Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

Intro Rewrite

The intro was rewritten to have it indicate better the body of the article. The intro now touches on the following topics: Oxford Group beginnings formation and development, the program (The 12 Steps and Twelve Traditions), the disease concept of alcoholism, demographic makeup and development, effectiveness, attrition, relationship with institutions, and cultural identity.

Additions to Disease Concept of Alcoholism section

Quotes from the two main texts Alcoholics Anonymous and The 12 Steps and 12 Traditions relevant to the concept of disease as it is viewed in AA were added. These quotes follow:

The term disease is not used to refer to alcoholism in the two main texts of AA. The word disease is found in the Big Book on a single occasion to discuss its mental, physical, and spiritual components: "From (resentment) stems 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." Alcoholics Anonymous p64

The word disease is found in the 12 and 12 on a single occasion as well, to advocate a unified approach in addressing alcoholism: "Alcoholics Anonymous can be likened to a group of physicians who might find a cure for cancer, and upon whose concerted work would depend the answer for sufferers of this disease." The 12 Steps and 12 Traditions p150

Here is a reference for these being the only occurrences of the word disease in these texts:

http://www.164andmore.com/words/disease.htm

These quotes are specifically germane to any discussion on the Disease Concept of Alcoholism as it applies to AA because as they represent the only two occurrences of the word disease in the two original main texts of AA.

In addition, the quote "Physicians who are familiar with alcoholism agree there is no such thing as making a normal drinker out of an alcoholic. Science may one day accomplish this, but it hasn't done so yet." Alcoholics Anonymous p31 was added to the Disease Concept of Alcoholism section.

The bottom line is the characterization of alcoholism as a "spiritual" malady in nature... and the admission there is no scientific cure available or medical treatment to remove alcoholism or its effects on the alcoholic presented in the AA main texts are diametrically opposed to the Disease Concept of Alcoholism.

These additions were removed from the article after I made them. As an individual whose experience in editing Wikipedia articles is limited to this article on AA, I am certainly new to this process and do not understand why these quotes were removed. I received a notice that I had made more than 3 edits to the article and was labeled a participant in an "edit war." I have no idea what edit wars are and have never been involved in such. I am however, clumsy enough as an editor that certainly more than 3 edits were made, in large to undo the mistakes I made in previous edits.

Again, as a new contributer I am presuming this is the forum to address such issues. The message I received was not signed, but it said to visit the article's talk page, which this appears to be.

Suggestions and fixes to this issue are welcome. Stickembaby (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR. You'll need to find secondary sources for whatever point you're trying to make. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OR? Wikipedia's definition of OR: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists." What exactly is original on my part about citing the original texts the original members of Alcoholics Anonymous wrote? The page numbers of the quotes are given, and the quotes say verbatim what is on the referenced pages; hence, it would appear they constitute a reliable published source on the subject of AA. Moreover, they represent the most reliable source available. The fact the founders of AA chose not to use the word "disease" in their texts seems rather relevant to the Disease Concept of Alcoholism as it applies to AA. It is unclear what you are alleging. Please clarify your statement. Stickembaby (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

First, your civility, good faith edits and avoidance of edit warring bode well for your continued contributions to Wikipedia. The issue is the use of primary sources that vaguely refer to the paragraph topic. Meaning, POV has been used. I removed the following, "...no such thing as making a normal drinker out of an alchoholic" because it's bearing on the section is unclear and wobbly, meaning POV has been used. Unless a secondary source can relate that quote to the disease concept, it can't be used. Also the cancer/disease quote from the 12X12 can't be used because it can be argued that the only disease referred to was cancer, not alcoholism. If you could find a secondary source that showed that the 12X12 indeed meant to say that alcoholism was, like cancer, a disease in the writer's minds, then it could, and should, be added to the argument. The page 64 quote can't be used to show AA was announcing that alcoholism is a disease when BW clearly said that AA had consciously avoiding making the connection. As a matter of fact, he referred directly to that passage. As an aside, and a slightly personal note, checking, as you did, Wiki Policies before replying, should be continued; you have so far done better than I did as a new editor. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Survey redux

