Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 5

Don't archive discussions that are not finished

There were several discussions that were not finished. Please don't do this in future. I am going to de-archive all of it. 82.19.66.37 19:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we lost all the edit links for individual sections. — DavidMack 20:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed. I don't know what to do. If someone wants to re-archive (which I would be happy for them to do), please run it past all users, and we can quickly mention which topics we want kept in. Sensible?82.19.66.37 22:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. I've setup MiszaBot to archive threads that have not been updated in seven days. -- Craigtalbert 22:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This shows a very poor understanding of said policy. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion. What has voting got to do with on-going discussions?

Why do you want to archive on-going discussions? Why not put the bar at two weeks or even three? I think this would be more sensible. Sometimes I go nearly a week without being able to access wiki, but have several ongoing issues which I wish to be discussed. Two weeks at least seems sensible.... 82.19.66.37 10:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is an embarrassment to wikipedia. If you can't put in enough effort to respond to a talk page discussion within seven days, than you shouldn't be working on it: shit, or get off the pot. Get out of the way of people interested in making this article more than useless poorly researched POV garbage. -- Craigtalbert 15:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by "an embarrassment to wiki", apart from the fact that it says some stuff that you don't like. I would agree that this article needs some serious arbitration, please assume good faith and remember talk page etiquette. Some of us here are interested in creating a useful article which fairly represents both sides of the story, but are not prepared to devote our whole lives to it. You actions, once again, indicate that you are not interested in consensus, but in having an article which puts forward a rosey eyed view of AA. I assume this is due to an affiliation with one 12 step group or another. Please "take your own inventory" on matters of NPOV/POV, because it seems that you are not at all interested in this yourself.82.19.66.37 10:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're one of the people who are "interested in creating a useful article which fairly represents both sides of the story," but I know I am. I've cited the relevant wikipedia policy for all of my edits, which are there help create good articles. As much as I believe in consensus, content which clearly violates said policy should be removed -- ArbCom establishes consensus for those policies.

Take a look at some of the articles I've written on similar topics e.g. the criticism sections in the Emotions Anonymous, Self help groups for mental health, and Overeaters Anonymous, articles. You'll noticed that they all cite peer-reviewed research, not self-published essays from personal websites or news stories. Similarly, when I found peer-reviewed research showing there was a program that worked better than Al-Anon's methods for getting alcoholics in to treatment, I added it to the article. After there was a complaint on the Rational Recovery blog about their wikipedia article, I edited it to reduce the POV language in it (see edits from July 17 and later). I even left a comment in the blog entry asking them to contact me (see comment four).

The criticism section in the OA article made them so mad that the OA office emailed me about it and asked me to remove it. Obviously, I didn't.

Of course we both have our biases, but I go out of my way to include critical view points when I find them and they meet wikipedia's guidelines. -- Craigtalbert 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No Model of a recovered Person

The citation used for this section does not appear to meet WP:V. Since it appears other editors disagree with me, I've posted it on the verifiability noticeboard. -- Craigtalbert 21:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would agree with you on this, on one level (though have added to your post on the relevant page). But periodicals can clearly be used. They can, and often are, even in featured articles. Hence the Arthur H Cain piece should be allowed, IMO. 82.19.66.37 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the section has just been deleted with no explanation given.JeffStickney 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

yes there is a problem jeff, valuable articles being cited as vandalism.

The kasl piece ties into AA own teachings such as "there are no graduates", and Bill Wilson's comment "once and alcoholic always an alcoholic. Research of the Big book will validate Kasl's comments there is no model of a recovered person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 September 2007

Discussion of sources

No, no and triple no. For all the same reasons that are given against More Revealed. Not that I dispute the accuracy of Hazelden's material, and wouldn't normally mind them being there, but I think the same rules must apply in all cases. 82.19.66.37 01:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain - you're being extremely cryptic. Hazelden books were used within AA for decades, so it would be nice to know what you're going on about. Hoserjoe 06:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of reliable sources, an exceptionally high criteria has been set for this article. Books published by "cause driven" publishers, with a poor reputation for fact checking (such as some of Hazledons more "evangelical" books) and by anonymous or otherwise unknow authors do not meet this criteria. As such, Hazledon as a reference should be taken out (preferably with alternative references found...). Please see discussions on "more revealed" as a source. 213.235.24.138 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to see a high criteria is now being applied to publishers cited, we'll hear no more of See Sharp Press then. For the record, More Revealed was rejected as unreliable because it is a personal blog, not an unreliable publisher.Mr Miles 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• While the author has RECENTLY made "more revealed" freely available online, it is NOT just a blog. It was in the past published in book form and used copies can still be found on Amazon. [1]I have not read it so I cannot comment on how reliable it is, but a published book is not a "personal blog".JeffStickney 20:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Published sources are not necessarily reliable sources. Specific reference citations must be from reliable third-party, unbiased sources. In the case of scientific references, the citations must be from peer-reviewed literature. Unpublished, self-published, and draft versions are specifically ruled out. In any case, this is what the verifiability noticeboard is for. -- Craigtalbert 20:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Miles , you have posted on this page you are a member of AA, so how can you opinions not be biased. Ken Ragge was a past member of AA and did research on AA , maybe it is not flattering to the organization, an investigation of any religion , AA included, shows that there is a distinction between myth and historical facts. Ken has done just that , investigated the history and shown the public another side to the organization.

On this wiki board entries and opinions that are in conflict with the doctrine of AA appear to be deleted on a regular basis. For example under critism and conterversy Charollettes work citing "no model of a recovered person". How could there be a model. AA doctrine states that "once and alcoholic always an alcoholic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any bias with the deletions, only that much of the anti-AA material is based on unreliable sources. — DavidMack 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I moved the Charollettes stuff to AA concept of alcoholism, as it seemed more fitting there (she is commenting on the AA definition of an alcoholic, or the interpreted lack of) and added NPOV. I am slightly in the "anti-AA" camp, though am more concerned with creating a "balanced article" than diseminating propoganda. Certainly, I never remove "anti-AA" material, however ridiculous it is (unless it is simply vandalism), though I have occasionally edited the better stuff.

As for More-Revealed, I am firmly of the opinion that it is a reliable resource (at least the book section. I am applying the same criteria that has been applied, and will look at some of the other sources later (there is a strong argument that AA aproved lit is not suitable for all claims made about the organisation), but in the future will look at Ragge, Bufe etc and again argue that they are in fact reliable sources. 213.235.24.138 09:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that AA lit is not objective. However it is legitimate to say "AA's policy is THIS. Outside researches have seen THIS". So there is no problem here. — DavidMack 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well AA approved Lit seems to leave a lot of the history out, there is far more details to the history in More Revealed. It is understandable after why would AA want a history on the financial history of the organization, the early conflicts in the organization, and how much its teachings are influenced by the Oxford Group. Good comparison that have failed to be made is how much AA theology and the Oxford group doctrine are interchangeable It conflicts with the organizations goal of "caryying the message". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty much an established fact that AA was born out of conflict, between people and within their own souls, so there ain't much to hide. Likewise, similarities to the Oxford Group do not discredit AA. The facts are that AA was a spin-off of the Oxford Group; is there a problem with that? — DavidMack 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is an informal society for recovering alcoholics.[1] Members meet in local groups that vary in size from a handful to many hundreds of individuals. In 2001 there were 100,000 groups worldwide, making a global community of more than two million members[2].

The stated primary purpose of the society is "to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety."[3] AA teaches that an alcoholic, in order to recover, should abstain completely from alcohol on a daily basis;[4][5] the society in turn offers a community of recovering people who support each other by "sharing experience, strength and hope"[6] and often by working the suggested Twelve Steps together.

Alcoholics Anonymous was the first 12-step program and has been the model for similar recovery groups such as Nicotine Anonymous, Al-Anon/Alateen, Gamblers Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Sexaholics Anonymous, and Overeaters Anonymous. Al-Anon and Alateen are companion programs designed to provide support for relatives and friends of alcoholics."

Should look like this then:

"Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is a society for recovering alcoholics.[1] Members meet in local groups that vary in size from a handful to many hundreds of individuals (citation needed). In 2001 there were 100,000 groups worldwide, making a global community of more than two million members[2].

The stated primary purpose of the society is "to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers."[cite "trad 5"] AA teaches that an alcoholic, in order to recover, should abstain completely from alcohol on a daily basis;[4][5] by working the Twelve Steps.

Alcoholics Anonymous was the first 12-step program and has been the model for similar recovery groups such as Nicotine Anonymous, Al-Anon/Alateen, Gamblers Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Sexaholics Anonymous, Clutters Anonymous and Overeaters Anonymous."

Remarkable how the article changes when you remove the POV language

"AA's policy is THIS. Outside researches have seen THIS".

Please see WP:SYN re using research to advance a position. Not unacceptable, but should have reliable sources and we should not use our own "logic" to assume an "outcome" not evidenced by one of the sources, which consitantly happens on this page (from both sides). 82.19.66.37 11:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

More Revealed re-rehashed again

More Revealed (discussed before here) is a very poor piece of work that likely would not have been published outside of the small, cause-driven presses. I argue it is unreliable for the following reasons:

• It is poor quality because Ragge did little new investigation, usually repeating material from others like Peele.

So you're slating it because it compounded several different arguments against AA? For quoting "experts"? This is a bad thing?

I don't see him compounding, merely repeating. Just an indication that he doesn't add anything new.

Well, I'm not aware of anything similar to the Ragge material, so clearly he is adding "something new"

Not an important point, I guess, just an opinion on quality.

• It is not research, it is polemic (one-sided, ignoring contrary evidence).
  • One reviewer noted that the book said absolutely nothing positive about AA, even though it is obvious that AA has been a positive influence for many (Addiction Aug93, Vol. 88 Issue 8, p1150-1152).

Many believe that AA is clearly a bad thing, and would argue that an organisation which makes wildly outlandish positive claims about itself needs a source like "more revealed" to offer the negative as well as the positive.

Yes, we need the negative and positive, but from reliable sources. Ignoring research is another indication that Ragge is unreliable.

AA does not count as a reliable source, in this case.

Keep to the discussion about Ragge's reliability. The AA issue is discussed elsewhere.

• • Ragge makes unreferenced over-generalisations such as:
    • "There apparently have been no controlled studies done of AA against other treatment in a non-coercive environment." (p 30) This is simply not true; there is tons of academic research on AA.

OK, you have a point here.

Most of the book is like that.

More examples, please.

Maybe later, haven't got time to go through my notes again.

• • • "Belief and environmental effects are more important than the chemical effects of alcohol." (p 42) Again, there is tons of research pro and con; Ragge ignores opposing research.

Well, my understanding is that belief and environmental factors are more important than the chemical effects. I don't think that is doubted by many. What is doubted is that whether or not one is "born an alcoholic" or not...

Based on reliable sources such as Griffith and Vaillant, there is no consensus that chemical effects are less important. Again, Ragge is engaged in polemic, not explanation.

I would like to hear more from Valliant etc and their opinions on the "chemical effect" that alcohol has on alcoholism. It is not the drug itself that is attributed to the addiction (if it were, then everyone who drank would get addicted), but either environmental, biological or social factors, or more likely a mix of all three. 82.19.66.37 10:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a mix, which Ragge ignores research on. I would suggest you read a book that gives an overview, rather than just authors who have their own points to make.

• • • "The membership of different groups varies widely. ... In wealthier neighborhoods ... the membership is wealthier, in poor neighborhoods, poorer." There is much research on the demographics of AA that Ragge could have quoted, most of it observing the wide variation of socio-economic backgrounds within groups.

So what you're saying is that Ragge has agreed with the research? I don't see where the discrepancy is here...

I was trying to say that Ragge presents AA as elitist, ignoring a consensus in research that the demographics are wide.

Well, that isn't what the quote indicates he is saying. Perhaps you might like to find a clearer one?

Maybe later.

• • • "There are also many exclusive meetings in private homes where an invitation is necessary and “undesirables” ... are not invited." (p 98). Ragge does not quote references, sources, or methods for arriving at this conclusion. Did he do a survey? Visit AA groups for a year? More likely, he simply enjoys speaking badly of AA.

I've seen it.

I'm sure it happens, but we need a reliable source on that. Ragge does not show any science behind his generalisations.

That isn't really a scientific question, requiring a scientific study to show. Qualitative sources would indicate this is true, for example "mid-town", a group which has been widely reported to be "exclusive" and "by invite only".

"Qualitative" does not have to be unscientific and does not justify generalisations.

• Ragge's language is one-sided and unacademic, for example on page 31 he quotes only a small fraction of Vaillant's discussion on AA, out of context, and rather than actually discussing the issues he concludes that Vaillant must be "God-controlled". He also misquotes Vaillant's conclusions on clinic treatment as applying to AA.

I don't think that language such as "god-controlled" would ever be misplaced in a discussion on AA.

Like I say, he misquoted material. And "god-controlled" is an insult, not a scientific or academic term — another indication of unreliability.

What were the precise misquotes? And how do you know he meant it as an insult?

For the precise misquotes, you'll have to read the material yourself. "God-controlled" is not an objective or scientific term; and I don't think he meant it as a compliment.

In conclusion, why would we want to refer to Ragge? There are excellent histories of AA out there like AA: The Story by Ernest Kurtz and balanced reviews of AA like The treatment of alcoholism by Edgar P. Nace. You just have to go to a library instead of relying only on the web. — DavidMack 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are some excellent sources on AA and yes I should get to a library. But I don't see why we shouldn't use "more revealed" as a source. 82.19.66.37 11:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

— Because it's unreliable. — DavidMack 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need to respond to all points that I made. Or remake your points. "because it's unreliable" does not get us anywhere in terms of reaching concensus. It stops conversation. If you are not prepared to go take teh conversation further, I will simply start using more revealed website material as a source. 82.19.66.37 19:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. — DavidMack 21:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding in more depth. 82.19.66.37 10:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lively and interesting discussion. — DavidMack 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

American Understanding of Alcoholism Who is Edwards???

The reference provides a name a date a page!!! I have researched and cannont find Edwards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking about Griffith Edwards? PhGustaf 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a footnote with the full reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#_note-31 — DavidMack 19:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Court mandated attendance

Discussion continued from "Don't archive discussions..."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmack (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC) What is an embarrassement to the wiki is an ongoing edit of material, in particular the most recent court ruling this last month that defines where the courts stand on individuals being coerced into attending AA meetings. I have definded the courts position and the AA postion on this subject.

If the parol officers were mandating attendance to the "moonies" as a cure for "aids" and the courts ruled otherwise it would be be included in the wiki moonie page I assume.

Can you imagine a wiki on the Catholic Church that where information on the "inquistion" and the "sexual abuse cases " keep getting deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've all ready responded to this in the the Twelve-step program talk page, as you attempted to put identical information in that article, and in the talk page for you ip address. -- Craigtalbert 21:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you review the following. Your reasoning that the information is from a biased source does not stand. In fact I have reviewed a number of the court cases from ttp://login.findlaw.com/scripts/case_login?dest=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl

Sept. 7, 2007 Inouye vs. Kemna -- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals not only upheld the earlier rulings that AA functions as a relgion , it went a step further allowng the plaintiff, who was ordered to attend AA, the right to pursue damages. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco: the constitutional dividing line between church and state in such cases is so clear that a parole officer can be sued for damages for ordering a parolee to go through rehabilitation at Alcoholics Anonymous or an affiliated program for drug addicts. In that ruling it was also noted "adherence to the AA fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization." In "working" the Twelve Steps, participants become actively involved in seeking God through prayer, confessing wrongs and asking for "removal of shortcomings." The Ninth Court of Appeals pointed to cases decided before 2001 by the federal courts of appeal for the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin) and the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, Vermont), in addition to a number of cases in lower federal courts and in state courts, all with the same result. The "unanimous conclusion" of these courts was that coercing a person into AA/NA or into AA/NA based treatment programs was unconstitutional because of their religious nature.

You have altered the finding of Georg Valliant to exclude vital information on his studies. what you are doing is little more than manipulatin to obscure facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact: The Wiki Addresses Mandated Court attendance Fact : Judges and parol officers have been mandating people to attend AA for drug and alcohol related incidences.

Fact there have been court cases.

Fact: The Courts do not agree with AA or 12 steps assessment of themselves. Fact the courts have ruled it a violation of peoples rights {in the United States} to be sentenced to AA or other 12 step programs.

Fact: It is not the wiki job to agress or disagree with the courts assessment of AA and therefor eliminate from The AA page. Fact the information above came from a newspaper. Fact you can find all the cases related to AA, in Find Law. I have read them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Cases available on Find Law: Warner Vs. Orange Country Department of Probabation , April 19th, 1999 United States Court of Appeals Second Circut Docket No. 95-7055 : Robert Warner brought this suit against the Orange County Department of Probation ("the County") under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that terms of probation imposed on him as part of a criminal sentence -- requiring him to attend meetings of a local chapter of Alcoholics Anonymous ("A.A.") -- forced him, an atheist, to participate in religious exercises in violation of his rights under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. After a bench trial, the district court found a violation of plaintiff's rights. The court, however, found no substantial damages and made a nominal award of one dollar in Warner's favor. Warner v. Orange County Dept. of Probation, 870 F. Supp. 69 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

Destefano Versus Emergency Housing: UNITED STATES Court OF APPEAL For the Second Circuit decided April 20, 2001, Docket No. 99-9146 : So we must be content to observe the rough boundary that the cases have established between that which is and that which is not "religion" for these purposes. A.A., our cases teach, is on the religion side of the line .

Evans Vs. Tennessee Supreme Court of Tennessee, Nashville Filed November 10th, 1997: As stated, Evans contends that the Board acted illegally by requiring him to continue his participation in an Alcoholics Anonymous ("AA") treatment program. Specifically, he urges that the AA program is a religious one and that required participation in it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Ruling : , on remand, the trial court finds that the treatment program at issue is a religious one and that there are no alternative secular treatment programs offered, then to require a prisoner to attend or participate in such a treatment program would constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause. Attending or failing to attend such religious meetings can not be considered in a decision whether to grant or deny parole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Case in point the wiki on the Catholic Church Sex abuse Scandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic#Sexual_abuse_cases

I would like to keep this discussion to to either the twelve step program talk page or to this one. Which would you prefer?

The difference between court mandated AA attendance and sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests is that the goverment did not force Roman Catholic priests to abuse children. Like I've said before, I'm not questioning the veracity of the courts conclusions. What I am saying is that information on constitutional law, and a semantic debate about "religion vs. spirituality" is not relevant for these this article or for the Twelve-step program article. If you can rewrite your contributions to remove POV language and to not give them undue weight, then I will stop reverting. Otherwise, this is POV-pushing, and the more you do it, the better case I'll have for making this article semi-protected. -- Craigtalbert 01:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, please take the time to review your edits after making them, and please be sure to sign your talk page comments. The last edit obscured the closing end of a comment tag that prevented text posted after it from being displayed. -- Craigtalbert 01:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like this discussion to be kept on AA. I don't see why it shouldn't be on 12 step programs as well, unless you have the intention to merge the two. 82.19.66.37 10:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For this article (AA) I suggest one paragraph on the courts' view of AA, with a link to a main article on Court mandated attendance in Alcoholics Anonymous which can go into the court cases in great detail. Sheer volume of information or lists of cases is confusing and does not add to the quality of this article. — DavidMack 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to think this was an appropriate way to deal with excessively long POV content, but WP:POVFORK cautions against. it. Unless it is dispassionately dealing with the topic from a constitutional perspective (rather than a "See, judges think AA is a religious program, proving that AA has an agenda to convert everyone to Protestantism and take advantage of people when they're weak" perspective), it shouldn't be done. -- Craigtalbert 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that forking off is of no help. As you imply, AA has no part in any coercion, so why is this topic relevant? If the courts force prisoners to plant trees do we criticise the Department of Parks? In the religion section, there should be an outline of the issues and maybe one or two sentences explaining the legal position on AA as a religion. Why would we want more? — DavidMack 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Peele has written extensively on coerced AA attendance. I think we should include the courts position, his position and the AA position. Also, Stating AA has no part in any coercion is obviously incorrect. The chit system would not work without AA taking part. 213.235.24.138 14:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive Bot Bug or Sabotage

At [2] I see the comment "(Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 24h) to /dev/null.)" This means that rather than doing its usual weekly archive to the proper place, the archive bot took two threads and threw them on the floor -- they were gone from the talk page and not archived, and available only by going back into the page's history. One of the threads was, ironically, "Don't Archive Discussions That are Not Finished". Good Wikipedian that I am, I reverted the change.

It's difficult to imagine a software bug doing this. It appears to be an action by someone who for some reason disliked the thread. PhGustaf 02:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding your humor to Wikipedia, but the talk pages are meant to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous. Some readers looking for a serious discussion of an article on a talk page might not find absurd paranoia amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive). You might also want to check out Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. -- Craigtalbert 04:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly sabotage, but still it's not a usual template, i.e. you can't "compact" it into one line (that is, not until I write a more sophisticated parsing algorithm). Миша13 07:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Craig, please assume good faith and don't bite the newbies. He had a serious point to make. 213.235.24.138 14:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What? I can't have a sense of humor? I still think it's funny. - Craigtalbert 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Feminism and Alcholics Anonymous

I have started a new chapter on Woman's Issues or Feminism and Alcholics Anonymous looking at the program from the viewpoint of gender difference and research and reviews undertaken that address these difference.

