addition, would like to change the last sentence in the intro from "attrition tends to be high" to "attrition is high", since that is what is meant.

In the interests of truth, I would also like to split the "Attrition" bit into two parts, one that emphasizes the extremely important fact that 95% of those attending AA meetings are gone by the end of a year, followed by a new paragraph that contains the information about what happens to those that stay. The first part is the most important issue regarding AA effectiveness and should be emphasized. The way it is now reads as if someone were trying to water down the main fact about attrition.

I wish there were some references to how AA has become the de facto prescription for drinking problems. We touch on this topic somewhere by referencing the practice guidelines of the APA, but I suspect that somewhere out there are some articles listing what a physician will tell a patient that presents with a drinking problem. I suspect that the vast majority of physicians will suggest AA, I just don't have a reference. This fact (OK, supposed fact) has many repercussions in the treatment community.

As far as the conflict between Mr. Miles and Mr. MultipleNames goes, you guys are just wasting time. I don't think either one of you is helping the article much. This article is not supposed to be an attack on AA, nor is it supposed to be a recrutiment device--it is supposed to be the truth, or at least the current version of the truth as referenced in the literature.

Desoto10 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the Belladonna cure or Bills spiritual experience is in any way significant. AA would be exactly the same if it hadn't been reported, because all of the spiritual aspects and activities were passed down from Oxford via Ebby Thacher to Wilson. Wilson's contribution was the concept of one alcoholic talking to another and incorporating Silkworths ideas (and organisation/writing etc.). In fact AA literature makes it quiet clear the type of spiritual experience Wilson claimed was not necessary, nor common. I also disagree that it is controversial, as Scarpy pointed out, the whole 'Ohhh, Bill was on drugs when he had a spiritual experience!!!!', is just sensationalism anyway - aren't all those experiences the result of drugs (whether natural brain drugs or otherwise)?!


 * The attrition stuff sounds good, look forward to seeing your changes.


 * If you're right about physician referrals, I agree on it's notability.


 * I am sorry Desoto10 that you think I edit this article to recruit members for AA. I will point out that four of the six criticisms of AA were added by me and that I am committed to the article being as accurate as possible (have a look at the version from a few months back). My time is my own and I have no problem spending it blocking bullys/conspiracy theorists. Mr Miles (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that Bill Wilson's spiritual experience is insignificant to the formation and evolution of AA. Remove all of the banter and fluff and AA is essentially a program designed to achieve a spiritual awakening, maybe not such a dramatic one as reported by Bill W., but still a spiritual awakening.

Denying the intense spirituality and religious nature of AA is a common recruitment tactic used to get people into meetings.Desoto10 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ^ That's some WP:OR, but it's allowed on talk pages.


 * It's POV to exaggerate the foibles and idiosyncrasies in AA's founding in such a way to discredit the organization.


 * It's the same with the attrition rate. High attrition rates are common in all voluntary non-professional self-help groups I've seen statistics on (twelve-step and otherwise), it's being couched like it's a 95% "failure" rate (and lets not forget this comes largely from one source and includes count-mandated attendance). Like if people drop out of school, it's a failure? They would have been better off with no education at all? School also has iatrogenic effects, and indoctrinates it's members but no one runs around saying "school is a cult" or accusing current students of coercion. It's a truism of all institutions (even wikipedia). It's like saying "OMG AA HAS INSTITUTIONAL PRESSURES LIKE ALL OTHER INSTITUTIONS ON THE PLANET." That's not a criticism, as much as it is a poorly thought out argument.


 * AA has a lot of salient present-day shortcomings, to say the least. Where supported by and documented with reliable sources they should be mentioned, and would have more of a consciousness-raising impact than trivia about the screwball antics of it's co-founder in his desperation to stay sober. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "AA is essentially a program designed to achieve a spiritual awakening", that's true, although I would add: in an attempt to help addicts achieve recovery from alcoholism, let's not forget why AA exists, despite the partisan denials of Peele etc., alcoholism is a real killer illness.


 * "Denying the intense spirituality and religious nature of AA is a common recruitment tactic used to get people into meetings." - I would love to see evidence from reliable sources to back up that statement. My beef with Albert et al, is that conspiracy sticks, throw enough mud at a wall and some of it will stick.


 * You make good points Scarpy. "AA has a lot of salient present-day shortcomings" - what have we missed? Let's make a start on them. Mr Miles (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The abstinence violation effect is probably the one that deserves the most attention. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Scarpy, I don't understand your logic. If 95% of students drop out of a school, then, yes, of course, the school failed. If 95% of patients drop out of a clinical trial for a drug, then, yes, of course, the drug failed to help those people. Maybe this will help you to understand. Above all else, AA exists to help alcoholics stop drinking. Unfortunately, virtually everybody who goes to an AA meeting does not continue. Therefore, AA helps only a tiny fraction of people who need help. Get it yet? Why this is so difficult for you is odd to say the least. The primary evidence that AA is effective is the wealth of correlative studies that show that the longer you stay in AA, the less you drink. Therefore, any reasonable person would conclude that getting more people to stay in the fellowship would be an excellent method to reduce their drinking.

You really have to get off of this bit about AA being just another group of people with a shared hobby. AA promotes itself as a treatment for a fatal, progressive disease. It is not a stamp club, or astronomy group. AA is not remotely like other institutions such as the Elks, or Moose, or Toastmasters Clubs. It is a treatment resource and, as such, must be subject to more stringent examination.

Mr. Miles, I know that we have opposite opinions about many AA issues, but I certainly respect your opinions. Any jibes that I throw your way are just that. I strongly appreciate your tending the store at times to keep some of the moroons at bay.Desoto10 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A drop out rate is not a failure rate. Everyone leaves school eventually, whether they graduate or drop out or get a Ph.D (or several). If someone was only in school system for 11 years, maybe they "failed to graduate high school" but you can get education without graduation. In the same way, if the benefits of AA correlate with attendance than any attendance is a good thing. Therefore, AA helps just about anyone who walks in to one of it's meetings. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that it's not a failure rate. It's one isolated datum that has little meaning without other context.  But I don't agree that AA helps just about anyone who walks into a meeting -- many are surely harmed,  Not their fault, not AA's; just how it is.  But this is not a forum, so I'll shut up now. PhGustaf (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Types of Alcoholism
Why isn't there any discussion of types of alcoholism?Linda,LCADC (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an article on alcoholism. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Worldview Template
I need some rationale behind why this template was added, or I'm going to remove it. -- Scarpy (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the tag further down the page. Demographics and the two sections that follow it are all US based, without any similar details for other parts of the world.--Dmol (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing removal of this tag - what's the point of having a worldview tag for an organisation that isn't international?TheNeutroniumAlchemist (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Now as far as the comments I have made regarding the abuse of my edits. My edits have been under attack. There are editors on this board who are involved in this organization who have been removing edits without any justification or reason. It was a battle to have get the Brandsma study on the board. Once the studies were on the board, Miles removed all the studies,  except two that were in  favor of AA,  Scarpy went along with it. I am left with the impression some editors are here to sell a program, and to do so they have controlled and restricted the information that can be posted by other editors. Seicer noted this and found it completely unacceptable.


 * I'm not in AA. I suggested using Brandsma's research as a source long before you read it - it's actually peer-reviewed science, and worth including. Stanton Peele more or less just writes opinion columns and I can't recall seeing anything he's published that meets the criteria for a reliable source for this article. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of personal attacks Miles. " the last edit done by Miles "  on the History of Alcoholics Anonymous page. He phrased it as  to "de-idot the Page"  and reverted all the well sourced and referenced  material that had been added to the page. Personal Attacks Mr. Miles, possibly it could be suggested to Miles it is time to take his own inventory rather than taking the inventory of others.

My personal experience of Miles editing on a number of occassions, not all, is that is very aggressive and hostile. Take a look at the Stanton Peele wiki, he reverted edits that corrected  POV wording, that removed an unreferenced statment; This last award, however, is often attributed to Cold War hysteria, and is no longer recognized by most alcohol governing bodies.  The reference attached to this statement was Peele's own web site and no such statement can be found on it. Why would Miles, leave something like this in, and worse yet revert the page to include this unreferenced and unsourced material that reads like POV. If you open the history on Peeles wiki  page you can see where he threatens to get one banned if further edits are made to the page. He has allowed wording such as "attempts to debunk", which is pure POV since there is no reference material to back this wording up,  where  wording such as challenges  which is by  far more neutral has been reverted. I find Miles edits have been little more than Harrassement...nearly but not quite Wiki stalking.

I am beginning to see a pattern. To me this reflect a very strong need to control others and what he deems should and should not be posted on the pages. So far until recent intervention, he has been successful at keeping information off the page.

He has in the past deleted the entire study section, which now has it own page "Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous, and left only two studie on  the Alcholics Anonymous. .  One from George Vailliant, who sits on the Board Of AA trustess,  the information he allowed on the board in my opinion  was cherry picked and overlooked Vaillants main findings, and also issues around how Vaillant achieved his results. He left on the much disputed Project MATCH  which in fact did not really study AA, at the same time excluded Brandsma et al, and  Ditmann et al ,  which did send their participants to real AA meetings and unlike Match had a control group.   Project Match did not use real AA meetings, they used  Twelve step approach  run by trained professionals. What was amazing was some the other editors went along with this abuse.

