Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

AA Critics?

"AA's heavy reliance on numerous slogans [11] [12], including ones used to defer criticisms brought up during meetings, such as "Take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth!"" This whole section needs serious revision. The heading leads me to believe that it will tell me about doctors or other professionals who have criticized AA. Instead it is a list of opinions and interpretations of AA. This does not have a place in Wikipedia. I am going to be bold and change it.--Connor K. 01:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The supporters and critics section is awful (unsupported, uncited, original research, you name it), thanks for helping. I just made a few additional edits. Mr Christopher 16:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do most encyclopedias leave out things like AA? Because people feel quite strongly. Unless a reasonably good source states something, then the rest is original research.-- ¢² Connor K.   21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this section to the top because it needs the most attention. Personally, I would have tagged the article with a fansite template because it reads like it was written by someone that loves A.A. It is completely biased containing practically nothing bad about the organization. There is PLENTY of valid sourced information out there on the bad points of A.A. This whole article may need a rewrite but for now the critics section should be looked at and seriously added to.--Joshua4 08:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Research

There is strong independent research evidence supporting the effectiveness of A.A. I don't think this is fairly represented in the current article (an I'm no partisan). The research abstract below could be referenced. It's a well-designed study of over 2,000 men which shows a positive effect of A.A. attendance,

Title Alcoholics Anonymous involvement and positive alcohol-related outcomes: Cause, consequence, or just a correlate? A prospective 2-year study of 2,319 alcohol-dependent men.

Abstract A positive correlation between Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) involvement and better alcohol-related outcomes has been identified in research studies, but whether this correlation reflects a causal relationship remains a subject of meaningful debate. The present study evaluated the question of whether AA affiliation appears causally related to positive alcohol-related outcomes in a sample of 2,319 male alcohol-dependent patients. An initial structural equation model indicated that 1-year posttreatment levels of AA affiliation predicted lower alcohol-related problems at 2-year follow-up, whereas level of alcohol-related problems at 1-year did not predict AA affiliation at 2-year follow-up. Additional models found that these effects were not attributable to motivation or psychopathology. The findings are consistent with the hypothesis that AA participation has a positive effect on alcohol-related outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)

Authors McKellar, John; Stewart, Eric; Humphreys, Keith

Affiliations McKellar, John: Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Ctr for Health Care Evaluation, Menlo Park, CA, US Stewart, Eric: Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Ctr for Health Care Evaluation, Menlo Park, CA, US Humphreys, Keith: Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Ctr for Health Care Evaluation, Menlo Park, CA, US

Source Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 71(2), Apr 2003, 302-308. HypnoSynthesis 09:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is AA a cult?

Anyone who doubts whether AA is indeed a cult need look no further than the archived discussion page. The defenders of AA are so *clearly* cult-like in their anti-intellectual defense of their Holy Big Book, so helplessly knee-jerk in their responses to relatively innocuous criticisms, that the "cult" charge seems self-evident just from the behavior of AA members. Read the discussion - and tell me it's not a cult. I double dog dare you.(no signature)

As I have previously stated, this charge of a "cult" needs a deffenition. if your deffinition of a cult is a group of like minded individuals who follow a common set of beliefs (which appears to be the case in your attack) than every orgonization at all is a cult. any buisness with a mission statement, every church or spiritual orgonization, even the posting of american flags after the 9/11 attacks falls into this deffinition of cult like activities. however, if you follow what the sociological deffinition of what a cult is, that being 1. has a single central authoraty with complete arbitrary controll of members, 2. engages in falce pretences to gain membership, 3. controlls the members life and finatual situation, 4. issolates the member from all other sorces of influence than you find that AA does not fall into any of these catagories. some people just believe any orgonization that uses the word "spiritual" without their express permition are by defalt a cult...gee lets see, they believe that they are the central leadership with the word spiritual...interesting.Coffeepusher 17:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC) ps. please use a signature if you have one.