I do not expect this chapter to be deleted but improved upon as wiki guidelines outline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing information can be an improvement. -- Craigtalbert 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But flagging the information with {{Fact}} and working the matter out on the talk page is more likely to resolve the matter with fewer hurt feelings than deleting it. And, "Don't bite the newbies". (For what it's worth, I have reservations about this section too. I'm not pressing for its inclusion.) PhGustaf 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It was cited. 207.232.97.13 has roughly three times more edits than you, and his been warned several times about similar issues on his/her talk page. As much as I might admire you noobs sticking together, wikipedia is not a therapist. Remember, ultimately this is for the good of people reading the articles, not to protect the feelings of people writing them. -- Craigtalbert 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this section. I don't believe gender bias in AA requires a section to itself. Not sure the citation passes the reliability test either. What was your reasoning behind the inclusion of this material? Mr Miles 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

The point of this section was to address issues that arise from a womans perspective on the program. Research has been undertaken that addresses key problems with the program when it comes to women or minority groups.

Kasl has written on this. Now another point I would like to make is Griffiths Edwards the only source for Early Undertstanding of alcoholism. I thought the Temperance movement was the forerunner of the disease theory and alcoholism as a moral failing. Can anyone add to this. Thank you. 207.194.108.93The Library207.194.108.93 03:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fred/13/93: Edwards is used as the reference because he has a good section entitled "AA's origin in the context of 1930s America." (p 107-108). Any source would do here, it's not very controversial. The Temperance movement did indeed contribute to the view of alcoholism as a moral failing, but they pushed alcohol itself as the problem, not the disease concept. Once the disease concept gained popularity in the 1930s, public opinion changed from seeing alcohol as the problem to seeing the disease as the problem. I changed the title of that section to 1930s because we only need to provide a brief back-drop to AA in the 1930s; any earlier would go in History of alcohol. You should read Griffith, man, you'd like it. AND FYI, I agree with the comment by Craigtalbert below. How come you do so much copying and pasting -- you think the rules don't apply to you? — DavidMack 20:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

207.232.97.13 is making improvements with the sources he/she uses, and there are relevant criticisms along theses lines, similar ones have been made of OA. 207.232.97.13's edits are hard to stomach because he/she is usually advocating one specific point of view, and uses a lot of quotes/quoting-mining rather than paraphrasing or summarizing research conclusions. Not to mention 207.232.97.13 is pretty lazy about reasonable formatting of his/her citations.

The more he/she does it the harder it gets to excuse (along with his/her habit of not signing talk page quotes and not really participating in discussions about his/her article edits), especially since 207.232.97.13 has been editing for a while now. When "pro-AA" people edit/remove his/her "contributions," "anti-AA" people jump on them... and before you know it we have multiple pages of talk-page discussion over content that wasn't so great in the first place. Case and point of why working on this article sucks.

We need to stop humoring 207.232.97.13's source soliciting. As they say, "don't feed the trolls." -- Craigtalbert 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Tanice G. Foltz research does have a place in this wiki page. It could be paraphrased into a few sentences. But her research deserves merit. Research by Tanice G. Foltz undertaken in the 1990s on Women and spirtuality ,[83] "It appears that many women alcoholics never seek out AA or other recovery programs due to potential stigmatization, and those who attend AA Twelve Step meetings sometimes feel silenced by its traditional gender relations (Foltz 2000; Kruzicki 1987; Jarvis 1992). Their discomfort is reflected in recent research which suggests that a majority of alcoholic women have histories of childhood sexual or physical abuse (Miller, Downs, and Testa 1993)."[58]

In her reserch Foltz found key issues with woman who had attended alchoholics anonymous: "These women identified several overlapping problematic issues: (1) AA's hierarchical Judeo-Christian orientation and concomitant sexist language; (2) its demand for conformity; and (3) dependency on AA meetings.[59]

User Craiq albert...you have deleted a number of good faith edits that have complied with wiki standards. If there is a bias it appears to me to be on your part. some of edits could be cited as vandalism of this wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oww! I'm sooooooo glad you brought this up. I'm looking forward to yet another pointless discussion about who is biased and who is vandalizing the article! It's like Christmas, except it comes several times a week on this talk page! xoxoxoxo -- Craigtalbert 06:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

CraigAlbert...Last week you deleted ALL information pertaining to the recent court case, You deleted news articles pertaining to abuse in AA, You deleted ALL information pertaining to cult characteristics of the organization. The Wiki is not a tool to prothelize religion. In the beginning the AA and 12 step page read like a piece of AA approved literature.

The wiki is to provide a balanced view and in your attack on this page last week and the 12 step page you have vandalized the page and countered wiki policies all the while using your interpretation of those policies to justify your actions!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm an atheist. I explained why I felt the information I deleted doesn't belong in this article, and it had everything to do with guidlines. We all have our biases, but I believe I was well within wikipedia's policies. And, since then, it seems like all of us have been doing better research, so I'm very happy with my decision. -- Craigtalbert 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Cult or Cure? Section

The ruling of the Arbitration Committee specifically states that in scientific articles references must be from reliable third-party, unbiased sources. This means they must come from peer-reviewed literature. Self-published literature, such as the essay by Jeffrey A. Schaler published on his own site, does not meet these standards. I'm going to remove all material with such citations. -- Craigtalbert 10:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I have some good sources to create a new, neutral "Cult or Cure" section. — DavidMack 15:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. That will mean that I will have to (and will) remove all AA lit refs relating to this article. I'm not joking. Find me "peer reviews" on AA stuff, please. AA lit is all self published. Please get real. 82.19.66.37 19:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's OK to cite AA material, as long as the citation sticks to the facts, as in "AA says this about themselves." For example "AA is open to all drinkers" should be changed to "AA's stated policy is openness to all drinkers."

I think sticking strictly to reliable sources is a good idea in a controversial article like this one. There are lots of pro- and anti-AA reliable sources out there. I'm getting some together to add to the "Cult or Cure" section.

— DavidMack 20:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point, it is considered vandalism. See WP:POINT. -- Craigtalbert 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't disrupt wikipedia to make a point, as I know thsi is considered vandalism. I applied the same principles to teh article as you did, and would have left it like that. A bot considered it vandalism. I am going to request arbitration to this article. 82.19.66.37 10:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My principles are the same as wikipedia's verifiability standards, which allow for questionable sources to be used in articles about themselves. Sources published by AA can be used in this article, even though they were not written with editorial oversight. -- Craigtalbert 20:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB indictates that sources publishing information about themselves may obly be used if they are not contentious. There is very little in the big-book, including the history, that is not contentious. I will be removing all information that is self published and contentious. 82.19.66.37 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I get the time, I will be putting the majority of the material back up. Most of it was written by people with PHDs in their relevant academic disciplines. The AH Cain stuff was published in Harpers magazine. The Valliant Stuff is obviously from an accceptable source. Why it was taken down is beyond me. Seems like a case of WP:WL, as is constantly happening in this article. Possibly vandalism as well. 213.235.24.138 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, every edit ever made to this article by everyone has been vandalism, so lets moved passed that and talk about content guidelines and writing a good article.

The problem is that having a Ph.D. does not make people unbiased, neither does having your opinion published in Harpers magazine. When you are citing such material, you are not citing the results of research, rather you are finding published opinions and putting them in the article. In the edit summaries, and on this talk page and the Twelve-step program talk page, I have cited every guideline I've used. This is not "wiki laywering," these are just modest attempts to improve the quality of this article as measured by wikipedia's policies. I have cited many wikipedia guidelines explaining why this is less than desirable. We should stick to citing peer-reviewed research. -- Craigtalbert 18:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, once again, featured articles use periodicals. This is established practice. Opinion pieces add to NPOV, where the issue is one of POV. Valliant is no expert in cults, and has not done any formal "research" into whether or not AA is a cult. Similarly, his seminal "natural history of alcoholism" was created on the basis of wish to proove (not test, as would be "proper" and scientific) his hypothesis, as evidenced by this claim "But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I and the director, William Clark, tried to prove our efficacy." So, having his opinion published in a peer reviewed journal does not really make it NPOV either.

The idea that quantitative research is the only acceptable source on wiki is, to put it simply, a misunderstanding. Please go back to the basics wp:source

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.[4]

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."

This goes far beyond the rather narrow (and potentially crippling) idea that peer-reviewed research is the ONLY source that we should use. Seriously, read it. It is there in black and white.

As for wikilawyering, I get this impression simply because policies seem to be used when they go in favour of certain editors, and the discarded when they don't. People seem unprepared to discuss the full meaning of policies and, specifically, how they relate to an article. This is the impression that I get. But I shall assume good faith, as I believe we are looking to move forward with this article and stop silly "edit wars" and other tit-for-tat distractions. 213.235.24.138 12:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom decision, that I have cited before, said for articles making scientific claims, such as this one, peer-reviewed sources should be used to prevent pseudoscience from being added.

For other topics that don't have a large body of peer-reviewed research written about them, such a policy of trying to stick with peer-reviewed research would be crippling. For this topic it is, necessary, useful, and produces a better quality article. -- Craigtalbert 23:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To decide that AA is a "scientific" article is a giant leap. It is categorised in, amongst other things, Alcohol abuse. Addiction, drug rehabilitation, Twelve-step programs, 1935 establishments, Self-care, Personal development, Positive mental attitude, Positive psychology, DIY culture(?), Public health, Social work, Non-profit organizations, Health organizations, Psychology, Psychosocial rehabilitation and Support groups. These are not exactly "pure science" categorisations, but do seem (mostly) accurate. So why you would apply the blanket label of "scientific" to this article is beyond me. Certainly, the study of cults is not a pure science.

Personally, I would say that AA would perhaps best be categorised, if it were to get FA staus (yeah, right...) in "culture and society". Notable featured articles such as Boy Scouts of America membership controversies or British African-Caribbean community rely, almost entirely, on documents that are not "peer-reviewed academic journals". No doubt there is a large body of scientific research on afro-caribbean communities immigrating to various places, so why does the article not exclusively rely on it? because it is not appropriate, as is teh case with this article. 213.235.24.138 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychology is a science, as is public health, and social work. Regardless, WP:V applies to all articles, and requires sources to be appropriate to the claims they make, e.g. "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Thankfully, WP:V also tells us that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available." Such sources are certainly available, in abundance (according google scholar they number in the thousands), for Alcoholics Anonymous. Saying that peer-reviewed sources are "not appropriate" for this article is really just... lazy. -- Craigtalbert 21:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychology is not a "pure science" (such as maths, physics etc), it is a "social science". Alcoholics Anonymous is also not psychological, has very little to do with public health, and nothing to do with social work (as a side point, I vote we remove it from these categories...). Seeing as we are relying on google scholar, the "alcoholics anonymous cult" search brings up.....Bufe as its first result, and then Cain. I guess we can use these resources now - cool. Saying that peer-reviewed sources are the only appropriate source is actually incorrect - you have to take into account the whole policy,, not JUST THE BITS YOU LIKE (this is where accusations of wikilawyering come into play...). But have found some really good studies, recently. "Bogart CJ; Pearce CE. "13th-Stepping:" Why Alcoholics Anonymous is not always a safe place for women. Journal of Addictions Nursing" seems like it will be exceptionally useful for the abuse at meetings section... 213.235.24.138 09:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar is a very robust system, it also includes results from their book search, but doesn't guarantee everything that comes up is from a journal. It sounds like you're trying to "get me on a technicality," and your putting words in to my mouth as to what sources I said were appropriate. Either way, since you are now talking about including information that is peer-reviewed, it seems that you have changed your opinion on peer-reviewed sources being "not appropriate" for this article, which I am happy with. :) -- Craigtalbert 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, wasn't going to include anything, just wondered how reliable this made google scholar. Trust me, I can't be bothered to get into the edit war that would resume if I pushed for the Bufe material on the main article. I will simply keep on arguing for it on here.

As for what sources you said were appropriate, as long as you are happy for all sources mentioned in "verifiability" to be included, then I am happy. If I have mistaken your position, then please forgive me for misunderstanding. As I have said on your page, I really do want to work with you on this article.

from my POV, I have never had a problem with peer reviewed sources (note, I have never removed any). I was simply concerned that people were trying to apply a criteria that they were the ONLY acceptable sources on wiki. Lets hope we can move on? 82.19.66.37 23:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I keep forgetting that you edit from multiple IP address. Create an account. -- Craigtalbert 05:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope the section I added is acceptable or at least a good starting point. — DavidMack 18:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not surprisingly, I don't like it. Valliant is not an expert on Cults, and his views on AA are not the only ones. He should not get the only word on this. I would like the Merriam-Webster definition put back in. I would like the Arthur H Cain stuff put back in. I would like to re-examine the other sources originally used when I created this section. If anyobne has access to such works, various "cult experts" have written (albeit briefly) about AA. I think Margaret Thaler Singer considered AA not to be a cult. There are others. Anyone got the time to look into it? I also agree that "cult or cure" is perhaps a bit much. The original "accusations of cult practice" seemed to allow sufficient scope for both sides to be heard... 213.235.24.138 12:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the title "Cult or Cure" itself should be changed. Besides having a POV flavor, it is also the title of a book by Charles Bufe. The section at the moment seems too heavy on Valient (hardly a critic of AA and who already has a section) and too light on others. Perhaps "Religious aspect of AA" would be a more neutral title and could also give the section more room to grow. A section like that could include "God" and "Higher Power" quotes directly from the 12 steps, and could include mentions from sources beyond just Valient alone who mention its religious aspects or refer to it as a cult. Once expanded that section could be placed BEFORE the mandated attendance section, as the religious nature is the main objection the courts had to forced attendance.JeffStickney 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the "Cult or Cure" label is implicitly POV. One peripheral note: In "Cult or Cure", Bufe says that AA is, by his criteria, not a cult. One important criterion by which it fails is that is doesn't bilk money from its members. Bufe has some good things to say, and it's too bad he chose such an irksome title. PhGustaf 22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When you say POV, do you mean that "Cult or Cure" is a sensationalist title or that it leans to one side ot the other? "Cult or cure" was also the title of a Vaillant paper, so yeah, it's a bit overused. I agree that there are too many references from Vaillant and that more are needed, but I hope the material satisfies both pro- and anti-AAers. I'm just about read-out on AA, if someone would like to add other references or material. In my opinion whether AA is a religion (specific beliefs and practices) is a different issue from whether it is cult-like (manipulative and exploitive). Perhaps sections entitled "Is AA a religion?" followed by "Is AA a cult?". — DavidMack 22:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps POV is the wrong term. "Cult or Cure?" suggests that AA is either very bad or very good, ignoring the middle ground where it likely is, which doesn't help rational discussion of the matter.

It's distressing that the "Further Reading" section lists only AA promotional literature and the "External Links" only the AA site. But I just got here after a long absence, and will hang around a while before I try to contribute much. But I believe that the "Religion vs. Spirituality" should be addressed sometime. It's often the first question I'm asked when I'm asked about AA.

As I said, the Bufe book is much better than its title would suggest.

PhGustaf 23:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no "further reading" section. The "Literature" section includes the books that are "standard" AA literature and nothing else, as the list could go on forever with dozens (if not hundreds) of pro-AA and anti-AA books. Most of the additions to the list of external links have been been more or less promotion/spam. -- Craigtalbert 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Comments - Alcoholics Anonymous

Note - following broken RfC template has been nowikied - existence of broken template was causing bot log errors. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

{{RFCsoc Alcoholics Anonymous Article is a controversial topic, consensus has been difficult to reach and there have been numerous disputes on the talk page. 10:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)}}

Alcoholics Anonymous Article is a controversial topic, consensus has been difficult to reach and there have been numerous disputes on the talk page.82.19.66.37 10:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

External linking to news articles

As well as current events , issues in the news, abuse issues in the news: Abuse issues in the news http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368218/site/newsweek/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4036900,00.html http://www.nbc4.com/news/13340697/detail.html?rss=dc&psp=news http://www.nbc4.com/news/13317282/detail.html?rss=dc&psp=news

noted the above links were posted earlier on by another user and was deleted.207.194.108.93Fred207.194.108.93 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy that says external linking like this is vandalism. -- Craigtalbert 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not "vandalism" per se, those are reliable third-party news stories about a recent and notorious scandal directly related to the topic of the article and of the article's section on "occasions of abuse". However, it should have been handled differently. The section on "occasions of abuse" should be expanded to include mention of the midtown scandal and "13th stepping", and the articles cited as sources. The WP policy states "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." I agree that listing the external links the way they were was not appropriate- the relevant information should be written into the article as prose and then the sources cited as footnotes, but it is NOT "vandalism". It is good-faith rough-draftism of something that needs to be added.JeffStickney 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement with Jeff. These seem to be good faith edits. They really do need to be included in the article (without undue weight). I am also not sure that wp:el states that any of that is vandalism. Please, if you must accuse someone of vandalism, can we add site a specific part of a relevant policy? I can't find anything on wp:el which states that. 82.19.66.37 21:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Posting them in the talk page, if not in the article, is source soliciting. They do not fit the conditions of what should be linked. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Wikipedia is also not news. Not to mention, the IP address had been warned about this kind of behavior before. This is why there are vandalism templates for "spam links." How many policies do I need to cite, and how specific do you want me to get? All of this time spent splitting hairs on the talk and quoting policy at this level of granularity is valuable time we all could be spending on Google Scholar to do better research for this article. -- Craigtalbert 23:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are posted on the talk page as part of a legitimate discussion of what does and doesn't belong in this article.Posting links to sources to ask if they are legitimate sources is perfectly appropriate for the talk page. JeffStickney 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? The only question marks I see in the post are in the middle of the URLs. -- Craigtalbert 01:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not clear why the duly referenced news items on abuse were removed. I think they are important for NPOV and were not indiscriminate, but showed events that do occur from time to time. The sources were reliable mainstream newspapers. — DavidMack 23:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

External links are for information than can't be integrated in to the article, see WP:EL. So, simply sticking the links in the middle of an article is vandalism inappropriate, to say the least. This content is questionable to begin with as it's a lot of detail for specific news stories, see WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT. If it was an article on multiple cases of documented abuse at meetings, that would be one thing. If it's about more or less single instances, then it's not really that noteworthy. I'm not questioning the reliability or neutrality of the source. -- Craigtalbert 23:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Craig (if I may addres you so), in this case the material removed was referenced in the proper format, with title, newspaper, date, page, URL etc. (see Wikipedia:Citation templates) so there was no question of vandalism.

I would like to know how much 'negative' material you would be comfortable with in this article. Do you like the length of the "Occasions of abuse at meetings" section as it is now? Are you striving for the minimum possible negativity? All the reliable sources agree that abuse does happen. A person reading this article can read the plusses and the minuses and make up their own minds. — DavidMack 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see your points above -- that you're aiming for good sources. Personally, I was happy with the news articles. Can you find some reliable sources that describe abuses? — DavidMack 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The problems with this information are more about notability, avoiding undue weight, and contextualizing events appropriately. Like it says in WP:NOTNEWS, following only the guides for verifiability, reliable sources would mean that any reported news event could be included. So, the question becomes, how much weight should we give to more-or-less sensationalized reports of abuse at AA meetings? Should we try to find every news report ever written about anything that ever went wrong at an AA meeting and include it? If someone does should we include all of them? I'm sure there's plenty of them out there. Obviously we have to ask ourselves how notable these events are, and how much weight they should be given in the article. My opinion is that we should have a section explaining that abuse has happened at meetings, what kind has happened in the past, and put it in the context of the number of reported cases of abuse verses the number of meetings. Going in to detail about each individual case of abuse is absurd. -- Craigtalbert 21:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, we need some examples in context. But wasn't that what you removed? Or how should they be done differently? — DavidMack 21:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I will give you that this section I removed is not so bad, and the articles seem to do a good job of giving both sides of the story. I'll restore it in lieu of not having better research to support the point, but I don't think it represents a good treatment of the topic. -- Craigtalbert 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that we let the Reliable Sources speak for themselves? The main section is titled Criticism and Controversy, so any criticism of abusive trends AA has received by reliable sources should be included. That, for example, the none-vetting of attendees or lack of professional training of sponsors correlates to a likelihood of abuse would be noteworthy and reliable sources found and included. If those correlations and reliable sources don't exist, then are we sure we're not just propagating Orange-papers' myths (the source of those newspaper links) with this section? Mr Miles 21:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Sorry to go on but, this discussion is assuming, a priori, that AA has abusive tendencies - based on what reliable source? Mr Miles 21:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I don't believe AA does have abusive tendencies, just that abuse can and does occasionally happen, which experts acknowledge and this article should acknowledge. Some of the reliable sources are mentioned in the Is AA cult-like? section, and the reliable news sources were the ones removed. The source of the news items was a google search, not Agent Orange. — DavidMack 23:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought those articles were added during this discussion now archived in which User:207.194.108.93 introduced them from this Orange-Papers link about the Midtown group. Anyway, can you explain why you think it is noteworthy to mention occasional abuse if it is not a tendency but merely a consequence of AA's size? You must realise that inclusion of those news stories into the article will infer that AA is particularly abusive, especially to the casual reader. The view that AA has cult-like tendencies is not the same issue as sex abuse (of which those news article refer), and requires separate references. I agree with Craigtalbert that the number of reported cases should lead the section if the number of cases makes an abuse section noteworthy - if not aren't we guilty of being tabloid rather than encyclopedic? Mr Miles 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Davidmack did an admirable job of presenting this material in his last edit. Thanks, David. PhGustaf 22:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Bogart CJ; Pearce CE. "13th-Stepping:" Why Alcoholics Anonymous is not always a safe place for women. Journal of Addictions Nursing" Study showing that occasions of abuse are not "occasional", but somewhat institutionalised in AA. I'll obviously be adding this material, plus including noteworthy occasions of abuse (ie, ones reported in periodicals). 213.235.24.138 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Abstract is here, and I definitely agree with their conclusion: "It is important that chemical dependency treatment providers be aware of 13th-stepping in AA, particularly when treating women. Especially vulnerable women, such as those with histories of sexual abuse, should be referred to female-only groups when possible. When women's groups are unavailable, women should be adequately prepared to protect themselves from 13th-stepping." I have the pdf if you want it, I didn't find anything describing it as "more or less institutionalized," but I get your point. -- Craigtalbert 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the phrase used was "Abuse in Alcoholics Anonymous has become isntitutionalised..." and if that was not in the original source, including that phrase comes close to dishonesty. Do we have to start checking every entry now? — DavidMack 00:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just the ones that sound bogus. There's always WP:FACT, though I'm sure it must have an enormous backlog. But, no, the phrase is not in the original source. This is WP:SYN. -- Craigtalbert 05:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with George Vaillant Research

A review of articles published by Stanton Peele in Pschology today and on his website shows much has been omitted from the Vaillant study.

eg:http://www.peele.net/lib/allornothing.html

Studies of alcohol abusers in community settings show that they frequently outgrow their drinking problems on their own. Psychiatrist George Vaillant was part of a Harvard study that followed a group of men for four decades, beginning in adolescence. In his 1983 book The Natural History of Alcoholism, Dr. Vaillant reported that over 60 percent of those who overcame their alcoholism didn't enter any kind of treatment, including AA.