Just a few of my thoughts. --Fred Woofy (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC) --Fred Woofy (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is off the topic of the article now and moving into personal grounds. I'm not going to respond further here as it's not what this page is for - please see your talk page. Kipoc (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is completely out of control, hopefully administrators will sort it out. Mr Miles (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we have identified your problem Mr. Miles, the need to control. Certainly that has been my complaint in regards to your editing. It has certainly appeared to me you have been constricting and controlling the flow of information to this article, to the point Seicer made the comment "that it was completely unacceptable." I hope my editing has brought balance to the page. --Fred Woofy (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is Stanton Peele not a reliable source? just the other day, a featured article, Parapsychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology) featured a variety of sources, from the peer reviewed to basic internet sites (quackwatch: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html) (Skeptics Dictionary: http://www.skepdic.com/psiassumption.html)


 * To state that stanton peele, a notable critic of AA who has received a variety of awards, advises the APA on substance abuse for DSM IV and has a wide range of published material, is not up to the criteria required for this article is absurd.


 * I believe that it is specifically because he is openly critical of AA that his material is being excluded. Step13thirteen (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not the person, it's how it's published. Editorials from Peele are not reliable sources, if he does peer-reviewed research on a topic and it is published as such, then it is. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * then why are the sources that I mentioned being used in featured articles? Peer review is not the only acceptable source.  Peele is acceptable.  Step13thirteen (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than trying to infer guidelines from featured articles, I have a habit of just following them WP:RS. Featured articles aren't perfect, they're just voted by some people to be featured articles . -- Scarpy (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the guidelines from the FA criteria, which obviously meet all wiki criteria including WP:RS, are most certainly applicable. They are the creme de la creme of wiki articles.  If it is good enough for them, they should be good enough for us.


 * Also, peele does not contradict anything on WP:RS. It allows a wide variety of possible sources and Peele's work does not, in all cases, contradict any of them. Sure there are some opinion pieces, but there are also lit reviews, analysis of studies and numerous other pieces of information which would be useful for this article.  Step13thirteen (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Parapsychology article does not obviously meet all wikipedia criteria, it was just voted as a feature article - that doesn't mean it's perfect. I won't have a protracted debate of attrition on this topic. Ask the editors that supported FA status for the parapsychology article why they voted for it without checking it's sources, or just put in a request for a third opinion right now. But, no, unreliable sources in a featured article is not a reason to violate WP:RS in this article.


 * Peele is a person. Sources are documents. Peele is not a source. Reliable sources are documents with publishers that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Peele, as a person, can write documents that may be reliable sources. I have no problem with you using reliable sources written by any author(s) relevant to this article. I do have a problem with citing editorials, or blog posts, or opinion columns like they're reliable sources. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So we are not ruling peele out? Because his books are published by Random, which is presumably as quality a publisher as we can hope for.  I also think some of peeles other stuff (eg his review of Nat History of alcoholism) has a place in wikipedia.


 * I think that the FA criteria are actually extremely high. I won't be asking anyone anything about it.  I also don't think that WP:RS is as restrictive as you claim. But I suppose we can iron out specific issues when edits are made.  Step13thirteen (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, peer-reviewed journal articles are the highest we can hope for, followed by books published by university presses (this is all here). -- Scarpy (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant as quality a publisher as random in relation to the following sentence from the policy you just linked to: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications".


 * However, there are some things on Peeles site that have been published in Journals.Step13thirteen (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Featured Articles are required to meet all wikipedia policies and guidelines. And the sourcs that they use are obviously pretty thoroughly vetted to ensure that they do so.  Step13thirteen (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They're obviously not if there's one that doesn't meet all wikipedia's policies guidelines.


 * I would really like to see someone produce a scientific, dispassionate criticism of alcoholics anonymous without resorting to rhetoric and polemics. In fact I'd be glad to help if people would stick to that. Trying to game wikipedia guidelines to shove as many references as possible from Peele, Schaler, Bufe, Szasz and Agent Orange included in the article is not the way to do it. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but Peele is a perfectly acceptable source. You are being overly narrow, again.  WP:GAME anyone?  I have been to the Reliable sources noticeboard and asked, the concensus there was that Peele is an acceptable in relation to criticism of AA.


 * How am I "gaming" the guidelines? I quoted a sentence directly from the policy you linked to to back my argument up (whilst not ignoring any other part of that policy, unlike yourself).  Peer Review is not the only form of source.  This is established. I'm sorry Scarpy, but not all criticism of AA has to be "scientific".  Step13thirteen (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Déjà vu. Unless I'm hallucinating, we had this conversation about Peele three days ago.


 * Your definition of criticism is correct, as far as I can tell. There is nothing in it that says it has to be scientific. It's just this thing that I have where I like to be factually correct and accurate. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If science is not your thing, a good idea for an article: Literary criticism of Alcoholics Anonymous. Some good places to start here: and here: . As far as I know, you are much closer to France than any other regular editor of this article, so you are uniquely suited for this task. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Confused about much of that post (france? literary criticism? Post-modernism? Not the place to discuss, but has very little to do with me...). Anyway, I think we seem to be on the same page, so I guess it's time to bold, revert, discuss.  Step13thirteen (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, there is very little overlap.


 * I want to write an article based on trusted, peer-reviewed research. If that trusted, peer-reviewed research happens to be authored by Peele, Schaler, Bufe, Szasz or Agent Orange - so much the better. If you find, and what to add such sources, you will have my full support.


 * As I understand your position, you want to write an article based on sources authored by Peele, Schaler, Bufe, Szasz and Agent Orange. If those sources happen to be peer-reviewed, so much the better, but you'll edit war to keep them in either way.


 * As I've said before, if you want to take swing at AA, go ahead. I'm just encouraging you not to fight like a sloppy drunk. If you're going to pick someone's footsteps to follow in, you can do better than Peele. Brandsma's work, for instance, is on a short list of good research done on AA's effectiveness, and even after almost 30 years, it's still relevant, thought-provoking and useful. Brandsma could give balanced criticism and advocate alternatives with equal fervor, he stayed completely out of left field, and put the science first. If you want to sniff someone's throne, go to the Isle of Brandsma and start there. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * strange that you are putting these words in my mouth. I said peele.  Noone else.  As peele is a notable critic of AA, I want to use him.  AA effectiveness is essentially coverer (quite poorly) in this article, so there isn't much that I can add from brandsma here from the research you mention.  Not that I really need to explain myself.  Peele is a notable critic of AA and is perfectly adequate for this article.  Step13thirteen (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You've pushed sources by the other authors before, the exception of Szasz. I have a good memory, and also know how to use search engines. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

sourcing and handling of criticism
Since there are widely social aspects to this topic, critical sources don't need to be peer-reviewed so long as they're reliable and aren't given undue weight. It can be helpful (and much more neutral) to keep these within the bounds of the "effectiveness" and "criticism" sections. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What would be an example of a reliable source that doesn't go through some degree of peer-reviewed (e.g. establishing it's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) and how would you know when you found it?


 * For instance, how can we judge the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" from a publisher that doesn't disclose what level of it was done on a particular source?


 * There should be some guideline like WP:SISYPHUS because arguing about what is and is not a "reliable source" once you through out the necessity of peer-review makes it all a judgment call, and there is no real guidance (that I know of) on this topic. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Criticism is opinion. Reliable sources for opinion may include newspapers, magazines and published books. What has sway here is WP:WEIGHT, hence same (or likened opinions) published in many and sundry sources will/should carry more weight in the article than perhaps disagreeing opinions which are published much less widely and/or often. Keeping opinion within the bounds of a criticism section in an article is the easiest way to skirt muddling it (and its sources) with content which is taken as more descriptive and supported by the published work of experts in highly reliable sources or peer reviewed journals. Lastly, be wary, because even most peer reviewed journals do carry heavy systemic and other bias, so although such cites are (and should be given) much weight in Wikipedia articles, following WP:NPOV editors are still free to put in other published PoVs from "lesser" sources, though this is much easier to do if the PoV is cited as coming from someone with verifiable academic or other expert credentials, as set forth in an independently published newspaper, magazine or book (online sources can sometimes meet this threshold). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By that logic, we could include a "Praise" section, with opinions from people who love AA, and it would be as appropriate/inappropriate. Criticism sections should be thought of as temporary -- like a trivia section -- to decide if it's contents can/should be worked in to the rest of the article (WP:CRIT).


