Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

Papers

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

Loaded language all throughout article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the cult section:

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

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

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

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

I added the underlined bit above. — DavidMack (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah remove the first, move/merge the second. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

New AA report on recovery outcome rates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11th Tradition Flouted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publications by Health Canada

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

Your copyright violation does not stand stand Craig:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You ignored my question. Why is that?

The page you cited is far from meeting wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. What is and is not a reliable source has nothing to do with the author, and everything to do with peer-review and fact checking. Here's another question for you, can show me that the particular page you're citing on Health Canada's website meets the the first criteria for a reliable source (straight from WP:RS)?

• The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<scarcasm>Of course the Canadian Government has a reputation for fact checking. Governments are always so scrupulous about facts.</scarcasm>

No, you can't just say that a source has a reputation for fact checking and expect everyone to accept it as truth. You'll actually have a much harder time showing that the Canadian Government has a reputation for fact checking (how would you demonstrate that WHOLE Canadian Government fact-checks everything it writes? Obviously it doesn't.) than you would showing that this particular literature review did. But, if you can convincingly demonstrate either, have it at.

Not that it matters because I see that you're changing your argument here, it's almost like you started doubting yourself midway through writing this. First you say that it's a reliable source, then it's "but, well, uhh... even if it's not, uhh... sometimes non-academic sources are acceptable." Which is also true, and also completely depends on the context. If .13 had used it as a source to cite what was in studies that he doesn't have access too, that would be fine because I would be happy to fact-check situations like that. As you know, I've offered to, and have done this many times before. But, that's not what he did, have a look at this .13ism:

Alcoholics Anonymous is not really a treatment for alcoholism but a community resource for those wishing to stop drinking. Uncontrolled studies of AA have shown that people who affiliate with AA tend to stop drinking and find that their lives improve in many respects (Emrick et al. 1993).[1]

Here it's pretty obvious that the Health Canada author(s) is editorializing in the first sentence (this is why you don't cite literature reviews) and then summarizing the results from "Alcoholics Anonymous: What is currently known?" There is no source or research backing up the first statement, and as much as I may agree with it, that doesn't mean it gets to be in a scholarly encyclopedia article. Sorry, we're not collecting opinions here. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And, yes, it is uncivil to have temper-tantrums, and it's also frustrating to cite policies that don't apply in and attempts end discussion on a topic. Pepper your sentences with WP:GAME all you want, it doesn't mean that I'm going to let you or anyone else get away with making this more of an embarrassment than it all ready is. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The source backing up the first statement is the canadian gov. They don't have to abide by wiki policy. A lit review is something that takes all the best research available and uses logic to come to a valid position. This is not against wiki policy. In fact all research does this in the "conclusions" section (one individuals perception of the outcome of their research could be very different from the next individuals, especially in statistical studies, such as all the ones done about AA). Basically, it is a "tertiary source" and these are allowed in wiki (check WP:NPOV).

"Opinions" litter the AA article. The Vailiant section, for example, is littered with his novel interpretations of his own research. Peele states that the same research shows that AA is as effective as no treatment (ie 0%). Becuase it has been "peer reviewed" it suddenly becomes OK? What about peer reviwed tertiary sources? They most certainly do exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Opinion

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

The following are comments and are meant to be used as suggestions and points for future reference:

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

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

Match citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate Reference

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

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

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

Effectiveness

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

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

• Dadich, Ann (2003–2004). "Self-help Support Groups and Issues in Research". International Journal of Self Help and Self Care. 2 (1): 41–55. ISSN 1541-4450.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

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

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

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

Other Studies

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