Later in the decade, research by Kaye Fillmore, Ph.D., of the University of California, San Francisco, found that from 60 to 80 percent of problem drinkers stopped abusing alcohol, usually without treatment.

Canadian addiction research investigators Linda Sobell, Ph.D., and Mark Sobell, Ph.D., recently reported that more than three-quarters of randomly selected adults in a national study who had recovered from alcohol problems for a year or more did so without formal help or treatment.

According to Helzer and the ECA study, over half of all problem drinkers who stop abusing alcohol do so within five years of the start of their problem—usually by reducing their drinking, not quitting altogether.

America's alcohol treatment industry attacks the idea of self-cure, saying people who believe they've recovered on their own are in denial.

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

The natural history of the title refers to the course of drinking habits over an individual's lifetime. The book is based on a 40-year study of about 600 men from two research populations — an upper middle class college group and an inner city group. In addition, Dr. Vaillant reports on the results of treatment over eight years of 100 men and women at a Cambridge, Mass. clinic of which he is the codirector. Dr. Vaillant used the natural history approach before with good success in "Adaptation to Life" (1977). Unfortunately, in contrast to that earlier book, his analysis here is dense, contradictory and weighed down by issues that he has not fully resolved in his own mind.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

13, once again, have you read Vaillant? Otherwise you are reporting on one person's quotations of another person's research on AA. Vaillant did indeed report that many alcoholics grow out of their drinking problem on their own. He also reported that AA was involved in a significant number of successful returns to sobriety, in great detail — which Peele somehow forgets to mention. Anyway, these self-healing figures may be more relevant the the article Alcoholism. The 95% "failure" figure is not a rating of AA, it is a note on relapse rates of a system of hospital treatment followed by referral to AA. In this study AA attendance was associated with eventual sobriety, again not mentioned by Peele. Peele is a strong supporter of natural healing, but he only quotes information that supports his cause. If you can get hold of a copy of The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited, it is a very tough read, but there is a summary of the results at the end, or you can use the footnotes in Wiki articles to find the most relevant sections. Another book that gives a survey rather than a one-sided argument is Alcohol, the World's Favourite Drug by Griffith Edwards, which is a much easier read and you can focus on the chapters of interest. — DavidMack 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that states that you can't use Peeles material because you have not read Valliants. This information needs to be up there, along with peele comments on project match. 213.235.24.138 14:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends if you want to push your own agenda or contribute to a quality article. As I explained above, Peele misrepresented the results. — DavidMack 19:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

David, once again, I respect the work that you have done on this article. My opinion is that Peeles opinion comes from the POV of an established addiction expert, who has analysed the statistical results of Valliants study and come up with different conclusions to Valliant. Clearly, Peele has an agenda, but so does Valliant. Surely, in a contentious study, such as this one, we need to have some balance added in so that we can allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusions, based on all published information? 213.235.24.138 10:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Peele simply ignored or did not comment on Vaillant's research, results and discussion on AA — just take a glance at the book. Peele's factual statements of what was in the book were contradicted by other reviewers. I argue that Peele's views do not provide balance. If we add Peele's comments on Vaillant, then we'll have to add other reviewers' comments as well, which do not belong in this article. Like I said, do you want to argue technicalities of who's an expert, or do you want to build a quality article? — DavidMack 19:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-AA edits

I'm glad that we're creating a neutral article, but I have problems with some recent changes and removals of sourced material.

• The AA distinction between alcoholics and moderate drinkers was replaced by a general discussion on the benefits of moderate drinking.
• The introduction to the section "Occasions of abuse at meetings" was removed.
• A statement of AA's membership policy was removed.
• I ask the person who added the legal material on anonymity: It's very well written; is a direct copy? If so, that is not allowed. Ditto some of the other entries.

I have undone some of these changes, with explanations in the edit summaries. — DavidMack 19:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting those changes. They did address important issues, but seemed far too heavy-handed. Perhaps Lao-Tse's saying, "Ruling the country is like cooking a small fish." applies to Wiki entries too. PhGustaf 20:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I only removed the worst of them. I also don't know why the Newsweek item needs to be so long and detailed. — DavidMack 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi david. I have genuinely respected your work on this article so far. Out of all the "pro-AA" crowd, you have previously seemed the most balanced from my POV. However, your reverts have seemed heavy handed to me, especially compared to some of the other editors, on these recent edits. I hope we can reach consensus soon?

But to answer some of your points

• The AA distinction between alcoholics and moderate drinkers was replaced by a general discussion on the benefits of moderate drinking.

The old version of the article failed to describe the controversy - it simply said that there was one and then gave an AA opinion on candidates that are appropriate for AA. We need to explain the controversy, surely? Then perhaps give a more relevant (and properly sourced, ie based in research, not contentious AA-material from the 1930s) AA "counter argument"? Seems reasonable to me, and allows people to make up their own minds.

That material might be better in Alcoholism, since it's a general discussion on the issue. Maybe a short mention in the AA article. The AA material from the 1930s is still in use today, and it's not contentious to state what it says, as in "AA policy is THIS, some people have observed THIS." Like, if you were writing about human rights in the USA, you'd probably want to quote the constitution. In any case, I don't believe you were justified in removing material and adding less relevant material. Please revert your edits.

The policies have to have direct relevance though. As far as I am aware, AA promotes abstinance for alcholics. For people who are not alcoholics, they say AA is not appropriate. AA does not say that moderate drinking is acceptable for a diagnosed alcoholic. This is the heart of the debate. AA says that people who can return to moderate drinking cannot be "true" alcoholics. That is the policy of AA's that should be put in the article. I am going to write something on the talk page about how "featured articles" seem to handle controversy sections, as Alcoholics Anonymous seems to handle it differently.

I'll try to find some more direct criticism of AA from the currently used source.

Yes, put in relevant material. Also please concede that in an article on AA, AA policy is relevant.

• The introduction to the section "Occasions of abuse at meetings" was removed.

The old version said there was no research, which the new material clearly shows the opposite of. It is also unsourced, POV material. Seriously, this section needs something to add to NPOV, but you (or I) making it up is not acceptable, by the rigourous criteria that you (and others) have applied to this article.

There isn't any research available comparing AA to other organisations; if there is, quote it. Again, it's OK to state AA policy. Actually it's essential, as long as we say "this is AA's policy", not "this is AA". Please revert your edits.

Please produce a source which says that AA does not have a rate of abuse compared to other sources. Otherwise, it is just your view. Seriously, the rules have to apply to both sides, regarding properly sourced material. Otherwise, what you wrote was just original research, and has no place on wiki.

You didn't remove or edit the part you disagreed with, you removed the whole paragraph.

• A statement of AA's membership policy was removed.

to me, AA membership policy seems irrelevant to this section, unless you can provide references that say that it does. This smacks of original research.

The discussion is on abuse in AA, hence AA policy on screening or not screening is essential. Please revert your changes.

I believe that I left the information on screening in there. Someone else took it out when the 13th Stepping study was split from the "occasions of abuse at meetings" (why? 13th stepping is abuse, surely? Especially when the study also mentions 2 rapes) - I'm going to do some editing tonight or early tomorrow and will try to rectify this. I took out the info on AA's "open door" policy, because it seemed to me to be written in a very POV manner, in that it almost extelled this policy as a virtue - Trust me, working with vunerable adults, I have to have so many checks it is unbelievable, and it is a bit sad the way that self help groups seem to bypass such vital checks.

If you see POV material, please edit it, don't just erase it. In an article on AA, AA policy is relevant.

• I ask the person who added the legal material on anonymity: It's very well written; is a direct copy? If so, that is not allowed. Ditto some of the other entries.

It was a slightly edited, hastily added (I really don't have as much time for wiki as I would like, hence a lot of my entries have been restricted to the talk page recently) "copy and paste" of the source material. It has been edited further since. I am happy for people to sum it up in an even better way (which has already happened since I added it). I will try to do it myself, if and when I have time. Ditto some of the other entries. 82.19.66.37 23:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to put this and all plagiarised material in your own words right away or it will be deleted.

I will re-write it by the end of today. I would say that when I attempted to "interpret the results" (with the institutionalised abuse line - one which I think I kept to the talk page, but memory may be deceiving me....) I was criticised. Could do with some help on making it NPOV, whilst staying true to the source material. (btw, weems someone else has changed it, as it looks dissimilar to information that I used originally)

PS, would be happy for the "newsweek" entry to be shortened. 82.19.66.37 23:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion. — DavidMack 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

similarly appreciate the ongoing discussion. 82.19.66.37 15:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User 13 / 93

I have lodged a complaint about this user due to disruptive editing. — DavidMack 20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All in All this is a vastly improved page from the original as a result of collective ccontributions. (207.232.97.13 22:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Fred 207.232.97.13 22:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

It would have been nice if you had contributed. — DavidMack 19:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the entire early understanding of alcholism is quoted from Griffith Edwards why not just say so. That is not disruptive David Mack. In the meantime I will do some of my own research on early understanding of alcholism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As always, relevant information from reliable sources is welcome. — DavidMack 14:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AA early history

Information that needs clarifying.
1. Date or year at which BillW. joined the Oxford Group.

May 1933

2. Was Bob Smith was a member of the Oxford Group when he met Bill? When did he join?

Yes, Bob was a member when he met Bill.

3. Date or year Roland Hazard Joined the Oxford Group?
4. What was the Date Bill and his group of Alcholics left the Oxford Group. Were they asked to leave and if so why? Was AA a result of this separation?

There was rising tension. Oxford Group leaders did not approve of special meetings for alcoholics. Bill W. and the others disagreed with some Oxford Group values. The split was final in 1939.

5. When and where did they set up their own meetings?
6. What did they call themselves immediately after the separation from the Oxford Group?

They didn't get a name until the release of the "Big Book.' They took the book title as their name.

7. What exactly is Jung's conversion cure?

Jung didn't have a spiritual cure. Jung could not cure Hazard, and all Jung could do was suggest that some type of a spiritual experience might lead to a cure.

207.232.97.13Fred207.232.97.13 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article is missing this part of the history. You could find the dates in any book on AA history. — DavidMack 14:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a wise idea to take out the "jung conversion cure" and subsitute advice from Carl Jung? Just an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was done. — DavidMack 21:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reread the section on history pertaining to Dr. Bob Smith last drink in 1935 as the beginning of AA, it then goes on to describe how Bill Wilson started up a second group. Is Bill recruiting Alcoholics to the Oxford group during this period or are they starting AA at this time. I believe the article needs clarifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to look that up. Thanks for your helpful and articulate request. I'm curious: is there more than one person using this account? — DavidMack 21:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes in the Organization through Time

For example, alcoholics and their families all attended together as was the Oxford Group practice. That didn't stop until Al-Anon was founded in the 1950s Or were all the meetings secretive and closed?

When did the concept or wording of a "spirtural experience " become a "spirtual awakening". (207.232.97.13Fred207.232.97.13)

As I understand it, many people have a spiritual experience or awakening that helps them find a new path, away from the drink. The spiritual awakening is specifically mentioned in the 12th step as being the result of working the steps. — DavidMack 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarence Synder

The original founder of AA. I think we have to make room for Clarence Synder either in the history section or under criticism and controvesy http://www.aabibliography.com/aapioneers/clarencesnyder.htm

Letter from AA to Synder concerning Big Book royalities: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cleve1944.html from Henrietta to Synder: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Henrietta_Seiberling.html

I realize Orange is not considered a reference but in this he does have copies of the letters online.

"Clarence started the first A.A. group in Cleveland in 1939, in part because some Roman Catholic priests in Cleveland were refusing to let Catholics attend the Oxford Group meeting in Akron. "

Both Synder and Henrietta Sieberling (who introduced Dr. Bob to Bill) considered BillW a usurper. Separting from the Oxford Group: "Another thing is that _after_ founding a separate meeting from Calvary Chapel, Wilson was in Ohio with Dr. Bob both attending Oxford Group meetings, study Oxford Group literature, and converting new members to OG with Dr. Bob in the old OG method of sequestering them away in a hospital room for "oxfordizing."

You are correct that there's a big gap in the article on this period in AA history -- the time of AA separation from the Oxford Group and early growth. The basic story has to be written, and then there might be room for the less commonly known aspects. Can you dig up a reliable source for this material that is not original research? — DavidMack 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Issues of Abuse

The fallout at Midtown was bigger than one woman being told to quit her medication and pressured to have sex and that she went to another group and life was hunky dory. iT IS A COMPLETE MINIMIZATON OF THE REAL STORY!

The follow up story in the Washington Post identifies other issues, it as a very large group 400. There was more than one woman here. The police investigated the stories of a number of women who have come forward. . FACT: Maryland's Laws are different than other parts of the country. Sexual relations with a 16 or 17 year old girls by men decades older would is SEX WITH A MINOR in many parts of the world however in Maryland it is not. In Maryland the person has to be under 15 of age to be a minor. A pschologist has gone on record in regards to this group and it has detrimently affected two of her patients. Other members of the health community have come forward. . People in the health industry were aware of problems.

The story of abuse within a group also identifies how AA as a whole deals with this. it is a story of how the traditions work, when it comes to dealing with very , very, serious issues involving an individual group—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk • contribs) 03:55, Oct 9, 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this story shows how things can go horrifyingly wrong in AA, so it's worth including. The articles condemned the abuse but also discussed the flip side that this group is not typical and should not even be calling itself AA. Both views should be represented in the wiki article. — DavidMack 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How about defining the difference between anonymity and confidentialty. Traditions 10. 11, and 12 are about protecting the organization from public scrutiny. Many people in the step program believe anonymity is about protecting themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The traditions, including 10 through 12, also ensure that no one person tries to take the public spotlight. The negative aspect could be included, if it is from a reliable source. Also it might be more relevant in the article Twelve traditions. — DavidMack 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Is this suitable for reference page? http://silkworth.net/mitchellk/mitchellk_library.html (207.232.97.13Fred207.232.97.13)

Fred, thanks for asking, but a reliable source usually has to be a trusted academic or news journal, which doesn't look like Mitchell K. At your advanced level of inquiry, you may have to go to your local library, since web surfing often turns up the bloggers but not the researchers. — DavidMack 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would assume, if one is doing research, books writtne by the author Dick B.{ http://www.aa-history.com/bookstore/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1 } would be as reliable as a book written by Susan Cheever or Frances Hartigan. signed 207.194.108.93"The Library"207.194.108.93 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends if Dick B. wrote any news or academic articles. — DavidMack 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mithcell K. was sponsored by Clarence Synder: His involvement with the organziation on that level would more than likely make him a better source than lets say Susan Cheevers. http://aabbsg.de/chs/index.htm

(Depends if Mitchell K. wrote any news or academic articles. — DavidMack 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

I find your definiton of a reliable source would exclude most sources for AA history and biographies. http://aabbsg.de/chs/index.htm (207.232.97.13 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC))Fred(207.232.97.13 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

It's not my definition, it's Wikipedia's. Those narrow-minded nerds just don't like blogs. It's a pain that we all have to go to the library to find any good material; they exclude a lot of interesting web sources. Stoopid dweeebs. — DavidMack 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What academic ariticles did Frances Haritigan and Susan Cheevers write? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The Susan Cheever reference is from Time magazine ("mainstream news"). Her book My Name is Bill (referenced in Bill W.) was published by Simon and Schuster ("respected publishing house"). Fred, you don't need to take my word for it; all this is in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Francis Hartigan who wrote Bill W? Don't know much about her.

— DavidMack 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Occasions of Abuse

I'm removing the paragraph starting "AA groups have the benefits and risks of any community, .." again. It's editorializing, it's POV, and it's original research. It's not up to a wikipedia editor to determine that the Twelve Traditions are relevant to this matter. A further cite from the article, or something from AA people involved, that made the same point wound be fine. PhGustaf 16:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody beat me to it. PhGustaf 16:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I amended the opening sentence to simply state a referenced fact that support and abuse have both been observed. I removed the unreferenced statement that no research has shown ... etc. I left in the statement of AA's policy, which is a relevant, objective, referenced fact. — DavidMack 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fred/13, the material I added was an attempt to reach a consensus. Please do not remove without discussion. — DavidMack 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed time and time again. "a further cite from the article " was requested or from the people involved in the article. You keep repeating yourself with original research to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I amended the text and removed the part that PhGustaf called POV original research. Why did you remove the whole paragraph? — DavidMack 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In the abuse section, you have been a constant by editing out the source material over and over again, including the Washingtion post as a source!!! It has been a constant. It is not up to you to justify AA postion. AA has already done that in the source material. For example

"In response to questions raised by some parents, therapists and churches where Midtown held meetings, the group this spring issued a statement denying improper acts. "We cannot be all things to all people . . . " the statement said. "We do not condone underage sex. While we are not the arbiter of other people's sex conduct, underage sex is illegal and our experience shows that it can endanger your sobriety." or

"The assumption since our founding was that groups that did not follow the traditions and concepts would fall away," said a staff member at AA's General Service Office, who spoke on condition of anonymity "because we are all alcoholics, and that is our policy." or AA tradition suggests that "our leaders are but trusted servants," the New York staffer said. "They do not govern."

Get the difference?

207.232.97.13 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Fred207.232.97.13 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes,I get your point. Thanks for explaining.

I did not remove the Washington material -- I supported keeping it. — DavidMack 02:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There you go again "mutual support and abuse have beem observed in AA groups" and the source reference is Vaillant. Why not source another statement by Valliant "Vaillant holds that "Individual alcoholics attending incompatible AA groups or allying themselves with unfortunate sponsors sometimes tell horror stories about the fellowship." The list of Vaillant's obsevations have been defined below in the "cult section". It does not belong in this article. NO NO\ 207.232.97.13 22:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Fred207.232.97.13 22:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Vaillant's statement sums up the whole issue. Vaillant is a respected researcher who provides a balanced view—negative and positive—which in fact supports the material in this section. — DavidMack 02:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over tradition 3 quote

Quote:

"AA undertakes no external restriction or vetting of its members, and the long-form version of Tradition 3 (the basis of AA policy) states that "Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an AA group..."<ref>http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_appendiceI.cfm</ref>

This sentence has been added and subtracted dozens of times. Before making changes, please discuss this sentence here and vote 'keep' or 'remove'.

Remove. My view is that the above sentence is redundant now that the journalist's quotes were added explaining AA's policy on not controlling or policing groups. — DavidMack 14:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Shoemaker, Oxford, and Calvary

There is an edit war going on with this material being removed and then put back in. Please discuss whether it's relevant. And it can't go back in without references to reliable sources. — DavidMack 16:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it can the sources are there. The conversion of Hazard , Ebby and Bill Wilson along with a number of the early members of the alcholics came from involvement with Calvary Rescue Mission and the teachings of Rev. Shoemaker. Shoemaker was involved in the Oxford group and brought many of its practices to Mission. In fact the Big Book draws heavily upon a number of teachings and writings including Rev Shoemaker.

To delete the fact that Bill and Lois joined the fellowship of the Calvary Mission and there he went out to convert other drunks and bring them into the fellowship is incredible.

In fact Bill and Bobs membeship in the Oxford Group went on for years. There is more to the story than a neatly packaged idea of Bill interprets God.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk • contribs)

Uuhhh, do you think you could put the references in? Like, who is Pittman, and what book are you referencing? — DavidMack 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

13, you recently added the sentence 'Rowland Hazard explained he already believed in God, however Jung believed in order to have a "vital " religious experience one had to become part of a relgious movement.' Where did you get this material and why didn't you add a reference? — DavidMack 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference source was from "Pass It on" . The source made it quite clear that Jung encouraged a religious affilation was needed for a spirtual awakening. The source goes into more detail. I just parapharased. The source "Pass It on" has already been used as a reference before I made the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — DavidMack 17:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please halt the edit war

There is an edit war going on ("two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to a page"). There are so many reversions it's impossible to keep track of the article. The recommendation is revert only once, and then take it to talk. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary suggests that "High-frequency reversion wars make the page history less useful, waste space in the database, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists."

Issue # 1: see above: Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous#Edit war over tradition 3 quote. — DavidMack 14:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

• At 18:45 on 12 October 2007, User:207.232.97.13 added copyright material from http://aa-history.com/dickb16.html
  • When references were requested for this material, at 04:08, 16 October 2007 the user added a false reference to another book.
  • The actual copyright source (Dick B.) has been previously discussed and disallowed [3] due to unreliability. [4][5][6].
• Added unsourced material.
• Added unsourced material.
• Removal, without discussion, of material that had been amended as per talk page discussion.

