Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Social Work (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spirituality (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I have a question about the use of the acronyms[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am curious about the proper use of the acronyms in this article about Alcoholics Anonymous. I have only made test edits in my sandbox because there are many and even after reading the MoS article I am unsure about the proper use. The MoS article re acronyms states "wikipedia generally avoids the use of full stops" with the capital acronym and so I removed the full stops. Where the apostrophe is concerned (plurals) the MoS stated there should be no comma for example AA's should be AAs, however, how about the use of the apostrophe wear ownership is concerned? Example AA's twelve steps or should it be AAs twelve steps? I hope this isn't a dumb question and appreciate your help in advance. Also if you could confirm for me that it is alright to copy an article to my sandbox for testing purposes like I have done here? In other words I can use the sandbox for pretty much whatever I want (within reason of course) right? ȚttØØditre§ 15:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I couldn't find anything in the MoS that is universal on this so here's my understanding of the English Grammar Rules from Who Knows When:
  • When using an acronym, full stops aren't generally used unless they're needed to distinguish it from just a capital word. On Wikipedia, full stops are almost never used.
  • When using an acronym and having it be plural, the correct thing would be to say "AAs". This means that we are talking about more than one AA, in this case more than one Alcoholics Anonymous.
  • When using the acronym and having it be possessive (i.e. saying they own something, as in "Bill's car"), the correct way is "AA's". This means whatever noun comes after AA's is what we are talking about, and that AA owns it.
  • When using the acronym as a plural and possessive, the correct thing is "AAs'". This means that multiple AA groups or AAs all own this thing that comes after that. The subject would be the thing that comes after AAs'.
On the subject of sandbox, make sure you put a hatnote on it that says something along the lines of "This is a sandbox for [this] version of [this] page on [this date and time]." The first link should be a permalink to the version (click on the date and time in the history), the second to the current page OR the page history, and the third should be the date and time that the edit was made that you copied from. This is required to maintain attribution for all editors.
And yes, you can use your sandbox for anything within reason. Remember that even though WP:N won't apply to everything in sandboxes, WP:BLP and other important policies still apply in their full, as do rules against copyright violations.
Charmlet (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help. That is wonderful information. I am very grateful! Attempting to add the talk template by copying from above. It's been so long I don't remember if this is right. Also adding sig here as I thought on ll talk pages we are suppose to do that? tattoodwaitress (talk) ȚttØØditre§ 16:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Yep, signatures on talkpages are good. Mine's there, it's just the standard signature so far so it may be hidden, look at the very bottom of my reply. Aside from that, have fun working on the draft! Charmlet (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Should I update or add?[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

In the section titled "literature", the third edition of the big book (alcoholics anonymous) is listed. There is a newer edition that was published in 2001 being the fourth edition. The link that is listed for the third edition (online) is no longer valid because as the new editions are published AA replaces the online edition with the newer publication. I would like to add the fourth edition as the literature that is used however I would like to know should I add it or update what is already there? Also, I cited the fourth edition book just a few moments ago and am wondering if my work can be checked by a qualified individual please and thank you. tattoodwaitress (talk) ȚttØØditre§ 18:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello tattoodwaitress, I suggest adding the fourth edition to the list. The third edition may still be relevant to the article. It does not matter that the link doesn't work anymore (simply add {{Dead link}} inside the <ref>...</ref> tag for it). Someone may find a web archive for that link and be able to update that link so that it works (kind of, they would actually change that link to say "original source" which would still be a link to no where but they would add a link the the archive of the source). Anyways, I'll be watching this page for a little while... If you have a any further questions just leave them here. Technical 13 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Technical 13, Thank you very much. The dead link will not really be a dead link, it will just go to the 4th edition instead of the 3rd, but I can understand what you are saying so I will follow suggestions. Thank you for your help. tattoodwaitress (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC) ȚttØØditre§ 19:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Need help with a dead/non existent link[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

In the references section I attempted to add the dead link template including a date and it is giving me trouble, it looked funny and didn't put the citation where I had actually put it. I am assuming because in this particular instance there are no < ref > tags to put the template between as suggested by another user to me this morning.

This. . . * godaddy (2009). "aaspeak: www.aaspeak.com". online.  is the line in question. Speak Darius (2009)

I have done a little research and the webpage is no longer in existence but can be purchased from godaddy if you wish. I can find no other ref to the data mentioned any where else.

How would you add the dead link citation to a citation with no ref tags? I am trying to get rid of the Unknown parameter |host= ignored error in red text. Thank You ȚttØØditre§ 22:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The template didn't have a parameter "host", that was why you were seeing that error. I've removed the parameter and that should now be fixed. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you ȚttØØditre§ 23:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hospitals[edit]

A section was added with information about the relationship between the founders of AA and their experiences at hospitals. While the information is useful, it would be better to find sources that are not directly associated with AA to describe their involvement with hospitals and, presumably, other treatment centers. I don't think that we can make any statements about how it may have helped the founders or other AA members stay sober unless we have some independent verification, not just quotes from the book. The alternative is to insert a bunch of "they claimed that...", which is not all that useful. To the editor who added this text, please think that I am arguing with the content, just the sourcing. I will edit it, but by all means, if others think that it is OK as is, just revert. Desoto10 (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you and apologize for the mess up. I wasn't quite thinking correctly at the time I guess, and by all means will add additional sources. I am actually logging out for the evening but will def make an effort to improve this section when I come back.

TattØØdẄaitre§ 04:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I will look around for reliable, independent sources for the relationship between AA and treatment centers. It is an interesting topic and I am glad you took a shot at it!Desoto10 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Triennial Survey[edit]

"The 1990 commentary evaluated data of triennial surveys from 1977 through 1989 and found that the distribution of those with one year or less indicated that one quarter (26%) of those who first attend an AA meeting are still attending after one year. Furthermore, nearly one third (31.5%) leave the program after one month, and by the end of the third month, almost half (47.4%) leave. Of those who stay for three months, half (50.0%) "

It's not possible to conclude these percentages from the third A.A. triennial survey with any surety. One can only reach the 26% retention percentage in bad faith - by assuming certain conditions which are not explicitly stated in the survey. The survey itself is obviously written by someone deeply estranged from correct statistical methods, leaving the only one possible interpretation of the graph data: That for the explicit time window the survey was taken, only 5% of attendees at meetings were in either in their twelfth month of attendance, or had attended at least 12 months, or had attended for 12 months but less than some other arbitrary period. The condition required to reach the 26% conclusion - that the first datum point of the graph refers to people "in their first month", is clearly stated as being the other way around in the graph title - and as such is ambiguous. It's not possible to reach any percentage stated in this above quote with the surety implied. Frankfff (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)