 * This is why the weight argument is a poor guideline, at least in this case, because there is no shortage of published opinions on AA - from books, newspapers, etc written by people with degrees. There's no easy way to tell what exactly is due weight for each of them (even if obvious exaggerations could be easily spotted). Once that gate is opened -- when any opinion about AA from anyone who graduated with an advanced degree and got it published is deemed "notable" enough for this article -- then it could essentially be turned in to a list of opinions. If someone wanted to put together an article like Criticism and Praise of Alcoholics Anonymous that would be one thing, but we shouldn't turn the main article in to a gossip column, even if the people being cited have Ph.D.s. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Two things here, yes, some topics spin off sub-articles. Mind, the kind of academic credentials, career and level and width of independent coverage of a source have so much to do with WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This really will take us down a silly path. I know for every one source (person, in this case) with a critical opinion of AA, I could find an opposite opinion expressed by someone with similar experience and academia or in a peer-reviewed source (article). It would be a kind of pointless tit for tat and will probably lead to ad nauseam discussion about things that there's no clear answer for (e.g. is a psychologist's opinion less than a psychiatrist's? What if the psychologist has been published more? What if one went to Stanford and the other went to Oxford?). It seems to me part of the idea behind WP:RS to stop conversations like this from happening and stick to the quality of the research rather than the résumé of the researchers. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is more widely published? Which PoV is more widely held? Have a look at WP:V, please, if you like, carefully read and think about WP:WEIGHT. We're all volunteers, anyone can edit this article so long as they stay within the bounds of Wikipedia policy and follow consensus. Likewise, whether or not you edit this article is wholly up to you. Meanwhile NPoV sometimes has to do with letting an article find its own steady way. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, just to be clear, what you're saying is that for any author (or institution?) expressing an opinion, what we should do is look and see how many times they've been published in reliable sources (on the topic, or just in general? are peer-reviewed "better" than otherwise?) and they get space in the article based on the number of times their name comes up?
 * So far, you're the only admin who's taken the time to clarify these (no, it's not obvious from reading them) so I'm going to hold your feet to the fire if it means it will save some fighting on the talk page. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This would also depend on how much independent coverage an overall PoV has gotten. My feet are a bit clunky and I've been known to wear wooden shoes. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, just found: http://www.authoratory.com/ -- Scarpy (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't suggest that we use automated data mining programs which have not been validated, such as authoratory to give credibility to sources. For controversial topics such as this one, I think that a requirement or at least a strong preference for peer-reviewed articles is the best approach. Otherwise, as Scarpy suggests, we will just have chaos. Desoto10 (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Court Rulings
"Though AA itself was not deemed to be a religion, it was found to contain enough religious components (spirituality, a surrender to god, prayer and proselytism), to make such coercion a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the constitution."

Sould "god" be changedc to "God" or "higher power"?

Desoto10 (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like the part about surrender was removed from the article -- Scarpy (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see it was removed without discussion with the statement that "surrender" was not used in the cited references. Actually, the SFChronical article does mention surrender ("turn ones will over to a higher power"), but the actual case does not. Scanning both the article and the case I don't see the word proselytism in either.Desoto10 (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Case commentary worth considering

 * McBride: Alcoholics Anonymous: Anonymous Theists-Griffin v. Coughlin and the Wall of Separation between Church -- Scarpy (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Calabro: Correction through Coercion: Do State Mandated Alcohol and Drug Treatment Programs in Prisons... -- Scarpy (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gallas: Endorsing Religion: Drug Courts and the 12-Step Recovery Support Program -- Scarpy (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I can read only the first pages from home. Do these add anything substantial? Desoto10 (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Because of copyright, I believe GS only lists the first page, but if you have access to the journals their published in, you should be able to get the whole thing from the publisher's page. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Institutions
"In a survey of treatment providers from the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, Rational Recovery Systems and Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors the scores of the treatment provider's responses on the Spiritual Belief Scale (a scale measuring belief in the four spiritual characteristics AA identified by Ernest Kurtz) were found to explain 41% of the variance in the treatment provider's responses on the Addiction Belief Scale (a scale measuring adherence to the disease model or free-will model addiction).[49]"

Can someone explain what this 41% of the variance means? Can this paragraph be rewritten a bit? Desoto10 (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Explained variance.


 * I think it gets the point accross. It shows a relationship between "AAness" and "disease-modelness" among treatment providers. Schaler makes a decent point is this article. Unconsciouly or deliberatly the beliefs of treatment providers impact how they practice. This is also a nice, clear, peer-reviewed article from one of AA's most outspoken critics, so hopefully it adds some balance. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Attrition The Sourced Material doesn't mention anything about a "closed" meeting
Reread the Triennel Document, and the sourced reference material doesn't mention anything about a closed meeting. Closed meetings are different than open meetings. Hence how do you justify the content in the Attrition Article, when the reference source mentions nothing of it????

--MisterAlbert (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've looked through that paragraph and removed the contentious word 'closed' while also reverted your edit to put in your interpretation of the graph. Rather than inserting personal interpretations while disputing single words, please debate the interpretation in the above 'Attrition' section to reach a consensus with the editors currently working on it. Kipoc (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to Columbia Law Review onlint
http://www.voai.org/columbia_law_review.htm --207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Regarding Attrition
The document "Comments on A.A. Triennial Surveys" (cited as reference 5 in the main article), and specifically figure C-1 found on page 12 of that document, has been used to support the notion that there is an 81% attrition rate in the first month and a 95% attrition rate in the first year. That is not, in fact, what the document says, but this misinterpretation of the data presented has been used both by A.A. detractors and by people within A.A. who want to return to a mythical past that saw, in Bill W.'s estimation, about a fifty percent immediate rate of recovery among those who really tried, and an eventual fifty percent rate of recovery for those who did not succeed on the first try.

What the document actually states is that among those reporting themselves as attending A.A. for twelve months or fewer, 19% (a rounded integer average over 5 surveys) were in their first month. Ten percent were in their third month, while five percent were in their twelfth. (The total for all twelve months comes to 102% due to rounding.) Allowing for variations, then, about half of the people who start attending "closed" A.A. meetings will drop out in the first three months. I suspect the number is actually a bit higher, since many newcomers test the waters first by attending one or two "open" meetings without making any sort of membership commitment, and may decide that A.A. is not particularly where they want to be. In the early days, Bill W. estimated that one or two in five (20-40%) who were introduced to the program were interested, desperate or hopeful enough to give it a real try. I suspect that the current number is not too different, but it would be difficult to prove -- the only evidence on record is restricted to people who attended closed meetings during the survey periods.

Unless anyone with some statistical savvy (keeping in mind that I have more than a little actuarial study under my belt) can offer a reasonable refutation of this interpretation -- and can show how more people managed to stay sober for seven months than made it to six in 1986, using the incorrect interpretation -- then I will edit the Attrition section to reflect the correct interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan Rogers (talk • contribs) 08:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry -- forgot to sign Stan Rogers (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be correct. It seems as though a more pressing question is can we even include this data at all?  The cited reference is a typewritten essay with no defining source.  I have seen it floating around a few websites, but who wrote it and who published it?  Obviously none of the statistical analysis has been peer-reviewed nor published in reputable journals.  Do we have a better reference for this data?  If not, then I would be tempted to replace the current paragraph with something to the effect of: "Internal surveys by AA have suggested that a large proportion of newcomers leave the program within a few months."  Desoto10 (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If we can find a decent reference for this it would be great. For what it is worth, here is how I interpret the data, which might be the same as you.  We start with the subset of members who have been in AA for 12 months or less.  The definition of "in AA" apparently is up for question as we do not have access to the study data.  So the questionare asks, "How many months have you been an AA member (round up, eg, if this is your third week, put '1')?"  19% of the respondents answered this question with '1', 13 answered '2', 10 answered '3', and so on until 5% answered that they had been in AA for 12 months.  The data cannot just be plotted like this, and as plotted in that "Comment on triennial survey".  This is so because, plotted as in that Comment, the value for a particular month is the % of respondents who have been a member for exactly that number of months and so that member was also a member for all of the months less than that value.  In other words, members that put '5 months' were also members for 4, 3, 2,and 1 month.  In this case you would plot the data as a cummulative distribution where each data point represents the number of members remaining at a given time point.  Thus, the cummulative percentage of members who have been members one month, is 102-19=83.  The number remaining after 2 months is 102-19-13=70, and so on.  The last number is still the dismal same, 5%, but the fallout from meetings is more gradual than has been reported.  I think.  It's been a while since statistics and I have not seen the actual questionare.Desoto10 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The logic comes close, but the numbers are wrong. The numbers in the surveys (at least as regards people who are in their first year) have been consistent enough from survey to survey that we can treat them as steady-state distribution. While 19% of all respondents in the first year are in their first month, that 19% represents 100% of the "entry population". That is, the 5% that reported that they were in the twelfth month would have been a part of the 19% had the survey been taken eleven months prior. The numbers show that 10% report that they are in the second month. That means that nearly fifty percent of the "entry population" left before the end of the first month. That is to be expected, since many of them would have been mandated to attend meetings by treatment centres, EAPs and courts and never intended to stay, while others may have decided that they are not ready to call themselves alcoholic, may not be willing to commit to a course of action, or may be turned off by the vocabulary of the program (the Higher Power/God stuff). There is an additional slight decline at the end of the second month (9% of the total population, or ten percent less than the second-month population). The five percent in the twelfth month (5% of the total population) represent something slightly more than 25% of the "entry population". That's a 75% attrition in the first year -- still not ideal by any means -- but if one considers that those who have done the often-suggested "90 meetings in 90 days" are the ones who have given A.A. a "real try", that's the mythical "about half" they used to speak of in the Goode Olde Days. Stan Rogers (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You will find a peer-reviewed article reviewing the Triennial surveys here: . I'm not sure if AA stopped publishing these in 1996 or not, but the more current ones would also be interesting. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A.A. continues to publish its membership surveys. The most current is available here: .Stan Rogers (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I should note here that the publication linked is a single-page pamphlet intended as much as anything to reassure members and prospective members that A.A. members do not fall into an easily-identifiable "stereotypically deviant" category. It is a broad overview only. A.A. World Services, though, has made the raw data available for study in the past, and likely would again if a request was made by a reputable researcher (or, at least, from a researcher working from a reputable institution). Survey results are typically released mid-year in the year following the survey.Stan Rogers (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like the Haworth Press site is having a bad week. You will at least find the abstract here: . -- Scarpy (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since no significant objections were raised, I have made the edit discussed here -- and it was neatly cleaned up by Mr. Miles without losing any significant information. (I'm a fact-natic, not a writer.) Stan Rogers (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for cleaning this up. I would like to know what the logic is for listing the percentage who stay for 12 months, assuming that they were still there after 3 months: "Of those who remain after three months, about half (55.6%) will make it into the twelfth month." Unless there is some compelling reason for this statistic, I believe that it would be more straighforward to list the number who remain after one full year. I am sorry if this is not very clear, but I have to run.Desoto10 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The document has been around for a number of years, the attrition rates discussed have been discussed on this board for months.