Fred, I finally see what you're doing. You want to show that the Oxford Group and AA overlapped in Bill's life. And you believe that AA pretty much stole material from the Oxford Group and remained the Oxford Group just under a different name. You don't read books, so you're taking material from the only source you can find on this — Dick B. — and putting it in without reference. Jeez, you could have said so and I could have helped you — I also would like to add material on this. In the meantime, I will remove your unsourced material about the religious connection until we can get some reliable sources. Kapiche? — DavidMack 02:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm with David on this one. Fred/207.232.97.13/207.194.108.93, stop with the edit warring and the uncited material, etc. -- Craigtalbert 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AA and the Oxford Group didn't overlap. I do read books and have been doing research and it becomes very clear, especially in "Pass It On" that Hazard, Ebby , BillW. , Bob Smith all obtained sobriety through the Oxford Group. AA was a movement that grew out of the Oxford Group , with the support of Sam Shoemaker. In fact AA was designed to targe a particular group of people, those who drank or were alcoholic. They incorporated much of what they had learned from the Oxford group and many of the Oxford practices into the AA program, Fact , the early members of AA of about 40 people, were all members of the Oxford group before setting up their own shop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Those insights are interesting. If you can include it in the article with proper references and maybe with a little less disruptive tactics that would be great. (BTW, am I talking to two people at the same acccount? You have distinctive styles.) — DavidMack 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Need some references

I went through the "conversions of Thacher and Wilson" section and found that many of the references to Pass it On were false -- likely, again, material from Dick B. I think it was interesting material, but we need to find a good source for it. — DavidMack 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The references in Pass It on Were not false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

POV additions

Fred, what's with the negative material you added, supposedly from the Big Book? It looks like you did not try to summarise the material, but instead extracted just the parts that support your views. — DavidMack 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be pov-pushing and I don't feel it adds much to the article. -- Craigtalbert 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Project match

I know this isn't a "proper source", but http://www.morerevealed.com/articles/match.jsp seems to imply that project match was never a test of AA, per se, but was actually a test of TSF (something quite differnt from AA...). SHould this article be up there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.206.215 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

TSF = Twelve-Step Facilitation therapy [7], as it currently says in the section on project MATCH. At any rate, Schaler's essay you linked too is arguing that TSF is very much like AA. -- Craigtalbert 01:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I understand what TSF is, but it's kind of different from AA. It's done by professionals, apparently, and the essay features a quote from someone on MATCH, arguing that Match never tested AA at all. Regardless of what schaler says (he has been disallowed as a proper source before), I just dont see what's so great about project MATCH anyway. It hardly says anything positive about TSF(let alone AA). Or negative either. I say ditch it. 82.0.206.215 17:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

MATCH simply concludes that TSF is as effective as other methods — an important conclusion. MATCH is quoted in some texts on AA. It was a high-quality study. Because of the inherent limitations of research on AA (discussed in the article), you either get a direct study of AA that is vague with suggested results, or you get an indirect study of something similar to AA that may give high quality results. The MATCH study is the latter type. — DavidMack 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with David on this one. A neutral result is still a result. Adding something to explain the difference between TSF and AA would be fine. -- Craigtalbert 21:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A minor point - I wasn't contesting the quality of the study of MATCH, rather the outcome. It simply didn't say much of interest (it doesn't matter what treatemnt you get...)

But it is a good idea to put something in about the difference between TSF and AA. I'll do that. 82.0.206.215 13:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing a footnote more than once

Lets condense the references a little bit per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing a footnote more than once. There were ten separate footnotes for Vaillant's 2005 paper. -- Craigtalbert 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, for citing books, I'd recommend that we use one reference per chapter, rather than having an arbitrary number of references each page cited. For example, when I was writing the Emotions Anonymous article I needed to cite information from two chapters of Odd man in: societies of deviants in America and made a reference for chapter three and chapter nine. This cleans things up quite and bit. -- Craigtalbert 22:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for all your work cleaning up the references. — DavidMack 17:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for cleaning up some of the unsourced material. I tried to get the ones that were referenced multiple times and could be condensed. I don't have access to copies of Pass It On or Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age so I don't know what chapters the references are from. -- Craigtalbert 19:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with removing page references. In a contentious article like this one it may important to be able to find the page number of a citation. — DavidMack 19:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be. But when citing journal articles, there is usually very little need for page numbers, and they're usually not more than a few pages long (most book chapters are about the same length) and when they're being cited, the should be summarized -- even though I know many editors of this article are addicted to quote mining. More over, citing one page number of an article in a journal can be misleading and many journal don't "reset" page numbers until the end of a volume. E.g. this content you removed [8] was (supposedly) from a journal article, not a book, and it's only five pages long. Part of the reason I try to include DOIs, PMIDs, ISBNs, OCLCs, etc, is to make it easy for people to get to the article, or at least the abstract -- something which can't be done with incomplete page citations.

At any rate, after re-reading the article, I can tell you the research he presents doesn't support the claim cited by it. If anyone disagrees, email me, and I will send you the PDF. -- Craigtalbert 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

See? Fred/13 is already removing referenced material with no page #.— DavidMack 19:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The page numbers are cited. -- Craigtalbert 20:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Craig, I appreciate your hard work and high standards. And you're right that citing many page numbers from an article is superfluous. However Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing a footnote more than once says "Named references are used when there are several cases of repetition of exactly the same reference, including the page number for books." Replacing chapter numbers with page numbers has made the footnotes neater but will make it harder to defend accurate references and to check up on dubious references. — DavidMack 01:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? -- Craigtalbert 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm ... I don't know. — DavidMack 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fred's summary of How It Works

How It works has been vandalized and removed. it appears a user is an editing war.one user has decided to eliminate some posts without disussion. Ph Gustaf take note. 207.232.97.13Fred207.232.97.13 19:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The HOw it Works section does add to the ariticle is how it works. A number of keypoints have been taken from the chapter yet you say the points are POV. How is that. GOD it mentioned a innumerable times , and is vital to the recovery process , yet you want it deleted. You don;t add to it or question it you just delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk • contribs) 28 October 2007, 19:57 (UTC)

Why did you add this information to the article? -- Craigtalbert 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply because I read How it Works for the First Time , It is a chapter written by Bill Wilson describing how it works. Common sense applies if there is a chapter detailing and describing how the program works then it should have a summary. The CHAPTER goes into great description and detail on the role of God in recovery , for example: "faith did for us what we could not do for ourselves," "we hope you are convinced God can remove whatever self will has blocked you off from him, "we earnestly pray for guidance", Let God be the final judge." "we are now on the basis of trusting and relying on god" , there are at least 2 pages devoted to the issue of sex which I condensed down to one statement.

207.232.97.13 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Fred207.232.97.13 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I thought you were trying to over-emphasize the religious nature of the program, and I was right. As you have admitted to your POV pushing, I'm going to delete the section. -- Craigtalbert 23:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No you were wrong. I did not write the chapter on How It works I just summarized it. I You have decided to label it point of view. An ommission of the material is your point of view. The entire Chapter on How it works concerns the relationship of the alchoholic/s with God or god of ones understanding. It is specific on how it works. I am adding it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think it's so crucial to have a summary of this chapter in the article, and in particular your summary, and only your summary? -- Craigtalbert 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And, while we're discussing the topic, why don't you take a little more care when editing? Like this: [9]. Why did you leave the spurious <ref in the citation? Even when you moved the information around, you still didn't fix it: [10]. Even this, what's with the "IBSN" [11]? You sign your comments maybe one out of four times. It's like you just don't care. Do you take any pride in your work? -- Craigtalbert 04:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I was in a hurry and overlooked some typos and references yesterday. I am looking at the preveiws to ensure that my contributions are done correctly.

What I am amazed at is what goes overlooked and what has been edited by PHGustaf , who is more knowledgable than me on these matters. I am suprised you do not impose the same rigouress editing to some of your own posts Craig, that you apply to mine.

For example this went unattended for some time:

Although the steps are based on seeking help from a higher power, atheists and agnostics are not excluded from achieved long-term sobriety in AA, since AA does not discriminate against any religion or lack of religion.[31] Bill Wilson wrote a chapter in the "Big Book" entitled We Agnostics for recovering drunks who were struggling with the idea of a Higher Power

I added " as a means for them to accept the concept of a higher power/God . I read the chapter and it was quite specific on the nature of the higher power and how necessary it was for a recovery. I did not read anywhere that one could recover without a higher power/God.

Now THE "How It Works" was what I added yet it becomes deleted for reasons that it is religous. Well I did not write the chapter I just simply cited the key points it contained within it. Bill Wilson the author and cofounder of this organization was quite specific , detailed and lenghthy in the nature of the God in working the steps therefore it should be contained.

207.232.97.13 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Fred207.232.97.13 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be in a hurry nearly every time you edit. Do you only have sporadic access to the internet? Why not edit when you have time to review your work and correct mistakes (e.g. preveiws, knowledgable, suprised, rigouress, religous, lenghthy)? Do you know PHGustaf? At any rate, I'm having a hard time following what you're saying here. I'm not saying that your summary is inaccurate, but rather that it's selective in what it summarizes, out of place in the article, and (I'm not alone here) I don't see the "common sense" in having it in the article. Common sense implies that people sense there's a common understanding that whatever you're saying is true. It doesn't seem other editors agree it is the case that it should be in the article. Can you make another argument for including it? -- Craigtalbert 05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I'm going to go with the common sense/majority opinion on this summary and remove it. -- Craigtalbert 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional Circumstances

Someone should say what these might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhGustaf (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting the tildes. PhGustaf 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in this section. There is a risk of patients breaking confidentiality in any therapy group, professional or non-professional. — DavidMack 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but the legal circumstances are different. There is legally guaranteed doctor-patient privilege, for example. This is saying that there are no similar laws enforcing the Twelve Promises, confidentiality and anonymity in twelve-step programs. This may seem obvious, but is worth saying. -- Craigtalbert 06:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"I don't see the point in this section."

It is anti AA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.237.22 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who joins AA chooses to trust a bunch of drunks. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it's probably a good thing for some, but the fact should be noted.

PhGustaf 20:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is not to promote AA. It is a Wiki Page. By the Way the Confidentialty is a good point for professionals. 207.232.97.13 00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Fred207.232.97.13 00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

AA story on Jung may not be accurate

New evidence has come to light on this matter I refer you to some web pages regarding Jung and Rowland Hazard. This source is well referenced: http://www.stellarfire.org

Read the Article here is something interesting.

According to Richard Dubiel, (in The Road to Fellowship p 66-67) the first indication that Rowland was to be seeing Courtenay Baylor appeared in a letter from his mother to his brother written 24 July 1933. This was about two weeks after the resolution of the standoff between Allied Chemical and the Stock Exchange. Courtenay Baylor billed the family (there was a fund set aside for such expenses) a substantial amount of money over the next few months and then smaller amounts through the fall of 1934.

Early in 1933, Rowland had turned over the management of his businesses, including those in New Mexico, to other family members. My guess is that during the first six months of 1933, the reason Rowland was not involved in his usual business concerns was the crisis at Allied Chemical and Dye. In late 1933 and early 1934 he was probably recovering from a relapse.

The specific reason for chosing Baylor is not known, although Baylor had a good reputation as a lay therapist who worked with alcoholics. Interestingly, he was not the first person to treat Rowland who had Emmanuel movement connections. Dr. Edward Cowles had worked with the Emmanuel groups while completing a fellowship in psychiatry/neurology at Harvard in 1907-09. Beginning in 1922, Cowles directed a "Body and Soul Clinic," on the Emmanuel pattern, at St. Mark's-in-the-Bowerie Church in New York City.

207.232.97.13 20:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Fred207.232.97.13 20:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears the Carl Jung information is suspect in light of new evidence. I did a google on the Emmanuel Movement there is much info available but this web page has good information for further sourcing. http://www.hindsfoot.org/kDub2.html 207.232.97.13 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Fred207.232.97.13 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fred/13: Hindsfoot.org claims that Hazard's meeting with Jung was legit, it just took place a little earlier (1932). Your thoughts on this? — DavidMack 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Emmanuel movement irrelevant

I don't think the Emmanuel movement is relevant here. All the current material says is that Bill W. owned a copy of Peabody's book. Hindsfoot.org has one sentence: "Bill W. was also influenced by Richard R. Peabody, author of The Common Sense of Drinking." That should be all we need in this article. — DavidMack 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sloppy editing

Please don't rip out chunks of texts leaving spaces and incorrect punctuation as with criticisms, or throw them in out of context with what's being discussed (in this case Bill's development of the steps, nothing to do with meeting attendance). A couple of people here are trying to clean up this article to make it a presentable and reliable source for research. Thanks. -Bikinibomb 19:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Edwards' estimate of AA effectiveness

Please do not remove this information, which is based on a reliable source from a world-renowned expert. The statement is that "Edwards conjectures ...etc.", which is a true fact of interest to all readers, especially given that AA is a difficult organisation to research. — DavidMack 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd further add that it is appropriate to cite someone's published POV. It's not appropriate for Wikipedians to embellish cites or insert their own points of view into an article. There's a difference. -Bikinibomb 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Edwards book is not a peer reviewed journal, as has been repeatedly stated should be required for this article, especially this section of the article for which there are numerous studies. Edwards conjecture does not warrant inclusion. We all know what happens when we start citing someones published POV (I hear Stanton P calling....) 213.235.24.138 14:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Edwards' book without doubt meets the criteria. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. — DavidMack 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research

For example, citing a source that states Oxford and AA are similar is appropriate. On the other hand, a Wikipedian comparing two different sources of research and then stating in an article that one study discounts the other is original research and POV, thus inappropriate. Thanks. -Bikinibomb 05:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, in the instance I'm referring to: if a wiki article cites Study A and Study B, but Study A never specifically refers to Study B...if a Wikipedian inserts a statement that "Study A counters Study B," the reality is that Study A is not countering Study B, the Wikipedian is using Study A to counter Study B, which is original research and POV. Hope that makes sense. -Bikinibomb 06:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

Bikinibomb, thanks for your hard clean-up work; it reads much better now. — DavidMack 20:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. -Bikinibomb 20:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Confidentiality

I put a sentence (which sums it up adequately) about it back in Criticism, then readers can go to Twelve-step program criticism to read the rest. -Bikinibomb 23:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sanity

Frank Buchman on sanity "The only sane people in an insane world are those controlled by God" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words, according too, and this person argues

There's a lot of tentative language in this article. All of these sentence that being with "some" and "many" suck the life out of anything the sentence might say, like a weasel. More over, if you have a citation for what you're saying, there's no reason to say "according to," as it's obvious who/what is arguing it. There should rarely be cases where this makes sense. it gives the article a tone like "this guy, who may or may not be completely fucking dumb argued this thing, and I want you to know it's just this guy saying and it's not like something generated from a universal truth machine or something like that, and this is what this guy who may be nuts said." This will be a citation, people can look at it. State what the article/book/whatever says, don't use this language like you're dancing around the truth of what's said. -- Craigtalbert 16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point -- now that Bikini Bomb has removed the "according to"s it reads much better — DavidMack 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Some, many, according to -- gone, except when quoted in cites. -Bikinibomb 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is such a contentious article that we can't just write "AA is effective X% of the time <ref>" we have to write "Expert John Doe says AA is effective X% of the time." It certainly reduces the quality of the writing. For comparison, check out the unreadability of Cult. — DavidMack 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In some cases, that is true, when clarifying contentious information. But even in this article, those these cases are in the minority -- and probably a sign that the article is degenerating in to something like a Vaillant v. Peele pissing match anyway. -- Craigtalbert 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the trick is to try and improve the article while some people are pissing. Peele isn't really in Vaillant's league. Sounds like you need a break, mate. — DavidMack 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good on you. :) -- Craigtalbert 03:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

AA history has own article now

I made the split, AA history is now at History of AA. -Bikinibomb 02:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Twelve Step development in the Big Book is back in there now too. -Bikinibomb 02:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title from History of AA to History of Alcoholics Anonymous as acronyms should generally be avoided in cases like this. -- Craigtalbert 03:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Great thanks. -Bikinibomb 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Over-detailed history section

The material about Morgan R.: who's interested? If this goes on we'll need to break out the history section into a separate article. I know some people want to show how nasty Bill and AA are, but do they care at all about the poor reader who has to wade through all this tripe?

Ummm ... does anyone have comments on whether we should create a separate history article? — DavidMack 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it looks like there are just a few of us interested in editing here, I think it could stay in. But yeah at some point you have to draw the line. Like, someone just added Confidentiality back in when the source is not AA specific, so it is located in Twelve-step_program#Criticism not here (please don't readd it). We need to get as much info as we can off here and into 12 step, Ebby, Oxford, Traditions articles especially when it covers more than one 12-step program. Then we can link to it from respective program articles. -Bikinibomb 02:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about adding Confidentiality back in, I felt it was important from a professional stand point, I wasn't aware you moved it over to 12 step, however the recent editing makes it clear. Morgan R. is important to the history , his story has been told in Alcoholics Anonymous comes of Age, Pass it on, Lois remembers, and in the Biographies written by Kurtz, Cheever and Hartigan. The point here is to provide a balanced view, not a flattering potrayal of history by ommitting certain facts. 207.194.108.93 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)the library207.194.108.93 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Morgan is ok to stay in. I removed a lot of fluff and duplication overnight, reducing the article about 1/6. I think the article is pretty clean now except for refs, I'll be going through those. If we try to tell the general story and let the reader go to sources to fill in the smaller details, if interested, and try not to force a POV with excessive wording, the article won't get so bogged down. -Bikinibomb 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you -- we need a balanced view, but not including excess detail and irrelevant material. There is more work to do on the history section; it kind of peters out around 1946. — DavidMack 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I added more history, need to clean up the cites. I'll get some other events like BB editions, growth rates, etc. to fill in some gaps until present. -Bikinibomb 21:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I help too 207.232.97.13 04:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Fred207.232.97.13 04:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a definate case for some content forking here. The history section is just getting too long, especially an in-depth analysis of the writing of the big book. I do see the need to have a history section, but it takes up far too much of the article, and (I think) detracts from giving people a good over-view of AA. Most people don't care that much about the history. I would propose a new article on that.

Also, a "slimming down" of the studies (there are too many of them, and some, such as moos and moos, the veterans study, "after treatment" and Tonigan, don't really add much to the better studies (vallaint, match). I propose leaving just one of them in. I also propose that the Brandsma and Ditman studies be given seperate sections, and if I get time, I will try to track down some of the studies on OP, as there are some better ones that seem to show the AA "failure rate".

Finally, I'm not quite sure why some of the criticism stuff has been moved to "12 step programs". If it relates to AA, but not all 12 step programs (such as Coda, al-anon, clutters anonymous etc) then it should be over here. If it relates to both, then it should be in both. I must have missed the original discussion on this (I've been mostly taking a break, as this article can take up far too much of my time, and it can tend to be a "losing battle" as we do tend to find it dificult to reach consensus), but this seems to me to be a form of POV content forking.

Not sure why the AA as a religion/court ordered thing was moved, either. I think a more thorough discussion of the ethical issues related to 12 step coercion should be included. Peele has written extensively on the subject. This should be seperate from the bit on religion, as it is two seperate controversies.

Other than that, the article seems to be shaping up quite nicely. Anyone ever think of doing a wikiproject 12 step portal type thing? 82.0.206.215 15:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"this seems to me to be a form of POV content forking" ... "Most people don't care that much about the history." ... POV. In reality some want to know about the history, some want to know about the organization and program, how many of each, who knows. But maybe history should go into another article. As is, it may be defeating the purpose of providing readers easy access to information they really want, either history or the organizational aspects.

Regarding research I think maybe what's there should be left in and even added to, eventually meriting its own "AA efficiency" article. Since the cites say it's so hard to determine, perhaps the more data the better for the reader to reach a conclusion. Keeping some and excluding others might be editorial shaping of that.

Regarding moving criticism to 12-step, the goal is to have one quality section for each topic, not a bunch that have to be maintained. For example I work on the percussion articles too, when I edit snare drums and tom-toms I don't want to describe what a drumhead is in each one, I want to have an article for Drumhead and link to it from each drum. So it's a matter of efficiency not forking, I'm the one who moved Confidentiality over there since it's a general 12-step issue, not a problem only AA faces.

I've got my own recovery wiki in the works, portal here would be a good thing too. -Bikinibomb 16:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the court-ordered issue is not a criticism of AA at all so it doesn't belong in the Criticism section, it belongs in the Meeting section. The court said AA did fine work according the source. It's a criticism of courts who order 12-step, not a criticism of AA or religion. If you want to delve more into 12-step coercion that would be informative but you would need to show how that is specifically a criticism of AA to accurately include it in that section. To imply it is criticism of AA would be forking. -Bikinibomb 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course it is POV, it's a talk page. They don't require NPOV. They wouldn't work if they did.....

I think a brief historyy overview would be fine. I think it is off-putting to have a detailed history and then comparatively short sections on other topics which, arguably, are much more important. Creating a link at the top of the section, as has been done with other parts of the article, and also in many other articles (including FAs). It's the right thing to do with a topic that is so in-depth as the "history of AA". I am really not sure what the issue is here.....

The data on that page seems to repeat itself, through the studies that are there. None of the four that I mentioned were overly noteworthy, and they say pretty much exactly the same thing. I would not be against a fork on this subject, but leaving in 8+ studies is unneccesary. If you want to do the fork, why not just save the data on your own comp till then?

Well, I would say that confidentiality it is still an AA issue, and should be treated as such. As you rightly point out, some people might come to the article looking for some specific info, maybe the info about confidentiality. They may not find it because you have moved it. Plain and simply, it belongs in both. I'm not sure that I follow your percussion argument at all....