Of the 4 items listed above, it could be argued that AA meets the criteria of items 2,3, and 4. For 2, AA starts with "higher power" but then it quickly becomes God (with the capital G). Then comes getting saved (Step 3), confession (Step 4,5), atonement (Step 8,9), and finally evangelizing (Step 12). It's a christian conversion program that may or may not help one with addiction recovery. Indeed the 12 steps don't even discuss abstaining from alcohol. For 3, AA, through the steps and sponsorship, does engage in controlling behavior, though generally not financial. For 4, AA members definitely discourage other forms of recovery and if a person is, say, taking a prescription for depression, that is often tantamount to blasphemy. Original research? You bet. Hundreds of meetings.

Thanks for the input. To clarify the debate on this page, a good secular definition of a harmful cult is at Cult#Definition of 'cult' according to secular opposition. There are tons more at Cult checklist. — DavidMack 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link to "Cult Busting by Schaler". It is an academically-framed piece of very poor quality. For example, the author visited an AA meeting and claims that the angry refusal of members to consider moderated drinking is evidence that AA is a cult. However, to an addict, encouragement to use could be dangerous or fatal, so I can understand the reported reaction. I see it as equivalent to visiting a gym and proposing that they put away all their equipment because it's not the only way to get healthy. Hey, if you go to a gym, you get exercise. — DavidMack 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack Trimpey, Californian founder of a 12-step alternative recovery method called Rational Recovery claims that it is a cult. The article does also mention that the US Supreme Court ruled that atheist drunk-driver Robert Warner had been “denied his constitutional rights” when he was forced, as a condition of his probation, to attend the “deeply religious” meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous. When all is looking up, The Sydney Morning Herald january 1, 2005

Covergaard 18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

AA's views of alcoholism

Very little of this article has any cites, which is unfortunate. I just added some referenced material to the section on AA's views including a quote by Bill Wilson. I added it to the begining because it quotes Bill Wilson (a leading expert on AA, I mean he co-founded it afterall) and Ernest Kurtz, PhD, the author of many books and articles about AA history, methods and ideas. Mr Christopher 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears the "Beliefs about Alcoholism" have very little to do with AA's actual beliefs about alcoholism. Hardly anything in that entire section addresses what the header suggests. Entries in that section should only include AA's beliefs about alcoholism and other views on alcoholism would be more appropriate in the alcoholism article, no? Mr Christopher 17:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the unreferenced tag to this section. There is a substantial amount of information there and the only reference (other than what I contributed today) is basically see "Dick B's website" or something like it. There are alot of claims attributed to AA in that section that AA has never made and nothing seems to be cited. Mr Christopher 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

threw reading this section "Beliefs about Alcoholism" it appears that someone from Dick B's group is using this page as propoganda. This is common in breakaway groups of AA. they make the claim that in the begining AA had a such and such recovery rate, then they lost [insert...focus on stepwork...christan roots...meditative practice...true surrender...it really dosn't matter] and the recovery rate went down. then suddenly someone rediscovered the "true" path of recovery and has a program that works better than the regular AA meetings. the only requirement is that you surrender to them. I feel that if someone wants to start a Dick B. page this would belong there, but it does not belong on a page discribing the Belies of AA.Coffeepusher 03:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed that secton and am attempting to insert the beliefs of AA central office as found in the literature. I will be citing everything I can. I also delieted the phrase "creator god" and replaced it with Higher Power.Coffeepusher 04:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice work and you're right. As I mentioned that whole section needs alot of work and I'm glad you've got some time to clean it up. Mr Christopher 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Twelve Steps

I believe without A.A.'s Twelves Steps this article is incomplete. I am not very active in this article so I'm not sure where they should go but those steps belong here indeed. I don't think the Twelve Traditions have to be spelled out but a clear link to them would be appropriate. Mr Christopher 17:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AA and Anti-Irish Racism

First of all, this contribution must be prefaced by the statement that there are excellent meetings of AA in Ireland, even in remote villages, and every effort is made to welcome the visitor.

However, I attend meetings of English-speaking (as opposed to local-language) Alcoholics Anonymous in a major European City. Often, Americans will begin to speak with the phrase, "I'm Irish," which they clearly are not, although their ancestors may have been. Thus they "explain" their alcoholism, drawing agreement and sympathy from other Americans at the meeting.