The Graph provided clearly shows: As regards new member dropout rate, all five surveys were in close agreement. Averaging their results, the Comments document graphs the "% of those coming to AA within the first year that have remained the indicated number of months." At one month, the "% of those . . . that have remained" is 19%; at 3 months, 10%; and at 12 months, 5% (Alcoholics Anonymous, n.d., p. 12, Figure C-1) --207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)fred


 * I don't think the graph clearly shows anything - it's handdrawn with a vague title and labels that are definitely open to misinterpretation. It's currently under discussion as above and I'm not sure that reverting the current consensus interpretation with a 'See talk page' is appropriate.  I've undone the edit and suggest discussion continue regarding whether the source is 1) appropriate (given the handdrawn and potentially unacademic approach employed) and 2) interpreted correctly.  Kipoc (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm back, sorry. The information definitely needs to be in the article, however, we should make sure that we have the numbers correct. Once we agree on the numbers, we just need a simple statement to the effect that the survey performed under the auspices of AA suggests that XX% of newcomers leave after 1 month and that, after 1 year, XX% have left the fellowship. In addition, I would add a sentence as to how this was not a very rigorous statistical approach (if, in fact, it was not). All that I was objecting to is the bit about using 3 month to 12 month attrition as if there were some logic to it. Too bad we cannot use the graph and an explanation.66.120.181.218 (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All of that is provided in the text of the report. The only ambiguity there ever has been is in the interpretation of the graphical presentation (figure C-1), and that has largely been contrary to the text of the report. A explanation of sampling sizes and confidence is included in the report, as is the self-selection bias. The entire problem revolves around the chart type chosen for figure C-1 -- a series of bar charts would have presented the data more clearly, or at least would have prevented people from completing an entirely imaginary trend line back to 100% on the vertical axis. Again, the 19% (on average) of the population reporting themselves as being in their first month also represent 100% of the entry population at the time of the survey. Stan Rogers (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As usual, I am not making myself clear. The one-year attrition, for those who were still in AA after 3 months should be changed to the one-year attrition for those who walked in the door 12 months earlier. That is what people want to know. As far as I can tell, there is no statistical relevance for the 3 month bit.66.120.181.218 (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Desoto10 (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I read the section about how you cannot do the 12 month:1 month comparison. I don't know that that is correct, but I will defer.Desoto10 (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit to add "Oxford Group religious practices"
I've readded the wording "and Smith also found sobriety through Oxford Group religious practices and spiritual means." (bolding mine) as it was discussed previously (see archive page 7) to avoid edit warring as an acceptable compromise and wasn't debated at the time. The reason given for it's removal this time was that it was repititius within the paragraph however that's incorrect in my opinion. The only other mention of the Oxford Group is that someone else was a member which is a seperate issue. Kipoc (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The suggested copy in the archive is actually "and Smith also found sobriety through spiritual means including Oxford Group practices." This is more accurate to the history I've read (AA comes of age, Roberson: getting better, Pittman, The way it began), which emphasises that it was Smith's tireless attempt to sober up other alcoholics which secured his own sobriety rather than any religious practices. Mr Miles (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The line is now silly and too long but as we're insisting on bashing the OG connection, that is the way is has to stand. Mr Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're right with the suggested copy (and I suggested it! *sigh*).  But as for your suggestion that it's an insistence on "bashing" the connection - It's got nothing to do with that at all - it was suggested as a way to end the edit warring on the line (and in the section) - there was continual removing and replacing of a couple of words.  If you disagree with the compromise then by all means debate away again with Fred. Kipoc (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think it's unnecessary detail for a concise history and have removed it. There won't be any edit warring with Fred, if any of the real editors would prefer it in I will of course bow to consensus. Thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ID Meetings and Drug Addicts in AA
I have not heard of this term, but perhaps it is used outside of the US more. Anyway, the following statment:

"There is controversy over whether drug addicts should be welcome at A.A. meetings because, while they are kindred spirits, they usually cannot really identify as alcoholics and as such are not able to contribute on the same footing."

needs some kind of citation, I think. Who says that "drug addicts" are "kindred spirits", and what does that mean? If there is a controversy, which I believe there is, what is the reference? For now, I will just shorten the sentence a bit to reflect that there is controversy and hopefully, someone can find a reference.169.230.82.109 (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Desoto10 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * AA Traditions make it clear that only persons with a 'desire to stop drinking' are members although anyone is welcome at Open Meetings. Mr Miles (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess a sentence to that effect would be useful and informative.Desoto10 (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC) There is an excellent reference to Mr. Miles' summary: http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-35_ProOtherThanAlcohol1.pdf Of course, anybody who has been to an AA meeting, open or closed knows that there will most likely be "pure" drug addict in attendence, but I suspect we will never find a ref for that.Desoto10 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

While I am sure that someone, somewhere has made it a contriversy (hell, I make "beeing a hippie" a contriversy whenever I get the chance...damn hippies) If there isn't a citation, it shouldn't be included. it sounds like a personal opinion and WP:OR.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * mabie we should title the new section "membership qualifications" rather than "non-alcoholics" due to the fact that the current title is obviously answering a challange that isn't in the article anymore. just because we arn't saying it, dosn't mean we arn't saying it.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that the current title is answering a challenge. It just contains the important words that describe the little blurb that follows. I think there is a controversy or maybe an "issue": many AA oldtimers do not want non-alcoholics in closed meetings, while others don't care, and others welcome them. AA wrote a pamplet about it. NA has stuff on their website about it. I have heard it discussed, sometimes heatedly in AA and NA meetings. But none of that is citable, so I think something along the lines of what we have there now is fine.Desoto10 (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

74.184.234.89 Changes
Require work to bring in line with Wiki policies, including some removals. I've done a bit but have run out of time. Mr Miles (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Map
I know that graphics help to break up text and that, due to copyright issues, are rare in Wikipedia, but this map of alcohol consumption has nothing to do with AA and it is already in 7 other entries where it is appropriate. Does anybody object to removing it?Desoto10 (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Y'all may find these interesting

 * Talk:List_of_twelve-step_groups
 * Talk:Addiction_recovery_groups

-- Scarpy (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

sugar and aa
There is a folklore (at least in the UK) which circulated within meetings concerning sugar. Sugar is also mentioned in the Big book. Both the book and the folklore indicate that eating sugar will help recovery. This is now disputed by scientific evidence i.e.(DesMaisons, K., Biochemical restoration as an intervention for multiple offense drunk driving. 1996). It may be that AA is effectively a filter for those who are highly sugar sensitive (quite a high proportion of alcoholics) because of the cross priming of sugar on the endorphin system. It appears that sugar can generate alcoholic craving in some individuals even after all alcohol has left the body. More research is needed to verify this but the concern should be presented in the article. According to some at least those who refrain from eating simple carbs could give them an advantage in recovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davethawley (talk • contribs) 22:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This would be more appropriate in the alcoholism article. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Alcoholism--an illness
Two issues with this section now. (1) The title is awkward. What's wrong with "Alcoholism As A Disease" or "The Disease Concept", or something else. I am hoping that we are not trying to nitpick between disease and illness or malady. (2) What is the point of this section:

"The only time the word "disease" is used in the first portion of the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous is on page 64 where it states, 'Resentment is the "number one" offender. It destroys more alcoholics than anything else. From it stem all forms of spiritual disease, for we have been not only mentally and physically ill, we have been spiritually sick. When the spiritual malady is overcome, we straighten out mentally and physically.'"

That a certain word was used only once in the first portion of the big book? So what? That resentment is more important than disease? Is this what AA thinks? Reference? That alcoholism is fundementally a spiritual malady which must be overcome by spiritual means in order to deal with the physical issues? If so, then say it and reference it.

Quotations from the big book with no interpretation or comment are not very useful.Desoto10 (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

REAL ALCOHOLICS ARE THOSE THE ACTUAL WORDS USED? WHAT IS A NOT REAL ALCOHOLIC DEFINITION PLEASE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.112.30 (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, is this supposed to be in response to my questions about this section? I am not certain what you are asking, but if I parse your words one way I get: "Real alcoholics";are those the actual words used? What is a "not real alcoholic" definition, please? Is that close?Desoto10 (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AA Considers Alcoholism a Disease
I added the following sentence to this section, after deleting the text that I complained about above:

Note that the definition of "allergy" used in this context is not the same as used in modern medicine. [28]

In hindsight, it seems a bit like original research since that reference does not comment on Dr. Silkworth's concept of allergy, only defines allergy in the modern sense of the word. It is important to realize that the term "allergy" as used by Silkworth is not what is currently defined as allergy (immune response to an allergan)in medicine.Desoto10 (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I always understood Silkworth as comparing it to an allergy (e.g. that it's an allergy-like response) but not saying that in the medical sense that it was one. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. I'll read what the doc has to say again. The comment is by no means to fault either Silkworth or Bill, many medical terms have changed meanings over the years as new information is learned.169.230.82.109 (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?
Why is this a criticism?