Court ordered 12 step attendence is undoubtedly criticised by respected addiction professionals. Of course, the religion aspect is but one issue with it (and there should probably be a seperate section no "spiritual or religious"). Coercive addiction treatment in general will always be a hot issue, but with AA there have been whole books written on the subject (from a very critical POV). There are issues to do with informed consent, whether or not people coerced into AA are actually "alcoholics" and subsequent requirements of abstinance, treatment choice - it's not just the religion aspect, which is certainly a criticism anyway. Read "Resisting 12 Step Coercion" by Peele. 82.0.206.215 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but is the Criticism section supposed to be about criticism of anyone who deals with AA, or criticism of AA itself? I believe it is supposed to be the latter, and I see no criticism of AA itself in the Court section, only criticism of the courts for sending people there, and in that it's an attendance slip and meeting issue for AA. I have a suspicion it wound up in the criticism section because some non-religious person just assumed that it was AA's fault for being religious, which is just POV if that's the case since the court ruling doesn't say that at all. So to accept it should be in the Criticism section I'd need someone to make a clear case free of bias as to why it is actually criticism of AA.

Anyway I moved Big Book history of the Steps to the Twelve-step program and I would like to delete lists of the Steps and Traditions here and have "For more info" links pointing to there as well to further streamline this article. I plan to merge the Twelve Traditions article with Twelve-step program too. That's what I meant about the percussion section, if you can link to one article rather than duplicating the same info in many articles then it should be done. I know it's nice to have your entire case all right there in one place to convince the reader of some position, either pro or con, but that's not the purpose here. Readers can click the links for main articles and go see issues of confidentiality or how many times Ebby relapsed or whatever they want that offshoots from this article into a more comprehensive one for those, that's what a wiki is for. -Bikinibomb 19:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Stanton Peele criticises AA directly for allowing the court ordered thing to go ahead - it wouldn't work without their participation, and also possibly contradicts their own traditions (something that is probably documented in an old grapevine? might have a hunt through...). The ruling also directly contradicts AAs "spiritual not religious" thing - this header used to be "criticism and controversy" which offers a more realistic explanation for it being there. As I say, Peele is directly critical of AA for attempting to enforce abstinence, also. So

You see, I don't think that moving the 12 steps or 12 traditions improves this article, especially as they specifically relate to AA. I can see what you are getting at, but think that content forking can be taken too far. It's accepted, but discouraged. If I want to find out about McDonalds, I don't want to have to go to the "Fast Food" article to get that information. Anyway, as I don't have the time or energy (or manpower....) to get into an edit war, it's another concession I'll have to make. They were certainly right when they said that wikipedia is not democracy/anarchy/communism ;-) 82.0.206.215 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Carrying the message

I removed that bit yet again and mentioned it more in sponsorship. The story of one guy who couldn't get sober but helped others doesn't need its own section, any more than "one alcoholic helped people even though he cheated on his taxes and didn't maintain rigorous honesty like AA suggests." So again the line has to be drawn somewhere so the article doesn't get bogged down by fixating on pet issues. -Bikinibomb 21:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. — DavidMack 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Retention:

Length of sobriety means more time in the Program...if one has acheived sobriety why the need for a program? The longer one is sober the longer one remains in the program? How does that work...when do people graduate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For some alcoholics, stopping drinking is just the first step — they work the program to learn how to enjoy life sober. Some need life-long support, and work the program to remain sober. For some the program is like a healthy diet — you wouldn't say "My health is better so I'll go back to Big Macs." And in spiritual terms, there is no graduation in life, you go on learning till the day you die. Just my opinion. — DavidMack 00:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the article and not as a forum topic here, I added Dr. Bob statements at the end of Sponsorship as prompted by your question of why some remain even though they may not need it anymore: to help people, to give back, to safeguard against relapse. -Bikinibomb 01:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Direction

It seems like a lot of this article is turning in to a reprint of selected information from the AA website, pamphlets, etc. We should really limit using questionable sources to where they're absolutely necessary and have encyclopedic value. Sections that are particularly bad offenders are: Twelve Concepts, Suggestions, Sponsorship, Meetings ands AA Surveys. Most of these could also be condensed/summarized in to paragraph form. At lot of the research and criticisms that are split off in to their own sections could also be condensed. We should be giving a summary of the collective results of research on AA, rather than a summary of each article that researches AA (that's what the article's abstracts will do that for us). -- Craigtalbert 18:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed 12 concepts and just refd it to pamphlet, condensed meetings, removed a bit from sponsorship. The rest of meeting and sponsorship probably needs to stay in since that's the guts of the program (edit: but I condensed it down to paragraph form). -Bikinibomb 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Condensed studies except for Vaillant and Match. AA surveys should keep its own section.-Bikinibomb 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Craig I agree with you. The article is strangely split between topics with research references and others with AA references. Bikinibomb thanks for your rapid responses. — DavidMack 21:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Article looks good. Just done a word count. Sections break down to: 556/1122/828

Description of AA purpose, organization and program = 22% Effectiveness = 45% Criticism = 33%

Is that a reasonable balance for an article of this nature? Mr Miles 21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm done here I think, wasting my time trying to make improvements only to have someone come immediately behind and mess it up like a child smearing fingerpaints around. Too frustrating. Same with AA history. Y'all take care. -Bikinibomb 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame, the edits you were doing were a credit to Wikipedia. The child will go away eventually. Mr Miles 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Oh well thanks. I can deal with the once-a-day vandals in other articles I contribute to; I'm trying to assume good faith but some of the edits here are so off-the-wall, relentless, and careless I can't help but question the motive. Like the Brandsma addition again. As is, most of the wording looks like a bunch of hooey and I wonder if the editor even knows what point of the study is. Anyhow, maybe I'll take a break and come back later. -Bikinibomb 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bikinibomb, your efforts are much appreciated. All editors: If there is disruptive editing and reverting with no discussion please log it on the contributor's talk page. — DavidMack 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)#

Bikinibomb, even I appreciate (though do not agree with) your hard work. I wouldn't let the vandals get to you. It is a controversial subject (bound to increase the nutters and vandals from both sides). I will be adding properly referenced brandsma material tomorrow (btw, would hope everyone notes that I have never added anything from OP etc without having looked at an orginal source myself...), which should stop the idiots. At the same time, do not let wiki (esp this article) take over your life. You must be well aware how addictive it is (I'd be interested to see the relapse rates on wikiholics!!!), so if you have to take a break do. Just come back when not to soon. In many ways the article is doing well, partly (mostly?) thanks to you (though I still believe the forking has got too much...) 82.0.206.215 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Properly referenced material is always appreciated, thank you!

I have a personal theory about obsessive writers such as orange and our local children. Researchers point out the power of a substitute dependency as an ingredient in recovery... — DavidMack 00:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Fred/13, the material you added on Brandsma is unacceptable.

• much of it copied and pasted without reference from Resisting 12-Step Coercion by Peele (see text p 47 in Google books). You even included a line break from the book: "tradi- tional".
• personal opinions added with a false reference ("As we saw in Chapter 1, this assertion is not true...")
• partial reference to material with no title and page number which you obviously did not read.

I am removing this copyright material and reporting you for disruptive editing. — DavidMack 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Silkworth

Had he any particular credentials or documented experience that justify his being quoted here? PhGustaf 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Silkworth was a medical doctor who specialised in the treatment of alcoholics. In this article he is notable mainly for his influence on AA. — DavidMack 15:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, and I'm aware of his importance within the AA canon. But his letter is more a tract than a thesis (and presents more a hypothesis than a theory) and his ideas deserve the same scrutiny as any others. I see no medical notabily to his idea. -- PhGustaf (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In Silkworth's time, the disease theory had fallen out of favour and was rarely heard. I actually don't believe he was a very good doctor. His ideas on obsession and allergy are not scientifically based, as far as I know, they are just used by AA as a helpful concept. I modified the text to make it clear that he was an influence, not a modern-day authority. — DavidMack (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that addresses my concern. I was considering doing it myself, but I've decided to tread lightly here till I learn a little more. -- PhGustaf (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrivia: Autoarchive

Idle threads on this talk page are automatically archived. This is good; it keeps the page to a decent size. Craig recently shortened the archive interval from 14 days to 7, and I changed it back. I don't think the current size of the page is oppressive, and I think it's helpful to new editors to have easy access to recent discussion.

The autoarchive interval probably isn't something an individual should change without discussion. Of course, the discussion could make the size of the file oppressive, and ... PhGustaf (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It would keep with the established trend of fighting over every change made to this article, no matter how insignificant. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is, one person's "insignificant" is another's "essential". Your 10-day compromise is fine with me. PhGustaf (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's about being able to see the forest for the trees. There are editors like Bikinibomb who contribute a ton to the article and put work in to making the content coherent. Then there are editors who shit all over the article accompanied by a vanguard who defend them. You can argue subjectivity all you want, but in reality it's easy to tell when someone is being pedantic and/or obstructionist and someone who really wants to improve the article. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Early conflicts and differences

Fred/13, you added this material, but I'm having trouble understanding it.

• Hank P. {Parkhurst} was one of the first New York Alcoholics to respond to Bill Wilson. (about what?)
• When called upon to account for Works Publishing financing he could produce no records. The money had gone. (what money)
• Bill neither had the authority or power to enforce any decisions he might make. (What does this mean?)

Also, I see that your technique is to add negative material and let others fill in the rest to balance it. Can you see that you're making other people do your homework for you? — DavidMack 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can put anything on the Internet. There are two sides to any story and some of the websites critisizing Bill Wilson only tell one side of the story-- and rather simplisticly at that. Conflict was definitely a part of the development of early A.A. to be sure, but the conflicts were often more complex, multi-sided, and less clear-cut than are often depicted on anti-A.A. websites. The Internet is also wide open to anyone with a hatred of spirituality, or early A.A. leaders-- to publish, and try to spread, personal perceptions and animosities as facts.

Sean7phil (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Low-quality material

I have a problem with the material in Early conflicts and differences. From the general reader's point of view, it does not add much to understanding of AA. In fact it reads kind of like a 6 year old's decription of a car crash.

• What the heck's it doing there?
• Who wants to hear the detailed story of Hank P.?
• What's with half-finished ideas like "the number of letters coming to New York about various disputes within groups." What's the context, what were the letters, and how were the disputes resolved?
• Why do you expect other people to do the homework and fill in the complete story?

If some editors cared about the readers instead of packing the article with half-baked material this article would be tons better. — DavidMack 18:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense David, but to read the history as presented has overlooked some key facts. There was conflict and differences of opinion all through AA at this time period. The goal here is not to present a neat a tidy recovery package but the real history. There was more than one co- founder of AA. Hank Parkhurst played a major role, Bob Smith and the Akron group were in tight with the Oxford Group and never incurred the hostility and rejection that Bill faced in New York. It was with much regret that they separated from the Akron group. Many of these original members would attend meetings with their Bibles. Even the fact that Hazard left Switzerland and joined the Oxford group was a neat package. A review of the information has shown that Rowland may have seen Jung in 1926 , then spent a number of years drinking before he received treatment from Baylor of the Emmanuel movement.

Below are Jungs comments on a case:

"I will tell you a story of such a case. A hysterical alcoholic was cured by this Group movement, and they used him as a sort of model and sent him all round Europe, where he confessed so nicely and said that he had done wrong and how he had got cured through the Group movement. And when he had repeated his story twenty, or it may have been fifty, times, he got sick of it and took to drink again. The spiritual sensation had simply faded away. Now what are they going to do with him? They say, now he is pathological, he must go to a doctor. See, in the first stage he has been cured by Jesus, in the second by a doctor! I should and did refuse such a case. I sent the man back to these people and said, "If you believe that Jesus has cured this man, he will do it a second time. And if he can't do it, you don't suppose that I can do it better than Jesus?" But that is just exactly what they do expect; when a man is pathological, Jesus won't help him but the doctor will." 207.232.97.13 22:34, 31 October 2007

Jung made his comments about alcoholism in the 1920's suggesting that medical science could not help the "alcoholic" but we today must consider that this was from the POV of a doctor working from a now much challenged and still unproven pschodynamic POV. Research on the treatment of alcoholism as described in a meta-anaysis of all the most reliable and valid research from peer reviewed journals, offered in all editions of Reid Hester and William R. Miller's text, Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches: Effective Alternatives,shows that there are ways to help people with a variety of alcohol problems (at risk drinking, alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence [called alcoholism by the AA initiates]). Perhaps a study of studies published in 2003 should replace a POV from the 1920's in what claims to be an accurate encyclopedia.

Further, SMART Recovery's program is based on the approaches noted in the Hester and Miller text, and offers a secualr option for people not enchanted with AA's spiritual approach, yet the SMART Recovery article is consistently deleted within minutes of posting (I suspect by an AA zealot, since there can be no reasonable excuse for this). Indeed, watch how quickly my comment disappears, if it is even viewed before it is deleted.Henrysteinberger 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Henrysteinberger

Rational Recovery has survived for years with no deletion. Rather than militant AAs, looks to me like spammy tone of SMART's article is to blame for its deletion. -Bikinibomb 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(UTC)Fred207.232.97.13 22:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that website. We don't want a neat package, just one that tells the frikken story, unlike the disjointed material that was added. Anyway, based on your writing style, you're not the person who added that material. Since there are obviously two Freds, maybe Fred #2 can help Fred #1 research the material and add to the history section, which stops abruptly shortly after the founding of AA. There's too much of this "I put in the negative stuff, now you have to balance it" going on. — DavidMack 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware David there has been present day controversies? Here is a page that will provide some insight on the matter: http://silkworth.net/mitchellk/articles/aagerman_courtcase.html 207.232.97.13 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Fred207.232.97.13 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! If it's relevant, get a reliable source and put it in, in proportion to its importance. Get Fred #2's input. — DavidMack 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of that general group controversy stuff should be summarized under the Traditions or Organization section, it doesn't belong in the history of the Big Book or description of the program as it is only a distraction. I agree with David that "conflict" material is still quite incoherent. Additionally there are different versions of what happened with Hank and Clarence depending on the source, to me it's good for nothing more than some gossip. Again I would just say that some members had disputes over religion, finances, etc. as I have inserted in Traditions and leave it at that. -Bikinibomb 00:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider the conflict and controversy section gossip. Like any other organization there were problems within this organization. It is a point of interest to the reader to add this but in a more coherant fashiion. The traditions were not in place until 1946. 207.194.108.93 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)the library207.194.108.93

We need a summary of the history. If I was a reader, I would skip over the "Hank" section. "Hank was Bill's friend, but Hank got mad at Bill and lost the money, then Clarence said he founded AA, but Bill couldn't enforce decisions ..." And we still don't have a clue what problems AA had and what direction they were going in. Instead of using this article as a dumping ground for anti-AA material, could you please try to tell the story? Whoever wrote the comments on Jung above is quite capable of it. — DavidMack 03:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

207.194.108.93, the rewrite looks much better now, not so much "he said/he said." My point was that earlier disputes directly led to the later Traditions, however I clarified that in the Conflict section so that when the reader gets to the Tradition section he/she will have a reference point tying the two together. -Bikinibomb 04:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Will leave material there as it's being worked on. -- Craigtalbert 12:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

1989 AA report

80.194.237.22: "A TV show doesn't hack it as a Reliable Source. Need Reliables Sources for 1. The AA report and 2. The stats for self-motivated abstinence.)"

Refer to cite episode. "Serious" and "any good at research" are POV, we can't determine for the reader who is most accurate, we just report it if it's notable. Research claims from AA or a television show are notable. -Bikinibomb 15:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Research claims from AA or a television show are notable." True, however the TV clip cited doesn't contain research. In the video Penn & Teller hold up (if you look closely) a photocopy of the document from [OrangePapers], it's very recognisable. Orange Papers is not a Reliable Source, Agent Orange cites, Alcoholics Anonymous, Cult or Cure? by Charles Bufe as the source of that document, but his citations are not necessarily to be trusted. If you (or someone) can check the book Cult or Cure to make sure it's actually there then I guess it can go in, provided Bufe's book is by a reputable publisher. Would prefer a link to the original (AA) source though, particularly on this controversial topic. Incidentally, even if correct, the graph IS retention date, not sobriety data - I've changed the article to reflect that. 80.194.237.22 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(Could you please check that agent orange link? It doesn't work for me. Thanks, DavidMack 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

Maybe I'll email AA HQ to see what they say, you'd think they would address that on aa.org or in the press if it was entirely fabricated but I don't see anything. In the meantime I don't care if it stays or not since the first paragraph of Effectiveness implies determining it is little more than educated guesswork anyway. Just trying to head off another revert war and present all sides without bias. -Bikinibomb 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm not sure AA HQ address anything in the press! Point of interest, the idea to compare that 5% retention figure and the 5% natural recovery rate for alcoholics is from OP I think and not Cult or Cure, kind of depressing that Penn & Teller don't dig much deeper in their 'research', guess they just want ratings. 80.194.237.22 16:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The AA survey used to be at http://thearidsite.tripod.com/AACOMMPR.PDF, but now I get no access and a spyware warning from that site. I do have the pdf at work, which I'll dig up tomorrow. Vaillant's actual success rate was not 5% — see summary at The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited#Alcoholics Anonymous. Agent Orange criticises AA for the low retention rate, however his argument is equivalent to saying that gymns have a low retention rate, therefore excercise does not work. Anyway, the low retention rate is eye-opening and a cause for concern by AA. — DavidMack 19:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually a photocopy of the work is provided in Addiction, Change or Choice by Vince Fox. I will order the book and verify. Stanton Peele had a copy obtained by Charles Bufe, The document was not meant for the public it was a private internal report, however, it was mad available to a number of researchers in 1991 upon request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Found a copy here: http://thearidsite.tripod.com/AACOMMPR.PDF (2 MB) (warning: i got a spyware warning from the root site). According to the site (google archive here), document is "Comments On A.A. Triennial Surveys", Dec. 1990, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services (internal document), AA document identification number 5M/12-90/TC. — DavidMack 22:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's legit since I can't find any denials from AA about the BS! show. -Bikinibomb 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Penn and Teller are just another "external issue" that they wouldn't comment on. — DavidMack 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

newspaper accounts are allowed by Wiki , this was discussed much earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uuuuhh... which newspaper accounts would you be referring to? — DavidMack 14:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be careful about using the aridsite - "Dr Bomb" got his "phd" from Rational Recovery. His anti-AA rants are poorly analysed and written. If you're using that as a source (and I wouldn't) you might as well allow orange (which you never will). This comes from someone who is certainly a few steps into the "anti AA camp". Seriously, that website is awful....

The Penn and Teller show also states that that survey is "the only piece of research on AA", which is obviously incorrect. 82.0.206.215 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agent Orange on Vaillant

I'm interested to know why people think that you "can't trust oranges citations". AO (who has gone dead quiet lately - shame...) was certainly pretty methodical in his research. There were open and ongoing challenges to find the flaws. Even his analysis of Vallaints research does mention the conclusions Vallaint came to. I would never claim him as a "reliable source", but I'm actually interested to know why people think that....

And, are we now using Bufe etc as reliable sources? 82.0.206.215 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion aridsite, orange, and morerevealed.org are all dubious. Don't know about Bufe specifically. Aridsite just happens to have a copy of the AA internal memo. Agent Orange is meticulous in his research but he'll take a whole textbook and quote the one number that supports his case. AO's description of Vaillant's work is totally distorted — e.g. AO gives the impression that Vaillant reports a 5% success rate for AA (see summary of Vaillant on AA here). — DavidMack 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that more-revealed is certainly dubious, except for the excellent library section. I'm not sure that Oranges description of Vaillants work is entirely distorted. Certainly, GV does use some very skewed double-think to come to the conclusion that AA is a force for good. The data, without a shadow of a doubt, shows that AA is no more effective an initial treatment than an no treatment ("Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling" - kind of difficult to ignore, surely?) As an "aftercare" service, I think that AA shows some promise, but the correlation between attending 300 AA meetings (which 48% of those who stayed sober did....) and staying sober cannot be proven. Who's to say that the attendance was the result of the abstinance, not the other way round? But that isn't what Vaillant set out to prove - he set out to proove that AA is an effective "psycho-social intervention". So he instead reaches the conclusion (after doing one of the most exhaustive studies on AA ever) that more research needs to be done. This isn't that surprising with his (no-doubt well payed) position on the AAWS board.

Anyway, not important, as it's hardly relevant to the article (unsourced, POV original research etc). If you want to carry on the discussion, you know where my talk page is..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.24.138 (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a relevant issue because many editors of the article believe Agent Orange's account without reading Vaillant. For example, your quote above ("... we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism...") was a comment on clinical treatment, not AA, and reveals that you, also, have not read the source. — DavidMack 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Agent Orange's selectivity, I read an abstract of the Ditman research which bore little resemblance to what was in this Wiki article, that was taken from Orange-Papers.org as was the Bransma data (which I've taken out temporarily, can't find an abstract for that). I suppose one of us will have to read the actual research. Mr Miles 10:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Agent Orange is not, and never has been, a reliable source. The requirements for what is a reliable source are very clear. It has nothing to do with the opinions of editors and everything to do with wikipedia guidelines. -- Craigtalbert 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never tried to use AO as a reliable source though I do think he is a reliable source (if you see what I mean).

I shall admit that I haven't read the book, but I have read the rather good wiki article on TNHOAR (written by one or more of you all...), and the clinic sample was: "detoxification and hospital treatment followed by referral to AA." Lets be clear about this, that is AA. A detox (hospital or community) is generally considered an essential part of AA (Bill W got one...), in that you can't work the steps whilst still drinking. Oranges quote takes nothing out of context at all (I'd be interested if someone could demonstrate to me exactly how he does this - it's something you all say a lot...) - he re-prints 3 whole pages word for word, including the stats. This was clearly the significant chunk of the research over the 8 years - the actual outcome data compared to the designated initial treatment. Questinnaires about overall AA attendance were a "by product", and do not show the success rate of AA as an initial intervention for long-term sobriety (AA's purpose). Vaillant states as much himself by noting that AA ("the clinic sample") "helped only in the short term, as crisis intervention and detox". It doesn't matter how you try and gloss it up - the data shows that AA killed (actually more than) 3% a year over 8 years, and then did nothing to improve other outcomes. If someone can interpret this data differently, I'd be interested to hear it.