Three incidents may cast some light on the attitude of these people:

1) At a Yuletide "monster meeting," the lead speaker was an American lady, approaching early middle age (i.e. old enough to know better). As she always does when she speaks, she evoked her "drunken Irish uncles," and their reaction to a family crisis. This, one might argue, was a statement of fact. But, it could also be argued that she might now leave these uncles to rest in peace in the early graves into which they presumably drank themselves.

However, she continued, saying, that in the middle of this domestic crisis, her uncles were "keeping up the Irish front"--whatever that means. It is, nonetheless clear, that were she to make such a statement about Jews, Gays or African-Americans, her remark would have been greeted with outrage. Not that I entirely blame the speaker in question; she obviously has an IQ appropriate to one who would embrace such racism. But I do blame the person who chaired the meeting (another American lady), as she should have interjected or commented--which she did not do. It is my personal belief that anyone who condones racism, sexism, anti-Semitism or homophobia should not be elected to chair an AA meeting.

2) At a small meeting (about 15 or 20 persons) a visiting American gentleman was invited to be lead-speaker and he graciosly accepted. He began to describe his childhood love of alcohol, and then he told us that, at age 16, he had been sent to boarding school in Ireland. He proceeded, "I don't know if any of you know anything about Ireland; but in Ireland, the pub is everything. Everything." At this point, an Irishman stood up and said, "I am leaving in protest at this racial stereotyping." The speaker protested, "But, I'm Irish," to which the Irishman replied, "You are not Irish. You're American." The Irishman then left the meeting.

3) In the chat that preceded the formal opening of the meeting, an American gentleman said that he was going back for a while to Ireland, where for some time, he had lived--and drunk. He laughed as he said that he wanted to see how purple were the faces of his former drinking-comrades. These are people he describes as his friends. So much for the 12th Step of Alcoholics Anonymous.

It would appear that there is a tacit belief among WASP, or worse, would-be WASP Americans that America was the virgin soil of the Mayfair Pilgrims and the Founding Father before the Irish arrived to introduce the original sin of alcohol-abuse into this Garden of Eden. This view is certainly not borne out by the stories in the "Big Book," Alcoholics Anonymous." It was, however, expressed, albeit in a Canadian context, in a late 19th century sermon, at a time when "polical correctness" had not yet forbidden the expression of such views in public:

O Lord we approach thee this morning in an attitude of prayer and likewise of complaint. When we came to Canada we expected to find a land flowing with milk and honey, but instead we find a land peopled by the ungodly Irish. O Lord, in thy mercy drive them to the uttermost parts of Canada...If ye have any favours to bestow, or any good land to give away, give it to thine own peculiar people, the Scots...for the ungodly Irish, take them by the heels and shake them over the pit of hell. (1) --Cosmocrator 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(1) Nicolson, M. W. "The Other Toronto: Irish Catholics in a Victorian City,1850-1900." POlyphony, Summer 1984, p.20.--Cosmocrator 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that this belongs in the article -- too much like original research til you publish elsewhere -- but it was interesting to read. Thanks. Subsolar 06:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

cleanup/quality standards

I'm very new to wikipedia, but am tracking this page. There is a box at the top saying cleanup is needed. I am willing to do the work if someone will explain to me what is needed. --Homden 10:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here. I was bothered by the inclusion of Al-Anon/Alateen in the list of "similar groups" at the bottom of the first paragraph, so I decided to be bold and remove it. First, I understand Al-Anon and Alateen to be at least loosly affiliated with AA itself, so they are, in essence, part of the overall AA program (not completely separate, similar programs). I do think they deserve mention in the article, with a link to their respective main articles, but not in that list. Second, since Al-Anon and Alateen are basically intended to be support groups for families of the identified alcoholic, they are not aimed at personal abstinence in the same way as the other organizations in the list. (I also removed the words "and others" from the end of the sentance, simply because they represented poor usage. If I've overstepped, feel free to revert. --Cmichael 05:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Publisher of the book Alcoholics Anonymous

I noted some confusion in an earlier posting regarding who publishes the book Alcoholics Anonymous. I contacted AA's General Service Office. They contacted Amazon.com, and Amazon has now fixed their error and properly attributes the book to AA World Services, Inc.--Homden 19:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

removed from pro-AA section

I removed the following phrase: "Long-term sobriety lengths of 20, 30, or 40 or more years are not uncommon in AA," as it is very vague. Does it mean uncommon in general? If it does than it is incorrect, as most people drop out of AA.