"Many members of AA often use the word 'program' synonymously with what is actually the fellowship.[citation needed] The fellowship includes meetings and friendships with other AA members, whereas 'the program', refers to the course of action outlined in the first 164 pages of the book Alcoholics Anonymous. "

A misunderstanding maybe, but a criticism? I don't think so. I think that I will move it out of this section and change the wording a bit.Desoto10 (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. There should really be a section in the twelve-step program article on twelve-step language. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. One problem is that much of AA-speak is undocumented and certainly unreferenced. If you have any ideas about how to get this information incorporated into the article (which, for sure, would make it more useful and interesting) I would love to hear them.Desoto10 (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * About the only source is the grapevine --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Grapevine has lots of interesting stuff in it. It seems to require a subscription for much of the content. Maybe we have gone over this before, but I'll ask: Is the Grapevine a reliable source for this article?Desoto10 (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What is RS and what is not seems very subjective at times.... I would say it is with the caution that the meaning is derived from context not from formal definitions --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro
Where did this come from:

"Alcoholics Anonymous(AA), known to many people involved simply as the Program[1][2] is ..."?

Most references that I read speak of "the AA Program" or "the program of AA". I do not think that AA is known as "the Program".Desoto10 (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wondering the same thing.... it seems too informal like saying "the rooms" without qualifing what you mean --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Plus, the refs are simply two websites with no particular credibility.Desoto10 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
sources used for editing, Franicis Hartigan "BillW., Pittman , Bill "AA the Way it Began"  Alcholics Anonymous "Pass It On" , Cheevers,  Susan "My Name is Bill.

I would say these sources are credible and have been used by other editors.


 * I wouldn't. 90.202.235.245 (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Program vs. Fellowship
"It is important to distinguish between the AA "program" and the "fellowship" of AA.[citation needed] The fellowship includes meetings and friendships with other AA members, whereas 'the program', refers to the course of action outlined in the first 164 pages of the book Alcoholics Anonymous."

I moved this from Criticisms to Program, simply because it was not criticism. The first sentence has a citation needed tag. If somebody does not provide a reference for this soon, I am going to delete the whole thing.Desoto10 (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The 12 and 12 says it (I forget where) and most of the pamplets also do. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Need to put those references in then. I've rearrange the paragraph to read a bit more coherently, hope it makes sense. I've also removed "It is important to distinguish between", for the obvious reason! Mr Miles (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide view template
I think the article is no more biased towards the US than AA itself is and statements which relate to specific countries are clearly identified. Therefore, I propose the template be removed. Mr Miles (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Limitations on Research
I am going to delete the following newly added bit:

"Moreover, meetings are only a factor of the AA program. In fact, according to the book Alcoholics Anonymous, the program of AA is not meetings. Meetings are never mentioned in the "program of action" nor are they mentioned in the first 164 pages of the book. The working program is the twelve steps, and the meeting is just a part of that."

This sounds like someone's personal opinion. Please provide a reference to substantiate your claim. In any case, while some studies may use a metric such as "number of AA meetings attended" it is assumed, quite reasonably, that attending AA meetings is a fundemental part of AA: alcoholics talking to other alcoholics. In TSF you get the 12-step component without the meeting component.

Perhaps a better way to word the preceding paragraph might be to talk about "participating in AA or TSF" rather than attending AA meetings. I'll take a shot.Desoto10 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I made the changes. I am not so sure about the parenthetical comments about Jung's spiritual awakening (not that it isn't true, but that it makes the paragraph harder to read). Maybe that could be worded better to take it out of the parentheses.Desoto10 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The only mention is in As Bill See's It where he discusses how "those who are not as situated [to have meetings nearby] do benefit from the book alone" --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So we might say that Bill W. claims that his book is useful on its own, but then again, I suppose every author of a self-help book thinks that it is useful :).Desoto10 (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of the Program
As far I know the BB or any other "official" source ever claimed that AA is meant to mature people (that is usually the result, BUT it not stated anywhere). Unless you can offer a actual official source it is best to leave this out even if it is the desired result (I know I have grown up alot in AA) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Influence of State & Local Governments
Please add some references to this section or I will delete it. I thought that we already covered this issue in the "Courts" section and that the Supreme Court ruled that paroles could not be sent to AA against their wishes. Also, the second section about all of the Traditions is a bit detailed and again seems to be totally original research. Reflecting a bit, I am going to delete the first part now as it contradicts our earlier referenced section. If you can provide a reference to the effect that "in spite of the Supreme Court ruling..." then just put it back in.Desoto10 (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dry Drunk
Somebody created an article entitled "Dry Drunk" Dry drunk, which I and a few people edited in good faith, even though there are really no references in the literature for the term. It has now been butchered to the point of being useless. While I do think that we need a section either on this page or elsewhere to discuss all of the AA slogans, the Dry Drunk entry is beyond hope. I would like to nominate it for deletion. Can somebody tell me the simplest way to do that. Thanks,Desoto10 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As myself and others have pointed out before, this phenomenon has been studied, and there is scholarly literature on the topic as much as you've ignored it in the past. I won't question the quality of the Dry drunk article, but I will direct you to back to Google Scholar. Again, feel free to use this tip for the rest of your life for anything you're interested in learning. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Try this: Speedy deletion


 * I don't personally care too much about this, but I think the term might widespread enough to justify an article - is the fact that an article is badly written justification to delete it? Shouldn't it just be improved? Mr Miles (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No, a badly written article does not need to be removed. The issue here is that it is difficult to come up with references. A PubMed search comes up with two older articles that I cannot get to. We know that the term is used, much like many AA slogans, but where do you get reliable sources. I would like to make an article with many 12-step sayings, but the issue is still there. If you would like to take a shot at Dry drunk, please do.Desoto10 (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Here, for your entertainment, is the entire Dry drunk article: Dry drunk is a colloquial expression which describes an alcoholic who no longer drinks but is still behaving alcoholically. To avoid being dry drunk, many recovered alcoholics will organize their affective life around sentiments rather than be open to spontaneous emotions - "Feelings make you drink". [1]

The term is used by Alcoholics Anonymous in relation to feelings of anger, depression and resentment. [2]

I see that somebody tried to fix it up, so maybe it will evolve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desoto10 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Miles, can you verify, if you have the book, that this is a good reference for the term "Dry drunk"?

AA World Services, "As Bill sees it" (1967) p. vi Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_drunk"

Thanks,Desoto10 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting
No one ever linked this to the talk page, though 13 mentioned it before and I don't think it says what he thought it did:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#Stanton_Peele_on_Alcoholics_Anonymous

Although it's not cited, this provides a list of organizations that recognize alcoholism as a disease, if verified it could reproduce this list in the article or in the disease theory of alcoholism.


 * http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Print_version#Alcohol

-- Scarpy (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Program
I was thinking of changing this first part in the section from :

"AA promotes the idea that beating alcoholism entails more than not drinking,[citation needed] and, to this end, suggests a program of action which has the goal of producing a "personality change sufficient to recover from alcoholism"[14]. While abstaining from alcohol, one day at a time, the personality change is believed to be brought about by means of a spiritual awakening achieved from following the Twelve Steps,[15] helping with duties and service work in AA,[16] and regular AA meeting attendance[17] or contact with AA members"

to:

AA promotes a program which has the goal of producing a "personality change sufficient to recover from alcoholism"[14]. The personality change is believed to be brought about by means of a spiritual awakening achieved by following the Twelve Steps,[15. In addition, helping with duties and service work in AA,[16] and regular AA meeting attendance[17] or contact with AA members is encouraged.

The logic is to remove the AA-speak "program of action", "one day at a time" and to indicate that it is the implementation of the 12 steps that leads to the spiritual awakening, not the meetings and/or service.Desoto10 (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the opener to that paragraph "AA promotes the idea that beating alcoholism entails more than not drinking" is worth stating because many people/groups believe that not drinking is ALL that is require to beat alcoholism - it's a point of difference between AA and that alternative viewpoint (although we should find a reference). I think the line "While abstaining from alcohol, one day at a time" is also important, although you are right "one day at a time" is AA-speak and should have quotes.Mr Miles (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I get what Mr. Miles is saying, but the the language in the re-write Desoto proposes sounds a little better to me. I'm not sure what "promoting an idea" means; at any rate in AA it's not an idea its more of an axiom or tenet in the program. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Mr. Miles, you are correct about the not drinking being just one aspect of AA. OK. Hows about:

AA suggests a program that entails more than not drinking,[citation needed]. The program has the additional goal of producing a "personality change sufficient to recover from alcoholism"[14]. The personality change is believed by AA followers to be brought about by means of a spiritual awakening achieved by following the Twelve Steps,[15]. In addition, helping with duties and service work in AA,[16] and regular AA meeting attendance[17] or contact with AA members is encouraged.Desoto10 (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's cool by me although the wording is a little clumsy (which is my fault as I wrote the original).Mr Miles (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the changes, but do not see what is wrong with the descriptive "program of action." Although it is a term often heard in the meetings and in the  literature, it seems to be a pretty good description of the Twelve Steps as well.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 01:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with "program of action" is that it has no meaning outside of AA. Have you ever heard the term elsewhere? Thus, program of action could be included as AA jargon, to use it as a descriptor is incorrect. It is just a "program".Desoto10 (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean and sober
To my knowledge, AA considers a person is only sober if they are free from mind-altering substances - for example having a joint would be deemed as much a 'slip' as having a drink. Where can this be found in AA literature? I think it may be worthy of a mention in the article. Thanks Mr Miles (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The literature never says this directly and as far I know GSO takes no stand on the issue but its is widely accepted as a "good" idea --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Marijuana maintenance" is a big reason why Cocaine Anonymous explicitly uses the language "cocaine and all other mind-altering substances" in its first step.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Recovery vs. recovered
The BB uses the language "recovered" more often or not as the prefered term.... since most people reconize the "program" to be the first 164 pages we should use it's language... for example "There is a Solution" uses "This is the story how 100 men and women recovered from a seemingly hopeless state of mind" --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless we're quoting the book Alcoholics Anonymous, we shouldn't be using its language at all, this is Wikipedia. For that reason, I agree the intro should read "recovering and recovered", as the line reflects medical (in other words verifiable) opinion, which is mixed as to whether or not total abstinence is necessary and therefore whether or not an alcoholic is recovered or recovering. -Mr Miles (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The language is tricky here, I have also heard "arrested" vs. "practicing" in this context. Of course the medical opinion is not 100% on either side, but this would not prevent such information entered in to wikipedia following guidelines for due weight -- although that may be more appropriate for the alcoholism article than this one. I would leave this out of the introduction completely either way. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "recovered" means to most readers that the person is over whatever it was that they had, in this case alcoholism. Therefore, a recovered alcoholic would not be an alcoholic anymore. It would not matter if they were drinking moderately or not at all. Maybe I am wrong, but I was sure that AA's position on the disease of alcoholism was that it was permanent (ie., you will die as an alcoholic), and so one could ever "recover".Desoto10 (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what you have AA's position correct there Desoto, but we should be careful not to get mixed up here, the intro is not stating AA's position it is stating Wikipedia's position (or rather Medical opinion as it is the most verifiable). I suggest we change it to "for people who identify themselves as alcoholic" - personally I prefer that to Scarpy's last change, and will put it forward in the article but of course change it if you disagree.Mr Miles (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The only problem is that it's not true. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean because "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking"?Mr Miles (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is possible for "non-alcoholic problem drinkers" to attend AA. Such a demographic apparently does exist, but regardless their is no requirement that people need to "be an alcoholic" to be a member. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A good example is my sponsor (yes my home group is pretty liberal) where he has never drank in his life but has done plenty of Rx drugs and is defently an addactict... I am the opposite I never did anything stronger then weed and quit that on my own.... but drinking is an other matter.... so yes we should mention that and don't forget open meetings also. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good points, and internally within AA I think you're right, a member is someone who wants not to drink. However from the outside looking in (and we are from Wikipedia), would the general public not consider AA a group for Alcoholics? Hence the name AA and the way in which members introduce themselves? Mr Miles (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We also have a section about the alcoholic identity, which is very much a characteristic of AA. Mr Miles (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is clear that the first sentence is wrong. I have been to many meetings where at least a third of the attendees do not "identify themselves as alcoholic". Granted the prior sentence was awkward, but it was at least correct. To Mr. Miles, what the public thinks about AA could be part of a section entitled something like "Public Perceptions of AA", but we need to document what AA really is, not what people think it is (as far as can be reliably referenced).Desoto10 (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, that is outside of my experience then. In all of the meetings I have been to it would be very unusual for anyone to identify themselves and not say '...and I'm an alcoholic', perhaps that is just a UK thing. I have however been to many meetings where at least a third of the participants have no intention of stopping drinking (even though they would certainly identify themselves as alcoholics)! Mr Miles (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What AA is is probably open to interpretation. What AA sets itself up to be is best stated in the Preamble: "ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.". Or to get to the nitty-gritty: "ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS is a fellowship of people who wish to solve their common problem of alcoholism.".
 * -Mr Miles (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It might help to think what AA is not. It's not a fellowship for people who don't want to drink (eg. not for a non-alcoholic whos doctor tells him that after a having had a liver infection he can never drink again). It's also not a fellowship for someone who thinks they are an alcoholic but doesn't want to stop drinking (for they would fail the entry requirement of Trad 3). So really it is a fellowship for alcoholics who want to stop drinking. I suggest the intro line should be something like:


 * "Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is an informal meeting society for people who identify themselves as alcoholic and who desire to stop drinking alcohol."


 * Which put together with the previous version would be:


 * "Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is an informal meeting society for people who identify themselves as alcoholic, with the stated purpose to help its members "to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety."[1] AA suggests that its members abstain from alcohol and follow its spiritual program of action in order to recover from alcoholism, and share their experience, strength, and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem."


 * -Mr Miles (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, there are problem drinkers who are not necessarily alcoholics. If they have a desire to stop drinking, there's no reason why they would be "disqualified."


 * More than that, remember that open meetings are open to anyone -- including alcoholics who may not want to stop drinking. It's only closed meetings where it is stated that you must have a desire to stop drinking to attend.


 * The easiest way to resolve this would be to state the somewhat contradictory language. e.g.


 * Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is an informal meeting society. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking alcohol, although membership is not required to attend most meetings. AA's stated purpose is to help its members "to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety." AA suggests that its members abstain from alcohol and follow its program in order to recover from alcoholism.


 * This clarifies the difference between "purpose," "membership," meeting attendance requirements, and removes some of the AA-speak (e.g. "experience, strength and hope"; "spiritual program of action") -- Scarpy (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The long form of the third tradition states on p.563 that the fellowship "ought to include all those who suffer from alcoholism," different from the short form on p.562, which states that "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking." How to reconcile those statements?


 * There seem to be two issues being discussed here:


 * Membership The meetings and the fellowship are open to anyone who has a desire to stop drinking, which can include heavy drinkers (p.21) as well as the "real alcoholic" on p.22. The Big Book expressly says on the top of p.21 that a heavy drinker may need help to stop.  The difference between the two types of drinkers is also given in the Doctor's Opinion when it describes the "chronic alcoholic" on p.xxviii--this would be the "real" alcoholic as distinguished from the acute alcoholic:  one whose problems alleviate if he stops.  According to the Book, the main problem of the chronic alcoholic centers within his mind: his problems (mental obsession) drive him to drink and do not result from the drinking as they do with the heavy drinker/acute alcoholic.


 * So the difference between the long form and the short form of the third tradition is a call to the members who have taken the first step to qualify the newcomer: does that person need a spiritual experience to stop? We are to help them self-diagnose according to page 30. Problems come about when the hard drinker comes into the fellowship and gets sober and stays for a while and tells the newcomer who is a real alcoholic things like "just don't drink no matter what," "if you don't drink, you won't get drunk," etc.  For the real alcoholic, only working the steps will keep him sober.


 * "Recovered" v. "Recovering" When the fellowship and the Book say "recovered" they are not referring to the disease of alcoholism. They are referring to the seemingly hopeless state of mind and body that causes relapse after relapse.  It is this condition from which they claim recovery.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That is closer to my interpretation as well. I think this is an important, fundemental property of AA and, if it is not mentioned in the article now, it should be.

Mr. Miles, You are probably correct about our different experiences. It might be UK vs. US and it probably is also related to how closely an AA meeting is associated with a nearby hospital-based rehab program. Desoto10 (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This comment is a bit off topic and may relate more to the general 12-step article. AA never claims that it can "cure" alcoholism. Once you have it, you are an alcoholic for life. Is that a general theme in ALL 12-step programs? Does NA consider that one is an addict for life? Does Gamblers Anonymous consider one a gambler for life?Desoto10 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Update
It is much better now:. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Religious vs. Spiritual
The claim under Other notable criticism that making a strong distinction between spirituality and religion is uncommon is utterly absurd. Most articles on the subject have shown that the American generations that are currently living have all gone through shifts in which people identify themselves more with the word spiritual and less with the word religious. Although world religions continue to be dominant forces, they are routinely losing hard line followers to "spirituality." Most generations go through a shift away from religion and towards the "spiritual" label in their youth, while some return to religion as they age, but the sum trend is for people to move slowly towards spirituality. Most importantly, the only reason I can make that argument is because it has become completely commonplace to contrast the two words! Although I don't have a citation, someone with more time should look this up and correct this misguided comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.38.57 (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * AA meetings around here are (or were, maybe, it's been a while) closed by an explicitly Christian prayer. This is not "spirituality"; this is barenaked religion. 03:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Without reliable sources supporting either point it's not worth discussing. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite right. PhGustaf (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Women For Sobriety
New article for those of you who are interested. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Studies
I don't know when this sentence showed up, but it is not cited:

"AA itself makes no claim to be the only way to recover from alcoholism, through some of its members do make such a claim."

I will delete it, but feel free to add it back with a reference. I believe it to be true.Desoto10 (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

AA Slogans
Added this section when I blundered into the Mel B. book. They list them and talk about each one in depth.Desoto10 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that Scarpy took out the slogans. Maybe I misunderstood your comment: "I agree. There should really be a section in the twelve-step program article on twelve-step language. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)"

What do you mean by 12-step language?Desoto10 (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This edit summary is self-explanatory. Since you asked...