I've spoken to someone about the Brandsma data, and will have a look at the email when at work tomorrow. It states categorically that AA produced worse relapses than CBT and, I think, attributed this to the "powerlessness" thing.

82.0.206.215 19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaillant states pros and cons to every issue, so if you're looking for cons you can find lots while entirely missing his overall conclusions. The subjects were given clinical treatment with referral to AA, and higher AA attendance was correlated with higher rates of sobriety. As an example quoting out of context, AO claims based on Vaillant that AA has a 95% failure rate. The actual fact is that 95% of the Clinic sample relapsed at some point during the 8 year study and a significant fraction eventually became sober. Vaillant's success rates are consistent with other studies; as we all know, there is no cure for alcoholism. AO is an unreliable source; everything he references you need to read for yourself. Vaillant is a heavy read, but the material on AA is concentrated in a couple of areas, and there is a summary chapter at the end, so you can check it out. — DavidMack 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaillant states himself that AA (the "clinical sample", if you must) did nothing in the long term. That is the point of AA - to create long term and lasting sobriety. It didn't do that. The proportion who stayed sober was 5% - equal to those from the (initially) untreated group, admitted by the man himself - which is why Orange can argue the 95% failure rate quite fairly. The fact that the proportion still drinking after two years (2/3 in AA and in "no treatment") was so high further indicates that AA has no effect above natural remission. The AAs were detoxed and then went back to drinking (except those few who actually wanted to give up anyway). The untreated group quickly caught up. On top of that, the "abstinant or improved" section, as a test of AA (who state frequently that their is no such thing as an improved "true" alcoholic, and all these men were diagnosed as alcoholics) makes something of a mockery of this study as a test of AA (which, I hope you can admit, is what it was designed to be). Peele states the same thing on his site - tests of AA have to show abstinance or not, otherwise the goal posts are being shifted. As a side point, the "improved" section of the AA bit was exceptionally low - does this (as well as the high death rate) back up the information in the Brandsma study? AA does more harm than good? I'd be inclined to think so...

With regards to the AA-attendance (which included those in the control group....) being "correlated with higher rates of sobriety", does the study account for "Confusion of Correlation and Causation"? As I have alluded to in past posts, who is to say that people didn't start attending AA because they wanted to stay sober, rather than staying sober because they attended AA? This is AOs argument, so I'll give a link. I honestly can't say which way round it is (I actually do believe that AA has some genuine "after-care" benefits - all the studies definately seem to show that...), but "philosophically", AO has a slight point here...

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html#correlation

Quickly, as an addiction treatment professional, if I see someone for 3 months who then relapses, then 8 years down the line they happen to be clean/sober, should I take the credit? For "planting the seed"? Perhaps I'd be better off admitting my limitations and trying to improve my game? This is what AA seems incapable of doing - moving forward. Maybe they would improve if they did?

According to Peele, you can indeed use Vaillants research to argue both sides. I wouldn't doubt that, and you have already said so yourself. I happen to be using it to argue AA doesn't work (whilst making some concessions...) - you are doing the same from the opposite end.

AO is an "unreliable source" for the simple reason that he doesn't conform to wiki standards (something I never can, could or would argue). Vaillant (or at least his conclusion) is unreliable for the fact that he is on the AAWS board - his lack of "third party" status would call into question his reliability as a commentator on AA - shame he couldn't have been more honest in his conclusions.

I've tried to answer your points. Sure you've got loads to make back. If anyone wants this ended, or moved to a user-talk page, I'd be more than happy for that to happen.

82.0.206.215 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I say, read the source (Vaillant) yourself. — DavidMack 15:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read the (presumably impartial - you tell me, you wrote it) article on wiki, fairly comprehensive, which seems to support my points above. Vaillant did an 8 year studdy which showed that AA is ineffective as an intervention, but has some promise as an "aftercare" service, but watch out as the abstinance violation effect will kill you if you lapse. You can keep trying to kid yourself that AA works, but the best study on it shows that it doesn't, however the writer tried to gloss it up. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Clinic ≠ AA. — DavidMack (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The gist of the argument above is becoming clear and that is the section in the article citing the "Vaillant Study" is POV. What you are stating {82.0.206.215} is that an 8 Vaillants study showed AA ineffective as an intervention but shows promise as an aftercare. Would you care to edit and insert that please , if that is the case to eliminate POV. You also mentioned the best study that shows it doesn't work. What is the name of the study or is that the one already in the study section dated 1996? I am in the process of acquiring a copy of Vaillant's Book 1995 edition. If I am able to ascertain that what you say is correct wouldn't commen sense dictate that in order to perserve the integrity of this page in keeping with Wiki Standards that the Study on Vaillant be edited to reflect this? The concern here is the integrity of the page.

MisterAlbert —Preceding comment was added at 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

MisterAlbert, I'd love to stick that material in, but to be honest it's just my analysis, and cannot be referenced to wiki standards - it would fall under the category of "original research", as it is my own interpretation of the study (influenced by what I have read on Orange and Peele).

The "best study" that I refer to is Vaillants. Whilst I do not agree with his conclusions (he is inherently biased - he is a board member of AAWS), the quality of the study is extremely high. The only better recent study out there on similar subject is Project MATCH, and that isn't actually a test of AA, it's a test of "12 step facilitation therapy" (run by competent professionals, not your average AA sponsor) - MATCH also used a "contingency management" approach (or so I have heard...), ie payed members for their attendence. This is a valid way to help people off of drugs and alcohol (small rewards for attendance and successes have shown to be extremely effective) but this would never happen in AA.

I'd reccomend reading the Vaillant book yourself, and selecting some of Peeles comments on it, as criticism. Until you can find someone who interprets the study in the same way as I do, my opinion means nothing. Peele is a valid source and adds NPOV to the article - I don't. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

More details on Vaillant's Clinic Sample

MisterAlbert, I'm very glad to hear you're acquiring Vaillant, then we'll be able to discuss it directly, without referring to other websites.

The one-sentence description of Vaillant's Clinic study in the article is, as best as I see, concise, complete, and NPOV. At the end of 8 years of treatment of severely alcoholic patients, 29 had achieved stable remission, 24 had intermittent alcoholism, and 47 were still chronic alcoholics. (These poor results were in fact congruent with other clinical studies on severe alcoholics.) The patients were initially in hospital for 1 to 11 days for a mean of 5 days (Vaillant p 189). Daily treatment included counselling, films, and group discussions. AA meetings were required twice weekly while in hospital, which means that most patients likely saw at least one AA meeting. Once released, the patients were encouraged to attend the twice-weekly outpatient meetings, which in turn encouraged AA attendance. For 8 years, the patients had unlimited, free access to the entire local network of halfway houses, drop-in centres, detox units, and integrated mental health facilities. At the end of the 8 year study, 68 patients had attended AA for 99 meetings or less, and 32 had attended 100 or more, giving a good basis to examine if AA attendance was associated with improved outcomes. The article as it stands now states one of the key results (out of 4 pages of discussion that include two tables - p 194-7).

Is this all relevant to the article article on AA? Not really. It's relevant only if you've read Agent Orange et al. and been fed distorted, one-sided, incomplete information.

— DavidMack (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hate to agree with you david, but this is all a bit irrelevant to the article. Peele would be the best source on Vaillants research to add NPOV, and there is little more to add to it. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My comments above were to clarify why Agent Orange is an unreliable source. Please don't make inflammatory comments, it's considered trolling. — DavidMack (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that anything that I wrote above was "trolling" or inflamatory. 213.235.24.138 (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I misunderstood. — DavidMack (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Brandsma study

If the Brandsma study is available and the information is factual why has it not been added back in compliance with the Wiki policy. I am left with the impression, that if the material or study is not presenting a favorable view of the organization then it is allowed to deleted.

I have added back material in the history section The information that was being deleted checked out. The references checked out and it flowed with the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.23.199 (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the discussion above, some people had added the Brandsma material without actually reading the material and were taking liberties with the wording, so other editors were wanting to rewrite the section. — DavidMack 15:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is don't just vomit information out and leave it where it lands, clean it up and reword it so it can be useful to the average reader. If you leave it for another editor it may just get deleted. On a personal level I've been involved with AA since the 80s and I've seen a lot of people apparently stay sober as they were trying to follow the program, and get drunk as they weren't. But I've also experienced a lot of 13th stepping, telling people not to take psychiatric meds, and infighting. So my editing in this article is trying to tell all sides from valid sources, not just the favorable info. I can't speak for anyone else here. -Bikinibomb 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bikinibomb, due to your experience and NPOV, this article needs your input.

There is really only one contributor who vomits information. His writing skills are iffy, so he generally just copies and pastes from the web. His preferred sources are AA critics, which relieves him of the responsibility of actually reading any studies or source material. He is very persistent at inserting anti-AA information, whether he understands it or not, and has apparently made editing this article part of his daily routine. He refuses to discuss his work on this talk page. My guess is that he is a young fellow who had a bad experience with AA and gets a sense of relief and pride by attacking what he sees as the status quo and by flouting Wiki guidelines. Just my opinion. Not sure how to deal with this contributer; perhaps we could persuade a senior administrator to keep an eye on this article. — -- DavidMack (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A good study to include, if it exists and anyone can help find it, is how many active AAs stay sober when crisis hits: divorce, death in the family, loss of job. By "active" I mean someone who does what's suggested like work steps with a sponsor and goes to meetings regularly. A big problem with studies in the article now is that they don't often say how active their subjects are. Surveying someone who sits in the corner at meetings once in a while and never talks to anyone, which may be the case in some of these for all I can tell, isn't saying much about how well the program works as AA suggests it to work. --- Bikinibomb (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A metric on AA activity would be hard to devise, and the data to quantify it impossible to gather. A question still open is, "Do people stay sober because they're in AA, or do people stay in AA because they're sober?" I realize that that's only two of four cases. PhGustaf (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's why every AA researcher should always clarify limitations and that results on AA are indirect. — DavidMack (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be important to acknowledge in the article how much of Brandsma's sample was coerced into AA attendance. AA is not responsible for how people arrive at their doors. We would not expect coerced attendees to fare as well as people who went to AA voluntarily. — DavidMack (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I just got a copy of the article. If any of you are interested, email me and I will send it to you. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

I just finished reading this study -- there is nothing in it comparing Alcoholics Anonymous to other treatment modalities. It does make reference to further studies that will compare AA to other treatments. Quoting...

Since September 1972, we have been studying treatment outcome with alcoholics (Hornstra et al. 1972). In this report we shall briefly describe the project, but on in order to provide context for our data on patient acquisition, our screening procedures, their results, and some preliminary attendance data. A major concern of this and our future reports will be the effects of

court probation on our subjects.

The project was acronymed SHARP which stood for the Self Help Alcoholism Research Project. Briefly the over all thrust to compare four treatment methods to a no treatment control. The methods are: (A) Rational Behavior Therapy, (B) Traditional Insight Therapy, (C) Alcoholics Anonymous, (D) Self Help Rational Behavior Therapy; more will be said of these modalities in later reports. The patients are screened, then pretested extensively. Treatment is to last up to one year with a one year follow-up (currently being completed). The analysis of extensive data from many sources will seek to establish the efficacy of various treatment methods and elucidate empirical predictors of successful treatment.

What this study does do is identify demographic characteristics of people that treatment is likely to work for, from their sample people who are most likely to benefit are the most down-and-out and the people who are reasonably okay (people employed, but for whom alcoholism is becoming more of a problem). People who are "inbetween" are the ones least likely to respond to treatment. This may be interesting content for the article on alcoholism, but it's not really relevant here.

Additionally, the results of SHARP study are probably relevant, but they are not published in this article. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked out a copy of Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism this afternoon. It documents the results of the SHARP project. It's interesting, though based on research that's 27+ years old.

The bit that AO and others have cited on page 105 is in a chapter comparing results of men (yes, just men) randomly assigned to either an AA group, a "lay-RBT" group (a self-help group ran by non-professionals, aka lay people, using methods derived from Rational Behavior Therapy) and a control group that received no treatment. The study participants came mostly as a result of court probation, but some were self-referred or referred from physicians, industry, community agencies, hospitals or clergy to participate. They had to meet various criteria to determine suitability for the program and the nature of their alcoholism that all seemed reasonable enough to me.

It's true that in this study (at the three month follow-up) the participants assigned to the AA group were five times more likely than control group, and nine times more likely than the lay-RBT group, to binge drink when they relapsed. But, AO is cherry-picking the data from the study here. Both the AA and the lay-RBT group where able to stop drinking more often than the control group after one or two initial drinks, and when drinking those in AA and those in the lay-RBT group both consumed less alcohol per day than the control group (three to four times less than controls).

They also found no statistically significant differences, in terms of the factors measured, between the AA, lay-RBT and controls when evaluated at the end of 12 months (when the participants were no longer in active treatment). They attributed this to improvement in the control group, but it's clear that neither method was a panacea.

While the authors acknowledge the ways which the lay-RBT group was superior to the AA and the control groups, they agree with the conclusion in Alcoholism and Treatment, "the single most important factor that consistently determines improvement is the amount of treatment. The greater the amount of treatment the greater the improvement rate." They also agree with the results of Ditman 1967 which found that AA was not effective at with compulsory treatment of municipal court offenders (I have a copy of the Ditman study if anyone wants it). We could have guessed that people forced to go probably won't do well, but it's good to have the research supporting it.

Quoting from the concluding paragraph in this chapter: "These men seem to need over an extended period of time not only the structure and support of specific, self-help, problem solving methods, but the reinforcing effects of a group or individual supportive relationship (cf. Pattison, Sobell and Sobell 1977). It would seem that alcohol dependency must be replaced with interpersonal dependency, which will then gradually be resolved in the direction of a more adaptive autonomy."

It's also worth nothing (while the SHARP study was peer-reviewed and published by a university press) that Brandsma is a self-admitted fan of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and wrote two articles, cited in his book, related to AA for Rational Living a journal published by the Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy. I'm not saying this means his results are biased, but you should always consider people's POV and possible agendas.

That being said, the binge/full-blown relapse criticism of AA appears to be more salient the more research is uncovered. AA probably doesn't reward people enough for situations where they drink but stop themselves; they still have to set back their sobriety date in such circumstances, so after blowing it with one drink, why not go all out? Of course, there are a lot of reasons not too, but not much is done in the group to reward them. The attitude should be more like: "Yes, relapse is part of recovery, that doesn't mean you have to relapse with a bang." Anyway, I'm treading dangerously on the edge of WP:FORUM here... :) -- Craigtalbert (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a very diligent and thoughtful piece of work. One comment: Unless the nature of alcoholism or AA's way of dealing with it have changed recently the 27-year age of the study probably isn't an issue. (I'm old enough to think of 27 years as more or less recently.) PhGustaf (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

By reading and summarizing the source material you have greatly improved the quality of this article. Thank you. — DavidMack (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If someone doesn't beat me too it, I'll try to add a section on the results of the SHARP study (it may not be for a couple of weeks). Seems to me at the end of the day MATCH, SHARP, and other research basically say the same things: no treatment is perfect, but the more the better; more varieties are a good idea, AA has problems but is usually the cheapest and most available -- of course, that could change if other recovery groups put more work in.

I don't know why fans of different treatment modalities have this tendency to be at each other's throats. At the end of the day they're all trying to get to the same place. There's room for constructive criticism, different approaches, selective adaptation. Anyway, WP:FORUM, I'll shut-up. :) -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion Opening A page for Court Cases

As coerced attendance in AA and other 12 step programs have resulted in a large number of court cases , all of them involving the Establishment Clause, I recommend that in keeping with a good Wiki, a page be open to cover this area of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93

Only if you promise to sign every comment you make from here on out. If you miss one then we get to delete it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Brandsma Study : I have sourced material that has been published by Stanton Peele "Resisting 12 step coercian" now this inforamtion has been made available online so I don't think it would violate to use the source material as referenced from the published material.

Peele cites the Brandsma study and its results here with direct quotes from the source material http://www.morerevealed.com/library/resist/r_chap_2.htm

With references to the Vaillant study Peele notes: "As Vaillant remarked, "Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling" (Vaillant, 1995, p. 352). He continued, "our results were no better than the natural history of the disorder." "If we have not cured all the alcoholics who were detoxified over 8 years ago, the likelihood of members of the Clinic sample attending AA has been significantly increased" (pp. 357 358).

[See more complete information above. — DavidMack (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)]

The Brandsma Study is available for purchase online here.
—MisterAlbert

Information on court cases is interesting for the following reasons:

• • it shows that AA, although not associated with any denomination and not committed to any fixed idea of higher power, is seen legally as a religion;
  • it highlights the ethical concern that people should not be forced to attend spiritual activities, because it is difficult to determine scientifically whether such activities help or not;
  • it makes it clear that mandated attendance is set by the courts with no input from AA, and hence should not be used as a basis for criticism of AA.

— DavidMack (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

However in the case mentioned under Meetings section, the court said it didn't consider AA a religion, only that it had substantial religious components. But I agree it's not criticism of AA in the matter of forced attendance, it's criticism of courts who do the forcing. It may also involve criticism of religious things in general but that's really a whole topic by itself. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is constant ongoing vandalism by editor 80.194.237.22 to this page. I have yet to see him provide anything other than something being "anti-aa" as a reason for his edits.{check archived discussions for this quote} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC) --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Fred

It might be civil disobedience in response to unsigned talk page comments. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have signed using four tildas if there is a problem here please explain? --207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Fred

Keep up the good work. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I usually cite POV or lack of reference for my edits actually. On the subject of vandalism though, have a look at this [12]

-- 80.194.237.22 (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On the same subject, and just so we're clear, IP 207.232.97.13, IP 207.194.108.93, Fred and MisterAlbert are the same person. As is IP 213.235.24.138, IP 82.19.66.37 and IP 82.0.206.215.

80.194.237.22 (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"IP 82.19.66.37" is now defunct. Somehow, my home comp reset its IP address and is now using IP 82.0.206.215. And, in case of confusion, I am not MisterAlbert or Fred. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Mr. Miles admission to being an AA member, on this very discussion makes me wonder if he can edit without bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

He is pretty good about logging in, signing his comments, and spell checking. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominum failicy in logic, dosn't reference the quality of his edits only his personal life.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good guess that quite a few contributors here are current or former AA members. The wikipedia process, when it works, defends the page from the most enthusiastic of the former and the most alienated of the latter. PhGustaf (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You gotta figure most editors have a reason for concentrating on certain articles. I didn't just come on Wikipedia and think out of the blue, "AA seems cool to work on." Like I said elsewhere I've been involved with it since 1984. The program was always fine for me when I did what they said, and I've also had some bad experiences with people in it. So membership doesn't necessarily mean pro-AA all the time.

But if the program as AA explains it is being outlined in a section and an editor adds "But this one guy fifty years ago stayed drunk all the time and was still a success" that's just kind of dumb and I'm going to want to delete it. Like, who gives a flying flip? Has little to do with what's being discussed, or with pro-AA bias. Has to do with putting together an article that doesn't read all whacked out like some guy bitter with AA threw his two cents in all over the place. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There are at least two people using the account 207.232.97.13. Do you think you folks could sign in so we know who we're talking to? — DavidMack (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong? ;) Everyone on this article has had contact with AA - most as members at some point I would guess. With regard to bias, no editors to this article are pro-AA (in the sense that they would knowingly add untrue material to promote AA), there are a few here who deliberately make misleading edits and don't have the same respect for Wiki and whom I would call anti-AA, they're easy to spot as they don't sign in (are they having trouble following suggestions?!). I remove their material in a somewhat cavalier fashion because I worry it might do some damage, in that I suppose I'm anti-anti-AA, but no one else here is, everyone is incredibly tolerant of you 207.232.97.13 and your other IP friend, so don't complain. - Mr Miles 23:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

For one I don't think you are doing wrong trying to revert to a decent version of AA History after the 207s goof around with it, are they deliberately trying to make it read like a drunk person is editing here? Like combing your hair all nice and perfect then someone comes by and rubs their hands around in it to mess it up, irritating. I guess I'm not so tolerant, sorry... -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Mr. Miles re: Thirteenth Stepping

... the program section is 200 words, this one part of criticism is 350, why not condense it?

Because it's a tragedy that rape and re-victimization occurs at all, and it's absolutely fucking horrible that it occurs in AA. Wikipedia is about education, and this is one of the issues people need to be educated on. It's importance really can't be overstated. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Craigtalbert, just so you understand me, I'm not a 'fucking' fan of rape. It's the most heinous crime, in my opinion trumped only by paedophilia and murder.

Anyway, back to the article about Alcoholics Anonymous. The copy count is relevant, at the moment 200 words relate to the recovery aspect of AA and 350 words to sexual abuse in AA. Which means readers of the Wiki will believe that AA sexually abuses more people that it helps recover from alcoholism. Is that the intention of the editors?