Currently reads: "The 1990 commentary evaluated data of triennial surveys from 1977 through 1989 and found that one twentieth (5%) of those who first attend an AA meeting are still attending after one year. " Wasn't the consensus that the number was really something like 25%?Desoto10 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, AA's own statistics from 1989 verify this number. It is an old and unsubstantiated AA saying that "50% get sober right away, another 25% eventually make it." Statistical projections done on subsequent long term studies have pinned the percentage of members who remain after 12 months at 5% as well, independently of the 1989 survey. If you'd like, you can read the 1989 survey publication here (http://thearidsite.tripod.com/AACOMMPR.PDF), the relevant graph Is on page 12. 222.154.137.159 (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

First woman in AA

Florence Rankin is not mentioned on page 52 of Kurtz, nor on any other page of the book. In any case, she wasn't the first woman AA member; she was the only female member when the Big Book was written, which is an entirely different thing. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Spr[i]ng[ing]" from Oxford Group

   The cited pg. 129 of My Name is Bill... does not support

AA sprang from The Oxford Group, a non-denominational movement modeled after first-century Christianity.

1. The phrase "sprang from" at least suggests it being a project initiated by members or employees of OG acting formally on behalf of OG, which is clearly not established by that page. Some wording like "was in substantial part inspired by teachings of the OG and of WJ" would avoid any appearance of PoV.
2. The description "a non-denominational movement" is misleading, since OG's leader(s) so particularly addressed CofE followers; something implying more clearly the Anglican (and apparently RC) affinities should replace it if it's relevant enuf to be mentioned at all.
3. The phrase "modeled after first-century Christianity" is something explicitly said by some Christian groups, and treated by most of the others as so obviously their intention as to make it unworthy of explicit mention. (And BTW, following the phrase with "... unlike those heathens who go around calling themselves X'tians" is very close to being implicit in the short phrase. I could give you a decent rendering of -- but not chapter and verse for -- a text that proves Christians avoid creating the occasion for such invidious comparisons being construed, but no doubt any competent bible-thumper can come up with three verses still better supporting the idea.) With an adequate ref, "OG described themselves as trying to model ..." could avoid PoV. But the accompanying article is abt AA, not OG, and TMI should be enuf reason to let those who want to know that much follow the damn links to peripherally related articles, instead of trying to make one article so definitive as to obviate links.

   It wouldn't literally enhance my day to do the rewrite, but feel free to construe this as a threat to do it myself if that's what it takes.
--Jerzy•t 09:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

well page 128 states that "the oxford group made it a point never to interfere with an individuals religious beliefs" so non denominational is covered, page 129 states that the oxford group is "modeled after first-century christianty" and the entire first chunk of the book describes bill wilson as a member of the oxford group, working within it's tenets.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any definition that would equate the phrase "sprang from" as necessarily entailing formal oversight and guidance. (BTW, is there a greater weasel word than "suggests"?) The reasonable reader would conclude that only an immediate antecedent is being asserted - not suggested. The rest of the section details what was the nature of the antecedent, further keeping the reading from reaching erroneous conclusions. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Making a "threat", or any better-do-it-or-else tactic, is antithetical to establishing consensus. The editor should realize that taking an article hostage doesn't work and should withdraw the "think of it as a threat" - or explain better what is meant, and, in any case, should think of better ways to influence others. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   The only "threat" i was making was to make fixes on my own (tho i lack the subject-area expertise to be likely to get fine points right) if there was no one to collaborate with, and my assessment that that was likely seems mistaken. (And i can understand how my sardonicism could be misperceived.)   
Can we discuss further what language would best serve in that 'graph?
--Jerzy•t 07:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: The only "threat" i was making was to make fixes on my own. Glad to see I didn't mistake your intent to turn this mother out if no else did. Re: "language". We have discussed it "further" and the ball is in your court to respond substantively. BTW, this is not a negotiation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your claim was not to rework the language, it was that the sentence wasn't supported by the citation. It is supported by the citation.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)