 * Hazelden publishes tons of books like this with no real relation to the established history of the organization, and what is said in them is no way authoritative knowledge. Aside from the few books they publish used as official AA literature, they're like the equivalent of See Sharp Press in terms of being a source for this article. There is, actually, peer-reviewed material that discusses these kinds of things (e.g. ). They should be tossed out on this basis alone. But, the better reason: Language without definition, context, or some understanding of it's common usage does not have encyclopedic value. The high entropy of this article is not improved by throwing in another disorganized set of information. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of those slogans are found hanging in meetings roroms around the world and I have seen then in a the Grapevine's catalog... that sounds pretty official --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability. If it can't be cited correctly, it doesn't belong here. If you search the Grapevine and find relevant articles, use those. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * AA jargon. For example, referring to oneself as "this alcoholic" (or "addict" or whatever) --Midnite Critic (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried again, using a different source, that has been used before with no complaints. A nurse apparently visited a number of AA meetings in order to provide guidance for hearing-impaired alcoholics. She describes her observations, including references to "in-group language" which includes at least a couple of the well-known slogans.Desoto10 (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

THe ones I've seen framed in meeting rooms are "Live and Let Live" and "First Things First," both of which are given as slogans in the Big Book. Other ones would be subject to Scarpy's admonishment, I would think.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 01:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for definitions

 * Cross-talk
 * Powerlessness
 * "take what you want and leave the rest"

Lets make a list. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about a list of terms that have special meaning within AA?


 * Sobriety


 * Higher Power


 * Chips


 * Spiritual Awakening

Desoto10 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. I would also like to add:


 * drunkalogs

-- Scarpy (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Double Winners

-- Scarpy (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Friends of Bill W."
Searching for "Friends of Bill W." redirects here, but there is no explanation of the phrase anywhere in the AA entry. I've seen it used as a more discrete label for AA meetings, but I don't know if that's the only reason or context it's used, so I don't feel qualified to edit the article myself. Could someone who knows more add a mention or explanation of the phrase? Critterkeeper (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Critterkeeper--"Friends of Bill W." certainly would make our list of AA slogans (look up at the top of this discussion page). Adding a section is on the to-do list, but, so far, nobody has had the energy to find the appropriate citations. The phrase has widespread use. The problem with AA is that there is lots of stuff that everybody "knows", it is just that nobody writes it down in a scholarly journal.Desoto10 (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

1st Paragraph
Scarpy did a rewrite, which sounds better than what we had before, but in doing so, also changed the tone of the "effectiveness" of AA at the end of the lead:

"Although AA's attrition rates are high,[4] it is effective as a treatment for alcoholism.[5]"

The old paragraph was more in line with the conclusion of the article which points out that some studies show good outcome, while others show a poorer outcome. I suggest that we either change the Effectiveness section to state that AA IS effective (if the referenced paper can be constued to be definitive), or leave our current Effectiveness section and weaken the above quoted claim of effectiveness in the lead paragraph. I think we had something like "can be effective" in the old lead.Desoto10 (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * These three articles kind of make the what's in the effectiveness article a little dated.




 * But I agree that it could be more specific. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the #5 ref last night and it is clear that the random assignments were not "AA" or "not AA", but rather "intensive referral" or "standard referral". The only causal conclusions would be based on the type of referral. In addition, this is a very select group of ex-GIs with a median AA meeting attendance prior to the study of about 450 meetings each (if I interpreted their tables correctly). The study sample was poor, and unemployed, according to the authors. I'll take a look at the others, but I suspect that this information does not answer the effectiveness issue any more than what we already have. In addition, since the study (#5) that I read was comparing "intensive referral" vs. "standard referral" they cannot make any conclusive claims of effectiveness against "no referral" or "normal course without intervention".Desoto10 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When people cite garbage like Ditman's study or I don't see anyone rushing to discredit it based on the demographics of the sample. The tired line, "there has never been any randomized controlled trials studying AA" really hasn't been true since Brandsma and is certainly not true now. You don't even have to look at sobriety, you can look at quality of life -- Do'h that study is all New Yorkers, maybe life only gets better on the east coast or maybe it all has do with how they pronounce vowels.


 * I apologize for the sarcasm, but randomized controlled trials with large sample groups over time are what you do when you want to determine effectiveness. I agree that there are important nuances, but this more or less puts the nail in the coffin. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

While we agree that randomized controlled trials with large samples are necessary to demonstrate effectiveness, we disagree as to whether any of your newer studies actually do that. Subjects were NOT randomly assigned to AA or not-AA, they were assigned to different referral groups. It is the referral approach that was directly studied. Demographics of the study group are highly relevant. For example,the study you just quoted about New Yorkers would not apply to alcoholics, middle-class businessmen or pretty much anyone except for indigent heroin/cocain addicts living in inner cities.Desoto10 (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will grant you that this does not directly test the effectiveness of AA any more than similar articles cited (e.g. outcomes related to TSF for alcoholics). If we're only going to focus on articles that test just AA and not-AA, I think we're out of luck. It's impossible to hold certain variables constant in social sciences, that doesn't mean there is zero generalizability of results. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that we are pretty much in agreement on the difficulty of doing the appropriate study. Where we disagree a bit is how far one can generalize these studies that suggest efficacy of AA. I guess that everybody else has gotten tired of this article anyway.Desoto10 (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by templating
Without specific contradictions to correct I'm going to revert this: -- Scarpy (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I need help
I need to know what the colors of the chips symbolize, what each color means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.242.5 (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This varies from region to region, meeting to meeting; however, I think that in general, the white chip ("the sign of surrender") is the first chip a new or returning member of AA picks up, when he or she, being "sick and tired of being sick and tired" decides "to give our way of life a try". --Midnite Critic (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
It is not clear to me why this phrase is in the Criticism section:

AA has been described as having substantial religious components.[74][75]

While it is true and cited, how can having religious components be a criticism? Perhaps expanding it to point out that some religious groups and some secular critics complain about the religious nature of AA would be better? Maybe just delete it. Desoto10 (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I put the line in originally, followed by a line stating that some alcoholics have a problem with the religious components and turn to other recovery programs (RR was the reference I included I think). I did it because the editors around at the time felt the religious content was an issue. However, the second line was removed a while back, so the first doesn't make much sense now. Mr Miles (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is an issue, but not a criticism. I'll delete it for now, unless it is already gone.Desoto10 (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the typical reason for citing the religious components as criticism is that AA is a government-funded organization, that is often encouraged by health professionals, meaning that this government or these health professionals are encouraging the religion that AA is tied to.

In what respect is AA a government-funded organization?Desoto10 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not government funded but it is often forced on people. Often judges, parole/probation officers & even employers will force people to regularly attend AA meetings as a condition of parole or keeping their job. Often offenders will be forced to attend substance abuse counseling and over 90% of them are AA based where the person pays $50 to attend a counseling session where the counselor hands out Xeroxed copies of AA literature, repeats AA talking points and requires the person attend X number of AA meetings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.173.140 (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * AA, in principle, eschews outside donations and avoids involvement with organizations outside itself. This works, modulo some nudging and winking about Alano clubs and recovery centers.  The $50 you speak of does not go to AA.  Courts can demand that offenders seek treatment for "alcoholism", but, as the article says, can't insist that the treatment be AA because of that pesky First Amendment. PhGustaf (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be related to the fact that AA declares itself as non-religious? 90.192.176.100 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms Section Really Sucks
The criticisms section here is textbook crap. Full of weasel words, "some argues," and dueling sentences saying things like "one study suggested AA is a cult; however, another study showed they are not a cult." In addition to rewording it so as not to be weaselly and crappy, it should tell us (without having to check the references) WHO is saying these things (eg. major psychiatric organizations or advocacy groups or whatever) and what their significance is in the grand scheme of things. Since I know very little about this subject, I'm just posting this here in the hope that some other editor will take it to heart and fix things. Misterbailey (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT -- Scarpy (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cochrane Review Quote Mining
Reading the abstract the entire abstract, you get a much more nuanced view than this. They're talking about AA in comparison to other interventions. The misleading nature of the quote here could lead people to think that there is no improvement in outcomes, when in reality it's just that the outcomes are similar. This is exactly what you would expect. -- Scarpy (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the entire abstract it says that they compared AA to "no treatment" as well. -Philosophistry (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That was part of the selection criteria for the studies they reviewed, selection criteria are not the same as results. "Selection criteria: Studies involving adults (>18) of both genders with alcohol dependence attending on a voluntary or coerced basis AA or TSF programmes comparing no treatment, other psychological interventions, 12-step variants."


 * The full paragraph you took the quote from reads: "No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. One large study focused on the prognostic factors associated with interventions that were assumed to be successful rather than on the effectiveness of interventions themselves, so more efficacy studies are needed." As far as I know, no studies unequivocally demonstrate accuracy of the theory of relativity.


 * The "plain language" summary makes this a little clearer: "The available experimental studies did not demonstrate the effectiveness of AA or other 12-step approaches in reducing alcohol use and achieving abstinence compared with other treatments, but there were some limitations with these studies. Furthermore, many different interventions were often compared in the same study and too many hypotheses were tested at the same time to identify factors which determine treatment success.


 * Also, their review only weDt to February of 2005, which leaves out recent work done by Christine Timko and her colleagues. When including it's results in the article, the date ranges should this should be considered.