If you read my condensing edit, you will notice that I haven't removed any of the key points at all. I would have appreciated it if you had just added any bits back in that you felt were critical (bearing in mind the word count), rather than just revert an edit I spent some time making. I'm putting it back and you can do your worst. - Mr Miles 00:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

10-4 -- Craigtalbert 00:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidently the 13 step behavior is another thing that needs to be discussed...as well as cult like behavior. I will just open the floor, does the section follow wiki guidelines? (and off to bed, have fun guys)Coffeepusher (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Both the 13th-stepping and the cult-like sections are products of considerable work and discussion. They will be improved, but you're right that they shouldn't be just lopped out. One frequent contributor here is master of the wikipedia alphabet soup; I just let him worry about the guidelines. Mmmm... Yemen Mocha. PhGustaf (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. I have 83 edits and I'm opening up the floor. Have you read said guidelines? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

well I know enough to recognise a ad honimin falicy in logic, and to sign my posts...so yes I am qualified to open a discussion. I am not trying to take controll of this post, I just saw 3 major edits and undo's done in quick succession and decided not to sit around and wait untill my edit count reached an appropriate level to participateCoffeepusher (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism doesn't need to be discussed, just reverted. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As always, improvements could be made. The specifics of the midtown incident are probably unnecessary and the source supporting it is news but when this was discussed previously I more or less decided to stop complaining as it is worth keeping as kind of a worst-case example of the kinds of abuse that may occur. The first paragraph on thirteenth stepping is from a peer-reviewed academic journal, is written with WP:NPOV, and does not give undue weight to the topic. I'm sure there are sources of similar quality that would put the frequency and kind of abuse that occurs in a better perspective. Unfortunately, most of this article's editors would rather fight over changes than research. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Midtown seems more a unique case of cult behavior than 13th stepping, although that may have been involved, so it definitely overlaps both sections.

The problem of telling people not to take their meds has been a major one for years and maybe needs its own section with more sources though it is kind of a cult issue too. It parallels criticisms of some Christian churches who say you don't need medical treatment, all you need is Jesus to heal you.

The three sources don't really get to the heart of the problem behind 13th stepping. The problem isn't really AA, the problem is that alcoholics are mostly mentally ill people who manipulate other people to get what they want, whether it is sex, money, drugs, whatever. AA just happens to be one more place they hang out, you find all the same behavior in the bars or anywhere else they are grouped together. Some people go to AA and get better, others stay in the same behavior. To clarify, it's kind of like criticizing a hospital for not having more well people than sick people as residents.

So in reality it's more a criticism of alcoholic behavior, the biggest thing you could criticize AA for is that it is an organization just for alcoholics, and the only way you could fix the problem is to ban alcoholics from AA! Then of course AA would cease to exist. So yeah, it still belongs in the criticism section but with a better discussion of the real problem. -Bikinibomb (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Either way, people should be aware of the potential dangers wrt hospitalization, and people should be aware of the potential dangers of Alcoholics Anonymous. People will read this article looking to learn more about the organization, both lay and professional, and this is one of the very important things they need to be aware of. Maybe we could have something like a "Risks" section in addition to the Criticism section? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually like that idea, as it reads now it can be interpreted as a problem with the orgonization rather than problems that occur within the orgonization. Sperating it into a "Risks" section like Craigtalbert sudgessts would help to aliveate that (however people are going to read whatever they want from this no matter how hard we try to present it).Coffeepusher (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont disagree with Mr Miles, but think that the problem is the condensing of the program section, rather than the 13th stepping bit being "overly long". It sums up the issues and mentions a particularly vile case which has received much media coverage. Seems like a reasonable amount on 13th stepping to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.206.215 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Criticism section should be re-labelled Controversy, since each item under this heading has to present pros and cons where supported by reliable sources. — DavidMack (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, neither Criticism nor Controversy are neutral terms. How about Issues? It's a little wimpy, but it's pretty NPOV. PhGustaf (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism does seem a little more standard. I don't really care either way. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a well-run study that returned results appearing unfavorable to AA a Criticism. I'd call it a study that raised an issue. I agree it's not a big deal. PhGustaf (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For simplicity and flow, it would be nice to have one section to cover all issues, problems, criticisms, controversies, risks etc. I titled it "Criticisms and controversy" a while back but one of the children changed it to just "Criticism". Can I give it another shot? Change it back if you no like. — DavidMack (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cult like behavior

I just reverted an edit that took out the entire section on cult like behavior. although I believe that this section can do with some major revamping and may need to be delieted entirely...I feel that an edit of this nature should have some discussion behind it, especialy since the section seems to be cited and offers another point of view. anyway, just thought we could discuss this, OH! and just a reminder, we are not discussing if AA is a cult or not, rather we are talking about if the section on cults holds up to wiki standard for this article, (i see a flame war non the less)Coffeepusher (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's a non-issue. Both "sides" imply that AA has cult like aspects, and it is appropriately referenced in the article. There is also Vaillants bit about the "non-cult like aspects", which adds NPOV (though perhaps over compensates with the first (and maybe second) statements). 213.235.24.138 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

13th stepping is a myth, in my experience. AA has saved my life, literally, and the spiritual support of the people in the 100+ meetings I have been to was real. Sure, people there have sex drives, but every meeting was focused on not drinking today.

AA is not a cult - it only recommends the 12 steps, it never tells you what to do nor does it place the organizers above any other (eg there is no AA pres., etc).

The Author of this wiki is obviously misguided about AA and simply does not "get it". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.72.132 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your experience is your experience. It's not relevant to an encyclopedia. I've been to 100+ meetings, at a dozen or so different sites, too, and I saw plenty of cult-like behavior. The notion that AA was the "only way" was the norm; the principle that the steps were "optional" was neglected or disparaged. (At one place there was also a lot of drug dealing in the parking lot; it was probably an outlier.) I never "got it"; most who try AA don't. But my experiences aren't relevnt to an encyclopedia either. Only quality documented sources are. PhGustaf (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User 128.32.72.132, this site is not authored by any single user, but by several contributors with a variety of experiences (positive and negative) of AA. But none of this matters. What matters is what can be "verified", and all of the content in this article is subject to much scrutiny by the regular editors, so that we can get this article to represent all sides of the AA experience, in an encyclopedic fashion.

On top of that, the idea that "13th stepping is a myth" is incorrect. It happens at many meetings, and at some is "institutionalised" (look at the Midtown group in Washington). I've seen it myself at more "normal" meetings. The reality is that there are sick people in "the rooms" and some of them don't want to help the newcomer, they want to sleep with her. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I credit AA much with helping me not to drink. But like I said I started attending in 1984 at the age of 19, my first sponsor was 36. After a few months of learning to trust him and tell him all my problems, mainly about having just broken up with my high school sweetheart due to drinking, he revealed he was gay and in love with me, and tried to get me to have sex with him and told me it would help ease the pain of my breakup. I refused and fired him as a sponsor. Though my experience isn't relevant to the article I know for a fact 13th stepping and targeting of vulnerable newcomers isn't a myth since it happened to me from the start. Yet as I also said, it isn't really a problem with AA either but the simple fact that many alcoholics and drug addicts are screwed up mentally and do screwed up things to themselves and others. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to the article to say whether it's a problem with AA. It's only up to the article to report that the situation exists. PhGustaf (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it could be up to the article, depends on whose editing it! I think if you are going to go as far as saying a situation exists, why not also talk about the reason? Same problem with the cult questions. Sure AA has cultish aspects, but so do most of the schools, employers, political parties, and "fan" groups I've ever been affiliated with. If you don't play Zildjian cymbals you'll sound like crap and no bands will hire you as a drummer, if you do play them you'll be a star like Neil Peart! Only, among us percussionists we call such adherents "brand whores" rather than cult members. Whatever, same difference. "Submit, be one of us, and you'll be one of the winners. Don't and you'll fail." Really, what exclusive gathering of humans doesn't use those kinds of fear tactics to sway others into joining up with them and to keep members they already have? Wikipedians do it all the time through the criticism sections.

Just reporting these types of things without further exploration weirdly suggests that there is some big scandal or special problem unique to AA, "wowing" readers into a certain POV by telling only half the story -- same gripe I have with religious articles I contribute to. When in reality, as far as 13th stepping goes, anytime you have hierarchy there will be abuses from the top down, from employers and employees, teachers and students, senators and congressional pages, priests and parishioners, to sponsors and sponsees. Everywhere, in all areas of life.

So those two in particular are kind of like "no duh" general criticisms of human nature, and not offering much insight into why those conditions exist and if anything can realistically be done to help resolve them. A criticism of the program itself would be something like, it teaches that you need to sacrifice your babies to the AA God to get sober. Or something. They should still be mentioned but you don't need several paragraphs and hundreds of words mulling over the conditions themselves, any more than you need it to exclaim that the sky is blue. You need better sources or maybe another article to delve deeper into the general issue as it exists beyond AA. -Bikinibomb 15:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dick B

Dick B. is a very reliable source on AA but the Pro AA'ers keep him off because of his Christian agenda. Though if you read his web cite it is loaded with AA history.207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Fred

Call us pro-wikipedians. — DavidMack 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

um..Dick B. distorts and leaves out relevent facts to promote that christian agenda...its kinda like citing Michal Moor...he may know alot but you can't trust what he said.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

He publishes his own books under the name Paradise Research Publications, Inc.. See WP:SELFPUB. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Dick B is pretty accurate, but not a valid source, which is a shame for the AA history article. 213.235.24.138 (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, all information posted on this website must be based on a certain type of source. — DavidMack 22:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Throwing spaghetti against the wall

This title refers to editors throwing in information without regard to quality or source, to see if others will let it stay in.

Peele vs. Vaillant

A little bird added some criticisms of Vaillant by Peele. FYI Peele attacked Vaillant in book reviews and in his book Diseasing of America. Peele's book reviews stated basic facts that were strangely opposite to what others observed. Vaillant actually took account of Peele's criticisms and did follow-up research on the subjects mentioned by Peele. The follow-up research found that controlled drinking was a dismal failure in that instance. So I am going to remove the Peele material. If someone insists on adding it back in then I guess I'll have to put in the whole controversy, which really wouldn't benefit the article, or Peele, very much. — DavidMack 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What was Vaillant saying? Wae he quoted improperly?

Can someone confirm that Dr. Vaillant was an AA Trustee? If so, it seems he sympathized with the 12 Step Program of Recovery. The quotes in the article seem to suggest the opposite. Is it possible that someone on a crusade had a heavy hand in writing portions of this article? //DK 216.67.26.77 09:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I did most of the material on Vaillant. He tends to discuss every issue from both points of view, so you get a good objective opinion from him. I believe he was an AA trustee, but he still seems to be able to give a good list of pros and cons. — DavidMack 18:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bill's womanizing

The current version, which I'm going to remove, reads:

... What members did engage in was a process called checking. Checking required the members to pray and receive devine guidance from God, with this guidance they would then check other members for behavioral misconduct. Bill though checked often for his womanizing and smoking, chose to ignore them.

What does it mean, that Bill ignored them? Please remove insinuations and clarify: does a reliable source indicate that Bill was womanizing or not? — DavidMack 18:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking through Pass It On for reference to Oxford's "checking" Bill but having no luck. I don't have Bill W. if that's where it came from, maybe I'll try to buy it this week. I'm wondering if the statement isn't confusing Oxford with this guy: Tom Powers helped Bill Wilson to write Bill's second book, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions. Francis Hartigan, who was Lois Wilson's private secretary and confidant, recently wrote a biography of Bill Wilson. For it, Hartigan interviewed Tom Powers, and quoted Tom as saying that he had urged Bill to quit his smoking and womanizing: (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-otherwomen.html). It's kind of slapdash so I think it needs to be removed until someone gets that Hartigan book and verifies it. -Bikinibomb 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I think that tidbit may be more appropriate for the article on Bill W. not AA history, unless it can be cited that Bill quit Oxford to avoid their "checking" or something. -Bikinibomb 18:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the research. I just ordered Hartigan from ebay, since it is so often cited. — DavidMack 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a Haritigan Book , and cited it , it appears BillW. didn't adhere to some of the Oxford Group directives and absolutes when it came to his personal behaviour regarding women and his smoking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worthy to cite somewhere, along with the Absolutes, Cs, Oxford literature and bios, etc. The dilemma is how to state all that without bogging down the real story of AA history and sidetracking the reader. It should flow along without deviating into tangents. Therefore as a solution I would simply mention that many AA principles were derived from Oxford, put a "for more info link" over to Oxford Group, and include information about their program in that article. Then have a short sentence here that Bill was addressed for his smoking and womanizing, since his relationship with Oxford in general is notable in telling the story of why he didn't remain with them.

Also, a suggestion: if cites are included but poorly written on a consistent basis (spelling, grammatical errors, incomplete sentences, etc.) and look like they are simply tossed in, some Wikipedians may wonder that if care was not taken to enter the cite here, perhaps care was not taken to relate it accurately from the source as well, bringing its validity into question. And then other Wikipedians, rather than trying to make sense of it to clean it up, may not be inclined to bother fixing it and just delete it. My 2 cents.-Bikinibomb 04:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred, you (or somebody) wrote "Bill though checked often for his womanizing and smoking, chose to ignore them." This doesn't clarify the facts: was Bill womanizing at this time, or not? And is there a reliable source? — DavidMack 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The "1996" study

82.0.206.215 I'm concerned about this information you added [13]. It appears that this study was published in 1999, not 1996. I also can't find any indication from the the article's abstract that supports what you're saying. I'm assuming that you have a copy of the article, and have not done a sloppy cut-and-paste from peele.net. As such, could you please send me a copy of the PDF? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an overview of Marletts (I think thats how you spell it) model of RP, published in 99, making reference to a Marletts study in '96. It is not a "copy and paste", I have taken the relevant info in the article, which will have to replace the elusive brandsma study until someone can find one, and condensed it for the benefit of the article. The abstinance violition effect is described in detail in the article, and "disease theory alcoholics" are the only ones mentioned as suffering from this. I have a word version at work. Slight bias in sticking it in the "throwing spaghetti against the wall" section? 82.0.206.215 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please send me the version in word. Strange that the term "disease theory alcoholics" does not appear anywhere in peer-reviwed literature (or even in Google's web search!). Please excuse my bias as it's only based on the article's abstract and the lack of use of terms you're using. If I ever post anything that gives people as many legitimate reasons to suspect it's bullshit, you're more than welcome to discuss it in this section. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Language, please!!!If you just read the abstract, you can't really say that my entry is "bullshit". Once again, I've never just chucked in material that I've just made up. Whatever happened to "assume good faith" and remaining civil?

Email address, please. 213.235.24.138 (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was bullshit (and why are you complaining if you're using the same language?), even if I gently implied that it might be. :) At any rate, you can email wikipedia users (with accounts) like so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Craigtalbert

-- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Logout and try that link - it wont work. Why don't you just send me an anonymous email address? put it on my page, I'll delete it straight away. 213.235.24.138 (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just create an account? :) I'm at Craig dot Talbert at gmail dot com. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I read what you sent me and had a look at the 1996 study (that I sent you), it looks like your summary is factually correct. The only problem I see is that mentioning this work in the AA article is misleading as it's not about members of Alcoholics Anonymous, but rather based on a measure of how much particular subjects in the research study believed in the disease model of alcoholism. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns - perhaps move it to "criticism" section on disease theory in this article (I've always said that that section is not clear enough in describing some of the controversies....)? I do think that the original study (thanks for sending me that - much appreciated) makes mention of Alcoholics Anonymous, earlier in the article, and it seems somewhat clear that the disease theory bit is going to relate to AA. And I do have an account, I just never remember to use it, and I think i've even forgot my login. I'll try to find it on my home email later. 213.235.24.138 (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Peele and Vaillant

I have been reviewing Peeles work on the Vaillant study and here are some findings based on the 1995 edition , which in keeping with Wiki policy of NPOV, should be added. By the Way David, you said Vaillant took into account Peele's criticism and did further work yet you haven't cited the work. You have cited the 1995 therefore other findings in that same addtion should be cited as well. You citaitions provided are based on the 1995 edition, not other works. As for Vaillant as a reliable source I refer to Wiki guidelines, the same guidelines that have applied to the Orange Papers not being a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk • contribs) of 20:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaillant's study is a very solid piece of work, and the most available (very!) long-term study of a large number of alcoholics. (I believe that that there's POV in the selection of his citations on the page, but that's another matter.) OP by itself isn't citable, but his references seem pretty good. Peele is in a middle ground -- he's far less a scholar than Vaillant, but he can't be dismissed offhand. And, 93, you would improve your credibility if you just took a name and started signing your contributions. There's no threat to your privacy involved. PhGustaf (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the story as I understand it. Vaillant's The Natural History of Alcoholism came out in 1983, then in Diseasing of America (1989) Peele showed data that he obtained from Vaillant that Peele argued contradicted Vaillant's conclusions. Then in the 1995 edition of Natural History Vaillant "at Peele's instigation" followed up on the same sample and found that controlled drinking was ineffective for that sample (these latter findings are decribed in the The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited#Natural history of alcoholism in the sentence that starts "Vaillant tracked two samples..."). Peele's final word on the topic is to accuse Vaillant of "compulsively reinterpreting his (Vaillant's) data." [14] Not sure if any of this is relevant to AA. — DavidMack (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe , and correct me if I am wrong, wasn't Peele suggesting that Vaillant may have fudged the results and overlooked other data, such as the number of subjects that recovered without treatment. MisterAlbert —Preceding comment was added at 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it pretty confusing.

Peele points out that 60% of Vaillant's subjects recovered without AA (Diseasing p 175). This kind of agrees with Vaillant reporting that the number of alcoholics recovering without AA was 63% in the Core City sample and 35% in the Clinic sample (Nat. Hist. Revisited p 358). In this case, I think it's just a case of Peele emphasising results he sees significant, no fudging involved by either party.

The other issue Peele brings up is based on data he obtained from Vaillant in 1985:

• • Peele writes that of 21 men who quit on their own, all stayed abstinent, whereas of 22 men who went to AA only 5 had gone 10+ years without a drink (Diseasing p 194), concluding that AA doesn't work.
  • (Peele's table shows that of 22 men who went to AA only 5 were continuing to abuse alcohol.(Diseasing p 195))

Vaillant did 15 years more follow-up on these two groups (Nat. Hist. Revisited p 294) and reported that of the 21 men who achieved abstinence, almost all remained abstinent, whereas of the 22 men originally classified as controlled drinkers, 7 relapsed and 3 were abstinent, concluding that controlled drinking was unstable.

So it looks like Peele concluded from the original data that AA doesn't work and Vaillant concluded from the follow-up data that controlled drinking doesn't work. If you can sort out any conclusions from this mess, preferably by reading the original sources, let me know.

— DavidMack (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My overall impression is that Vaillant does research, surveys the literature, discusses the pros and cons, and then comes to a conclusion. Peele already knows his conclusion, and he surveys the literature for material that supports his view and ignores whatever he doesn't like, so I don't tend to trust Peele so much. — DavidMack (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would say that Peele does his own research (as in carrying out studies), and a comparison with Vaillant would not be useful. He does research other peoples literature, as does vaillant - both report it to support their POV. Both satisfy the wiki "secondary" sources criteria. Any other debate is intellectual (not that I have a problem with that, but it's not furthering the article...). 213.235.24.138 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the purposes of article quality, it is important to acknowledge Vaillant's modus operandi:

• • he always presents information on both sides of an issue;
  • he is a primary source as well as a synthesist (secondary source);
  • he is willing to admit when the evidence goes against him. e.g. at one point he believed that depression caused alcoholism, but "when the evidence was subjected to blind analysis, my clinical impression proved to be an illusion;" (Nat. Hist. p 83) depression preceding alcoholism was actually uncommon.

In other words, you can go to Vaillant for the big picture, and Peele only for the pro-controlled-drinking, anti-AA view. Peele should not be discounted, just realize you need to read more than Peele to understand alcoholism and AA. — DavidMack (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

However Peele meets Wiki Standards as a secondary source, I have acquired a hands on copy of his work "Resisting 12 Step Coercian" and as the Brandsma study is cited within this work I assume I can quote from it as a reference, such as the case of Peele cited in the Project Match study?MisterAlbert

Depends how accurately Peele represents Brandsma. The only way to know is to read Brandsma. — DavidMack (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Then the obvious thing to do is to purchase the Brandsma study available on Blackwell Syngery, compare it with Peele and then add the study much in the same light the of the Match Project. It is an NIAAH study and deserves as much respect as any of the others cited in the study section. The goal here is to perserve the integrity of this page.MisterAlbert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I requested a copy of Brandsma's study through interlibrary loan. I will send you all copies when/if they're able to get it (it's slow around break, apparently).

Either way, what you're saying about Resisting 12 Step Coercion is not true -- it can't be used as a reliable source for this article. Check out See Sharp Press' website -- it's obviously not an unbiased publisher. Anyone can pay to have a book published, it doesn't make it a reliable source.

BTW - Is there a reason why you're not using the four tildes ~~~~ to sign your posts? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how See Sharp can be described as "biased". Non-profit driven publishers do not neccesarily have to be biased - they state that they are making available information that would otherwise not be - this is the basis of their "cause driven" claim. I personally think we should get someone "independant" on wiki (there are committeesm I think) to make the final decision, as this keeps coming up as an issue, without being fully resolved - personally, I'd push to be allowed to use the references they use in the books, without putting forward their "opinion" and have the more revealed books section as an external link, but would really appreciate an uninterested source commenting on this. I remember asking for "arbitration" once, which I don't think ever came.

Looking forward to the Brandsma study. Good work in getting hold of it.213.235.24.138 (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A KEY issue

The question this brings to my mind is, why do we need to rely on doubtful, "arbitration-required" sources for anti-AA material? There is lots of high-quality, fact-checked, academic material both pro and con AA. — DavidMack (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the high-quality, fact-checked, academic material is not con enough. 80.194.237.22 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you said it, and I hope everyone's paying attention. Wikipedia articles should reflect current knowledge and understanding, and the bulk of reliable research shows that AA, in general, works. — DavidMack (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good point, like I've said before with ~21,000 Google Scholar results for Alcoholics Anonymous, there's no reason why the bulk of the article can't be written using peer-reviewed articles or books from a university (or equally reliable) press. The only exceptions should be when citing directly from AA literature or from reliable news sources (both of which should only be done when absolutely necessary). -- Craigtalbert (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd obviously disagree. There is much material out there which calls into question the effectiveness of AA - just read peele, bufe etc for some of this. We have to call this arbitration in because if I tried to reference some of these sources, there would be an edit war, one I can't be bothered with. Why not just get an independant, experienced wikipedian (or two or three - that would be better...) to decide whether this is appropriate or not? There is no-one working on this article that doesn't have a fairly personal interest in AA.