 * If you read enough articles on the effectiveness of peer-run support groups (of all varieties, influences, and methodologies) you'll find the general trend is that the people who are more involved tend to do better, and they all have low retention rates. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you propose the Cochrane Review quote be re-written? I think their findings are valuable in that compared to the previous two sentences of that paragraph ("many reviews are favorable. some are not"), they provide an aggregation of studies. I would be in favor of a re-written quote. I would be against removing it.--Philosophistry (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It would look something like this:


 * "A Cochrane Review of eight studies, published in between 1967 and 2005, measuring the effectiveness of AA found no significant difference between the results of AA and twelve-step participation compared to other treatments. To determine the effectiveness of AA, the authors suggested more studies comparing treatment outcomes with control groups were necessary."


 * Although having only read the abstract and discussion (thanks, Desoto), I'd reserve the right to change it after reading the whole article and seeing which eight articles were picked. -- Scarpy (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there are no objections I'm going to replace the text that was added with my suggestion. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, here is the entire Discussion from the review:

Discussion

Overall, severity of addiction does not seem to be differentially influenced by the interventions from studies included in this review. TSF improved scores in drinking consequences in the same way as other comparison treatments, though regression to the mean cannot be discounted as a factor. Similarly, there is no conclusive evidence from a number of different studies to show that AA helps patients to accept therapy and keep patients in therapy any more or less than other interventions. Similarly, there was no evidence that other TSF interventions impacted the number remaining in treatment any more or less than relapse prevention treatment.

In terms of reduction of self-reported drinking measures, this review shows that TSF helps to reduce alcohol consumption similarly to other comparison interventions, though without a no treatment control group conclusions are limited. Two studies comparing TSF to other interventions showed a similar reduction in alcohol consumption in all groups. It was not clear whether AA specifically helps people to reduce drinking during treatment and at follow up compared with other interventions. Three studies comparing AA in different conditions with other interventions found few differences between interventions in reducing amount of drinks and percentage of drinking days.

Although one small study reported AA had better abstinence outcomes than a comparison treatment, there is no conclusive evidence to show that AA can help patients to achieve abstinence, nor is there any conclusive evidence to show that it cannot. Most studies included in this review did not allow assessment of the effectiveness of TSF in promoting complete abstinence.

12-step and AA programmes for alcohol problems are promoted worldwide. Yet experimental studies have on the whole failed to demonstrate their effectiveness in reducing alcohol dependence or drinking problems when compared to other interventions. Even with the notable contribution from the USA National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) in terms of funding, resources and researchers for the MATCH study (MATCH 1998), and then in giving free access to the Match data to allow further analysis, no conclusive results have been obtained about superiority of one treatment over the other included studied (Cutler 2005).

In general, the available research seems to be concentrated on prognostic factors associated with assumedly successful treatments rather than on the effectiveness of treatments in themselves. Moreover, further attention should be devoted to quality of life outcomes for patients and their families and it is possible that a well designed qualitative study could identify hypotheses for further research

Authors' conclusions

Implications for practice People considering attending AA or TSF programmes should be made aware that there is a lack of experimental evidence on the effectiveness of such programmes. It should also be underlined that in the available studies all the interventions appeared to improve at least some of the outcomes considered. Policy makers and health care professionals need to consider the options they provide and the advice they give in this regard. The active collaboration of patients or clients should perhaps be sought to identify the best intervention for that specific person.

Implications for research Further large-scale studies comparing just one AA or TSF intervention with a control should be undertaken to test the efficacy of that intervention over longer follow-up periods.

Further attention should be devoted to quality of life outcomes for patients and their families and it is possible that a well designed qualitative study could identify hypotheses for further research.

---Desoto10 (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

American treatment industry
The second para reads:


 * In a survey of treatment providers from three separate institutions (the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, Rational Recovery Systems and the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors) measuring the treatment provider's responses on the Spiritual Belief Scale (a scale measuring belief in the four spiritual characteristics AA identified by Ernest Kurtz); the scores were found to explain 41% of the variance in the treatment provider's responses on the Addiction Belief Scale (a scale measuring adherence to the disease model or the free-will model addiction).

I have always got good academic marks, yet I have read this para three times and can make no sense of it - is it because I'm not a statistician or am I being dense today? If the answer is the former, perhaps we should add an initial explanation sentence in lay English for the average Wiki reader? Mr Miles (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's wrong. You should stop poking fun at Americans and learn some statistics. :) -- Scarpy (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not poking fun, just don't want the World to think America has all the drunks :D Mr Miles (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it means that treatment providers -- counselors and the like -- who take a "spiritual" approach to life are somewhat more likely to subscribe to the disease model of alcoholism than those who don't. But I could be wrong, and I'm not quite sure how relevant it is anyway. PhGustaf (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct, and it is some of the best academic work from one of AA's strongest critics, it adds balance to the article. I'm fine with discussing a rewrite, or adding some information to clarify, but stripping information from articles just because someone is confused by it is a bad idea. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the result is pretty unsurprising. Is there an article somewhere on treatment centers?  That would be a good place for it; I don't think it adds much here.  If you want to rewrite it, use less information rather than more -- nobody cares about the names of the studies or the 41%.  PhGustaf (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of a WP:SURPRISING policy. It didn't surprise me either, but it does one important thing -- bring quantifiable and objective facts to an argument that otherwise has few. This is kind of what Wikipedia is about in general. If it's shocking and verifiable and encyclopedic all at the same time, that's good, but it's more important that it's verifiable and encyclopedic. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is such a policy. The material may be verifiable and encyclopedic, but it's not germane, and as it stands it's just confusing and distracting.  Anyway, I'm done here: I won't change it. PhGustaf (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SURPRISING doesn't say what you might think. :) At any rate, yes, it's germane. The section discusses the influence of AA on the alcoholism treatment industry, and the paragraph, and article is summarizes, discusses the influence of AA on the alcoholism treatment industry. It's from a peer-reviewed source, it's good work, and balances the article. I'll grant you that it may be difficult to understand, which is a good reason for a re-write. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * mmm, I'm with PhGustaf with regard to its relevance, because although the surveyed were treatment centres, the subject of the survey is the relationship between spiritual attitude and belief in the disease theory of alcoholism. That suggests to me that it doesn't belong in this section but elsewhere; it's very good though. Mr Miles (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the first graf doesn't have anything to do with spirituality. Just to make trouble:  If you want to get some controversy into this section, discuss whether Hazelden et al create conflicts with the Sixth Tradition. PhGustaf (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Does AA endorse, finance, or lend the name AA to Hazelden? Mr Miles (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's finish up with the Schaler study before moving on to Hazelden please. I agree that the paragraph makes little sense to most people reading this article and, more importantly, should be moved to the Disease Theory of Alcoholism where it is completely relevant. The study does not investigate AA at all, but was looking at how the spiritual beliefs of treatment providers might influence their belief in the disease theory of alcoholism. This was found to be the case. The author concludes:

"Addiction-treatment providers who believe in the disease model of addiction tend to believe in a metaphysical power that can influence personal experience, as operationally defined by this study. They are also more likely to be female, attend AA, be certified as addiction-treatment providers, and drink less alcohol andor ingest fewer mood-altering drugs per week than those treatment providers who believe in the free-will model of addiction. Further, they are more likely to be members of NAADAC and SPAB (now Division 50 of the American Psychological Association).

Treatment providers who believe in the free-will model of addiction are more likely to not believe in a metaphysical power that can influence personal experience, as operationally defined by this study. They are not usually in AA, are not generally certified as addiction-treatment providers, and tend to be male. They are also more likely to be members of RRS."

I suggest that we paraphrase what Schaler says, above, and move it to the Disease Theory article. Can we come to a consensus on this?169.230.82.109 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)That would be me.Desoto10 (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All good, I think it should go. But it doesn't belong in the Disease Theory article either, any more than would a study of the connection between a cab driver's spiritual beliefs and his views on the disease theory. PhGustaf is right here to, it belongs in an article about treatment centres. Mr Miles (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know why I thought it would fit in the Disease Model article. Maybe because Schaler is so strongly against any disease model for any mental disease. So yes, I support removing it from the AA article. If Scarpy wants to put it elsewhere, please do.Desoto10 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I'd call this consensus as much as I would the tyranny of the majority, and a bad omen that editors are agreeing to remove information derived from a peer-reviewed source, but okay. I'll try it here and here and see if it sticks. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said there was a consensus. Three editors feel that the way you have summarized this very simple and interesting result lacks clarity. Three editors also feel that it is out of place in the AA article as it relates to how treatment providers' score on a spirituality scale relates to their belief in the disease model for addiction. You are the one who deleted it from here and moved it.Desoto10 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's true. But it's not just "a spirituality scale," it is a scale measuring spiritual principles derived from AA, and the article shows the prevalence of professionals with those beliefs in the treatment industry. You could argue about whether people working in the industry came to believe them completely independent of AA, a good question as unlikely as it might be, but no one challenged it on those grounds or suggested to clarify it in that way. It is about the effects of AA on the treatment industry, in the most salient sense of how many treatment providers have adopted AA-like beliefs and to what degree. Either way, I'm done talking about it, it's just one paragraph.


 * The larger problem is that more than three editors have been working on this article for a long time and it's still a piece of shit, we are still drawn in to debates over bike sheds, and this is a bike shed, rather than doing actual research and writing. By research here I don't mean citing tangential ramblings self-published authors (digital or otherwise) I mean reading the scholarly sources, original court cases (not their sensationalized interpretations) and hammering away at making this article something good. The trend is still to remove rather than improve. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT ;D - Mr Miles (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)