There is nothing specific on any of the major three policies that directly rules out the "more revealed" library. It contains much information which this article could do with having. If I had access to a uni library, I would look up many of the references in the books myself, but I don't. I also think it is a way of getting some final resolution on this matter - if it goes against more revealed, I'll deal with it. If it goes the other way, would the "pro-AA" camp who are contributing feel the same way?

BTW, as I have said before, Cult or Cure comes very high in any google scholar search on AA. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's in Google Scholar results doesn't mean it's a reliable source for this article. Either way, no one is stopping you from putting in a WP:RFC.

Peele and Bufe's books are their interpretations of other information (and in some case, just their opinions). Citing them in this article would be like citing information from one of Michael Moore's books in the article on George W. Bush -- worse, in fact as this is on a scientific subject.

Let me know if there are articles you want, and if my university has access to them I will get them for you. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could get the following studies:

Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism, by Jeffrey Brandsma, Maxie Maultsby, and Richard J. Welsh. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD., page 105

A Controlled Experiment on the Use of Court Probation for Drunk Arrests", by Keith S. Ditman, M.D., George C. Crawford, LL.B., Edward W. Forgy, Ph.D., Herbert Moskowitz, Ph.D., and Craig MacAndrew, Ph.D., in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 124:160-163, August 1967.

"A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR ALCOHOL-ABUSING WORKERS", The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 325, pages 775-782, September 12, 1991

Those are the obvious ones, but there are many more, which I will look for when I'm not at work. If i could get them, I'd be very grateful. As for interpretations, what do you think Vaillant does? He interprets the data from his research. He is also not afraid to offer his own opinion on matters in which he is far from an expert (cults, for example). Citing his opinion on that matter seems appropriate, because he is a recognised authority on addiction treatment. Peele (who has won awards etc for his work) is also a recognised authority on addiction treatment - his opinion "counts", and could add balance to this article, if done appropriately.

But, in any case, I'm not really looking to add anything from him atm. I'm actually relatively happy with the article as it is, for the moment. Just the studies. And cheers for the "requests for comments" link - had "lost" that. 213.235.24.138 (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore's work has also won awards, his opinion "counts"—a lot of people listen to him, but that doesn't make his books reliable sources (as much as I like him).

The cited material from Vaillant is published in peer-reviewed journals or from books published by a university press [15]. Any material from Peele that meets the same standards and is on the topic of the article, I have no problem including. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the articles... I requested a digital copy of the Ditman 1967 article. Walsh 1991 I have access to a hard copy of but it will take me a while before I can pull, xerox, and scan it. I also have access to a hard copy of the book by Brandsma [16], but it will also be a while before I can pull, xerox, and scan the section of it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, no worries about the studies - no rush. as I say, I am relatively content with the article ATM, and am not pushing for any major changes. Obviously, if those studies say what Orange says, then i would like the added, but I think the article is getting a pretty decent mix of fact, research and criticism atm. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity

This may be good faith, but it is also spaghetti: [17]. -- Craigtalbert 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting wiki behavioural guideline I have just found on "wikilawyering" and sources

(From WP:GAME) Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Example related to WP:RS: "Source X is not sufficiently credible for this article on music - the author don't have any peer reviewed papers in a music journal!" More generally, this example shows removal or marginalizing of notable viewpoints (breach of WP:NPOV) on the grounds that the cited sources do not meet the editor's named standard [even though they do meet the communal standard]. Wikipedia:Reliable sources anticipates that reliable sources with differing levels of reliability and provenance may coexist, and that reliable verifiable sources of reference material will often be available from different types of source, not just one or two preferred by a particular editor. Not every notable view on music is documented in a music journal; not every notable view on scientific topics is documented in science journals. Reliability is determined neutrally, using WP:RS and evidence of the community's view. The primary purpose of WP:RS is to clarify and guide communal views on the reliability of different sources, not to support unilateral demands for an unreasonably narrow personal definition of "reliable" as a means to exclude appropriate sources that document notable opposing views.

It seems to me that Peele is a notable viewpoint. Ragge, Bufe etc are also notable viewpoints. You can't just look around for everyone who critices a source you don't agree with and decide that this makes the source "un-notable" - in fact, the more "criticism" a source has, the more "note-worthy" it must be, IMO. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said in the removed comment, the thing that really caught my eye was the statement that "AA members always describe themselves as having been bad children." How reliable would that source be according to the community here? I'd hope about as reliable as a statement that "all non-Christians describe themselves as wicked heathen" -- not very, though it might be "notable" if the president or someone famous like that made such a claim, I guess. There's a difference between reliability and notability, I think as far as research studies go we're looking more for reliability here? -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty notable statement though, "AA members always describe themselves as having been bad children." Like the people that accused Richard Dawkins of 'engaging in irresponsible and irrational dogmatism" about things that science does not claim to address', how reliable would they be? We wouldn't care - we would just report they had said it. That is what controversy sections do. The article doesn't care if it is true - it simply reports that it was said.

Eh. Like, do you think Criticism of George W. Bush needs a section on his being a shape-shifting Reptilian? I think you have to draw the line somewhere, not dump any old thing in just because someone said it. Not because I'm inherently biased and being pro-AA, I think I've qualified myself enough to show I've had both good and awful experiences with the program despite membership and I'm not here to protect it. But because it is a waste of space that could be used for something more informative. I'm all for criticism, but it should make a real point, not just crap thrown at the wall. Which is mostly what I saw out of that book so far. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

and everyone has just said to be skeptical of the sources from that publisher. and there is valid reason to do so. they obviosly don't care as much about validity of reserch as other publishers, they publish things "that wouldn't otherwise be published". that isn't to say that all their stuff is bad, only that they are more likely to publish unsubstantiated opinions than other publishers.

it really seems like you bated this argument with the call for opinions. you are welcome to participate in the discussion, but I don't buy the fact that you are inocently wondering if certain sources are valid. why don't you just tell us that you know that most of these books are opinions, and not good for wikipedia...and ask if you can use the studies contained within...since that is what you are actually talking about.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't ever think that I am "innocently wondering". Ask anyone else who has been involved with this article for the last 6 months - I am firmly in the "anti-AA" camp. But they are all in the "pro-AA" camp.

I am firmly of the belief that the people in this article are not intent on portraying AA in a neutral way, not because of some sort of "propaganda mission", but simply because they are inherently biased due to their AA membership. I am inherently biased, due to my former AA membership, and this effects my contributions. I also think that we are all committed to sticking to the principles of Wiki, beyond any opinions we have on AA. This has seen the article improve immeasurably recently.

This is why I want an independent person to pass judgement - because we need it. If everyone else is being considered to be acting correctly, then I guess I am being the over-zealous one, and will act accordingly. Actually, I have practially stopped editing the article recently. I think it is nearing a pretty good state. I just feel that the controversies are inadequately described (although people are starting to admit they are there) and that the study section has been edited with a very real bias. This is an infinate improvement on 6 months ago, when the bulk of the article read like an AA pamphlet. I'd like to be able to do something about the problems I have mentioned, stick to wiki guidelines and get some sort of consensus. Like everyone, I am learning as I go. But don't think that my biases mean bad faith.

As for the "skeptisism" of the sources, there are many sources that are used in the article that we could be skepticle of. The whole big book and AA lit sec, for a start. We have sources (ie more revealed) that slate it all. There is no scientific backing for any of what is said. Same for any 12step lit. Notability is what is required, in this case. As per the behavioural guideline above. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

82.0.206.215 (et al), I will point you (again) to the ArbComm ruling on this topic. To help prevent pseudoscience from appearing in articles, reference citations must be from a reliable third-party, unbiased sources. In the case of scientific references, the citations must be from peer-reviewed literature. Read the decision for your self, there's really no question here. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate sources

4a) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

Voted 8 for and none against

This isn't a scientific theory we are discussing - why not go and ask the people who voted if this is relevant to what they were discussing. The article states that AA is hard to asses because it is so "unscientific". These people were not commenting on AA. This "ruling" (please see WP:PRACTICAL on votes on consensus, anyway) has no influence on this article. Furtheremore, what they said is not a guideline. What I put down was the relevant guideline to this page. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about measuring the effectiveness of AA, and you are, you're talking about science. You need to show evidence. The ArbComm ruling clarifies the guideline, as this has obviously been an issue before; and, yes, we're expected to follow it. What you put down was a guideline relevant to this page (e.g. the talk page) it said nothing about measuring the reliability of sources. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how a study dosn't fall under Scientific theory since most valid studies are published...and they are published based on the quality of their reserch...not because of some vast AA/masonic/zion/catholic agenda (that is sarcastic...please take it as such). if the study wasn't published there was probably a valid reason. thus the ruling applys.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

not every notable view on scientific topics is documented in science journals. as from above. This is presumably a ruling on "pure sciences". AA studies need to be "statistically valid", but statistics is hardly a "pure science". It is used in "social sciences", such as sociology, psychology and even theology. In any case, the policy above goes some way to dealing with what is happening here - we should look at a variety of notable sources and include them. removal or marginalizing of notable viewpoints (breach of WP:NPOV) on the grounds that the cited sources do not meet the editor's named standard is wikilawyering as per the behavioural guideline. 213.235.24.138 (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The arbcomm ruling says nothing about "pure science" (whatever that means). Science is science. At any rate, WP:RS and WP:V both state: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." Can you show us any evidence that See Sharp press has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Can you show us a notable view point expressed in one of these books that's not documented in a scientific journal? If you can't do both, then you don't have a leg to stand on. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the arbcom ruling is on "psudoscience", which is presumably not a science at all. But in anycase, from WP:FRINGE Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. Perhaps the burden of proof should be shifted on to you to show that the work of See Sharp has a poor rep for fact checking and accuracy, presumably by showing a misquote or false reference in their work. And in anycase, we would then need to get them checked for notability as per WP:FRINGE again and this statement Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community. We are looking to adequately describe controversies here. 213.235.24.138 15:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

so your claim is that psyciatric and social studies done on AA are non-scientific in nature? Im not buying it. I have been through many databaces looking up AA articles...and low and behold there are alot of anti-AA articles that are peer reviewed by respected accademics that would be admisable on this website. as far as sharp publishing...we just said FACT CHECK!!!! that was all. if it is a fringe viewpoint, then I propose a new test, how many other publications use those books as a source. if there are several publications (from other publishers) citing your books, then it is a notable fringe viewpoint that is beeing disiminated, otherwise it is a fringe viewpoint that isn't notable. im sorry, but you will have to ultimatly check your sources...not just the wiki guidelines.Coffeepusher 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is definitely not exclusively scientific in nature. But if you're going to cite experts claims about AA's effectiveness, then you have to be talking about scientific results. If they're not, then they're pseudoscience, which is exactly what the arbcomm ruling is dealing with. DavidMack all ready pointed out a pretty serious error in Ken's book, and you know you're just arguing that because See Sharp Press does not have an established fact-checking reputation. Now, if you want to present information from the MR library within the guidelines of WP:FRINGE, then we might be able to comprise, as long as you're not presenting it as scientific results. -- Craigtalbert 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just remeber that "The notability of a fringe theory should be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." I don't think that is taken out of context.Coffeepusher 05:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As this debate has been going on, I've been learning more about wiki policies and the info that I want to present from the books has changed. It seems that SeeSharp content can get into the criticism section on grounds of notability - Rages and Bufes books have been reviewed by verifiable and reliable sources, inc gryffyth edwards and others. This seems to make the books (and the criticism they contain) noteworthy. Obviously, undue weight should not be given to this section, so I think it is going to take sometime to get a concise but accurate depiction of the criticisms that are levelled. Time for some serious Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle work to be done? 82.0.206.215 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Books published by See Sharp Press would only be noteworthy in a section about the phenomena of disgruntled former AA members, transference of addition (for example thousands of hours writing a mis-informing blog like Orange Papers), and the attraction of blame rather than honest self-analysis. Such a section might make an interesting balance to the reliably sourced criticism, and would be relevant as this is a real AA penomena. - Mr Miles 15:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"phenomena of disgruntled former AA members, transference of addition" sounds like your personal opinion. You might need some peer reviwed sources to back this up with. But in the meantime, I will sumarise my reasons for adding the "more revealed" material, for those who can't follow the above, and if anyone can find a reason not to (apart from having an inherent pro-aa bias), then we can listen to it. I suggest that it is a reason based on wiki policies and peer-reviewed research, otherwise, as I was recently told, you wont have a leg to stand on. 82.0.206.215 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the greatest example of wikilawyering I have ever seen. It is so ironic that the behavior of one individual trying to use wiki rules to impose his/her will on the group is in a section titled as "wikilawyering" This information has amused me for some time now. keep up the good workCoffeepusher 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting accusation of wikilawyering. I don't see that anything that I have said goes against the spirit of any policy, no do I use one policy to argue against another. Please remember to be cibil. To quote from the wikilawyering policy

The word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations, much like the term "meatpuppet"; those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous (see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL). -- 82.0.206.215 19:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

well here is what the source said, WP:GAME

"Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship. Gaming the system is an abuse of process and disruptive. Related terms are wikilawyering and pettifogging, which refer to following an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the spirit of the policy.

"An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policies with bad faith, by finding within their wording, apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. In doing this, the gamester separates policies and guidelines from their rightful place as a means of documenting community consensus, and attempts to use them selectively for a personal agenda.

Sometimes gaming the system is used to make a point. Other times, it is used for edit warring, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. In all of these, gaming the system is an improper use of policy, and forbidden. An appeal to policy which does not further the true intent and spirit of the policy is an improper use of that policy."

Now the emphasis in this section is mine, however the point is that Wikipedia is ment to be a community activity, and its rules arn't ment to undermine that spirit. now I am shure you can twist this around, you have the skills apperantly, but I don't think that my statement was unjustified at all, since you are the one who has been quoting wikipedia guidelines more than anyone elce, and appear to be the least likely to compromise on selections that you yourself said on a talk page "A lot of the book is the opinion of the authors (probably not appropriate for this article, and bound to cause heated debate and edit wars)"Coffeepusher 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed wiki is meant to be a community activity, which is why I consistently engage in the deomcratic process on this talk page before just going forward and doing things without getting people to agree with me - how exactly does this thwart the "communal editorship"? Which policy and guidelines have I taken out of context, or broken the spirit of? What have I done here that has not been in the spirit of trying to gain consensus? I think we can all agree that those of us who edit here are interested in the subject - there is no-one here who is completely neutral. I never "twist things around", and once again am struggling to take these accusations in good spirit. I think your statement was entirely unjustified - quoting relevant guidelines does not automatically indicate wikilawyering. The guidelines are there to be used. Wikilawyering involves twisting them - I'd like to know which guideline I am twisting. I'd like to point out that I have already indicated a willingness to compromise on the content that is put in from more-revealed, recognising my own bias (no greater than that of others who edit here, imo) and believing that we can use our opposing opinions to create a balanced article.

To be honest, I'd like an apology, if you can't provide a more direct indication of which of my recent actions has been wikilawyering.

And, yes, I have the "skill" to do it. If you would like to see an example, go here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:82.0.206.215#Tender

That is wikilawyering. The arguments I put forward on Alcoholics Anonymous are good faith ones, aiming to improve the content of the article. There have been some very tense moments on this page in the past, as people have struggled to remain civil (we all have been guilty of it), but with experience it seems to be improving. Perhaps we can get back to not using personal attacks ASAP? I refer you to the banners at the top of this talk page re "keeping a cool head" and "controversy". 82.0.206.215 19:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, this user has been Wikilawyering for months. Back in September (in another of his anonymous IP guises) he stated "I never remove anti-AA material, however ridiculous it is", in an archived discussion [18] with the vandalising 207.232.97.13, so much for his dedication to good faith editing "aiming to improve the content of the article". I mentioned earlier the attraction of blame over honesty, standby for more untruthful wriggling - Mr Miles 20:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution" Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In other words we can reasonably use the Big Book to describe AA here. But we should think twice about using an outside source that has obviously lopsided views for or against AA to describe AA.

I guess I'm kind of irritated at accusations of being pro-AA as a reason for opposing a lot of what the book says. If someone used another source that said "all AAs always stay sober" I'd be against this too since I know it's a lie and an extreme twisting of the truth. I'm personally not against using it entirely, just saying you should use discretion and try to double-check info with some other sources to see if it holds up since if it doesn't it will probably just get deleted. For example if you used one of its statement like "all AAs always describe themselves as bad children" I wouldn't think twice about deleting it since although they sometimes do that they don't "always" do that. See. -Bikinibomb 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

crap! I hate editing conflicts...Mr. Miles got to it before I hit send!! I am so going to save stuff on word before I hit send! Ok, this is the point. I am not trying to attack anyone personaly, rather just the actions that I think there will be a consensus on. You yourself admited the sources are questionable, but have been browbeating us with Guidelines to try and admit sources that are questionable to say the least. this goes against the community discussion not because there is a vast pro-AA contingent conspericy, but because the sources are questionable by the guidelines. Now I am more than happy to appologise to you if I was wrong, and I will leave it up to the other editors inform me if my behavior is reckless, and I will submit to their ruling. however it will be much later before you get it, since real life calls, and wikipedia is a luxury.Coffeepusher 20:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr Miles, quickly speaking, I never removed the most ridiculous pro-AA information ("Bill W was inspired by our lord jesus when writing the 12 steps" and such like) either. But again, this isn't wikilawyering, this is not making an edit. My actions then were a response to the extreme pro-AA bias that I perceived on this page - it added NPOV to allow some extreme anti-AA material to co-exist. I also knew that you lot would remove it ASAP, so no harm done, right?. Now, if you think that my edits on this page have been "bad faith", then I ask you to show me an edit I (not someone else) have made that shows anything other than dedication to improving the content of the article.

"Organisations that are widely regarded as extremist"? Who said it was extremeist? Let alone "widely regarded" as such.... In anycase, if we were stating that SeeSharps views were correct, then perhaps this might be relevant. But in actual fact, we are presenting their views as a notable "fringe theory" (see WP:FRINGE) on the controversy behind AA, that has satisfied Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, ie has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" the coverage being the following:

Editorial reviews

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

Peele review

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

Peer Review by Mark A. R. Kleiman (found the actual PDF yesterday from Addiction '97, but now cn only find evidence that it was at least reviewed..)

http://www.samefacts.com/cv/cv03.pdf

There are other comments on SeeSharps AA related stuff throughout the internet

Bikini Bomb, I understand your concerns about the pro-AA accusations, as I always receive the same for the Anti-AA bias - we all do, as there is no-one here who is neutral. The info that I will be presenting will be More Revealeds criticisms of AA in the criticism/controversy section. I will be fair about this, and would not be wanting the last word. If anyone can find the Kleiman review, they could present some fairly balancing comments in the section. As it is, if I were to repeat that comment (which I wouldn't) I would say "more revealed claims that AAs all describe themselves as bad children". I think all of this should saisfy with "Fringe theory" controversy guidance and allow the section to portray the controversy fairly and impartially. I would not propose that this section is any longer than the other controversy sections.

CoffeePusher, how about we just get on with the article rather than spending time slinging accusations (both of us). I really can't be bothered. I will quickly say that I have not "brow-beaten" anyone with guidelines - I believe that everyone here respects the guidelines and wants to work within them. I believe that I have spent some time explaining why I am using these policies and why I am using them correctly. Wiki is full of policy, behavioural guidelines, content guidelines etc - no one individual can be expected to know them all. I've highlighted some which others may not have been aware of (I wasn't awre of them myself until just now), which is sort of "lawyerey", but I would say not "wikilawyering". So, as I say, can we please move on? It will make the wiki experience a lot more satisfying for all...

Of course, if any of you have something to say about my interpretation of these policies, I will hapily engage in further discussion before moving on. Step13thirteen 17:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

what I have to say is that "why are these sources so important?" if you are looking for the cult aspects of AA this link [19] provides an extensive bibliography, and the sources hold up to wiki guidelines. or you can check out our own List of groups referred to as cults for applicable material. , what information are you trying to submit? it appears that the topics that the books cover arn't fringe movements, rather a opinionated interpritation of reserch that exists from reliable sources. and that is what Wikipedia is trying to avoid...opinions. so if you still want to use these sources, why don't you tell us exactly what you want to submit. because up till now you have been shooting for a blanket endorcement of the entire set, which I seriously doupt you will get.Coffeepusher 18:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As it is, if I were to repeat that comment (which I wouldn't) I would say "more revealed claims that AAs all describe themselves as bad children". I guess my point is if it is a clearly outlandish claim, I wouldn't use it at all. Unless maybe President Bush or someone famous said it as I indicated before, then it becomes notable for reasons of their own notability, even though it might still be a dumb statement. I want to see criticism, but good quality criticism that can't easily be challenged. Like, nobody can honestly say there is no 13th stepping or cultishness in AA because there is, that's an example of solid criticism. Like Coffeepusher implied, you should just go ahead and contribute what you think is reasonable and see how it flies, then come back to talk if it doesn't. -Bikinibomb 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's unlikely that this abstract discussion is going to get productive any time soon. I'd suggest that someone make a contribution citing See Sharp, but flag it from the gitgo with {{POV-section}}. Make an appropriate comment on the talk page. With luck, this would save it from random slashing long enough to talk about it. PhGustaf 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)