I think the confusion here is that it takes a number of attempts for some individuals to get sober. So they may drop out as you suggest, but some do return. Your right that "Long-term sobriety lengths of 20, 30, or 40 or more years are not uncommon in AA" is vague but it's not to conceal as much as it's based on what the maximum age of those who do sober up could be. I live in a major metro area and the oldest person in our area is 47 years and he's in his seventies. So he quit when he was in his thirties, which 47 years ago was considered quite young. So please stop removing things you really don't understand. Thanks --V

At the meetings I've attended, it is not uncommon to find multiple people with double digit sobriety in a meeting of 20 people or less.  Thanks --Kat

Food at meetings?

Do meetings have coffee, tea, cookies, muffins etc? Just curious. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 17:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. It all depends where.-- ¢² Connor K.   21:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Unreadable

I have added two tags for cleanup and rewriting to this article, as it is a massive unreadable blob of text that far exceeds Wikipedia's maximum recommended size of 32KB for articles. It needs either serious formatting cleanup or a complete rewrite. Lumbergh 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started on that. A few things that are tripping me up: Is it OK to refer to members of Alcoholics Anonymous as "AAs"? Finding and citing sources for a lot of these statements. This article has a lot of unsourced statements, and when sources are there, there's no page number listed. Help! RedRollerskate 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

extensive edits

although the history section is great and extensive, one of the reason for the length of this page is the extra history. I am going to cut this down significantly, taking out the sectons that are found in "Pass It On" or other literature, and making a referance to history books that would be helpfull. I may start a pre-AA AA history section for more extencive exploration of roland Hazard or other contributers of AA.Coffeepusher 19:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to delete the section AA religion and the law, because it seems to be just a rant, that doesn't cover any actual topics of Alcoholics Anonymous, or serve any reason to better understand the group, but it just came back, I am new to this so I was wondering why. I also deleted several of the supporters claims, and the critics claims for the following reasons. In the supporters section I found several enteries that appeared to be just random trivia, on the critics side someone took several verses from the big book and stated why they personaly did not agree with them. my interpritation of what a critics section is what is a NPOV of AA, not on how this verse from the BBis less effective than the book of James on explaining such and such. I am also deleting the religious critisism part because it was put there to show how people see suchandsuch as evidence of Religious themes in AA, but the enteries show no consistancy to this theme or to each other. I also deleted the debate about being cured vs. day by day because it seemed pointless to have.Coffeepusher 20:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned you are way over the top, coffee guy. You have no right to remove well cited, relevant information and AA and the law belongs in this article. What you removed from the Beliefs About Alcoholism is absurd. This is not your personal article and the information I added back is highly relevant and quotes both the Big Book, an expert on AA and Bill Wilson. I'm notifying you on your talk page as well. Please stop removing relevant, cited information. Mr Christopher 14:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

ps. coffee guy is someone elce, I understand that you can be married to an idea, but please calm down before you type, I was not deleting your personal information, only information I felt did not maintain the focus of the article. I am adressing those conserns in the following section, and I am not trying to make enemys, I like what you have done with this article, but feel that I also have valuble information to add. I will look at your information with the least amount of bias possable, and only ask for the same curtosy.Coffeepusher 16:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Bold text"For that matter Ernest Kurtz is the leading aurhority on AA in North America"

Just as a point of reference - Even Ernie Kurtz would not admit to being the leading authority on AA in North America. Ernie was the leading authority on AA History in the late 1970's and 1980's but this is not the case today. There are many people within the AA history community today and Ernie's knowledge is a valuable part of that vast network. Unlike when Not-God came out, there are many books and research today out there on AA history. Some are more interested in a religious agenda with volumes and volumes printed on the same subject matter and some are wonderful discourses on the real history of AA.

There will always be several points of view expresses from many different angles. There are those within AA who exhibit cult-like behaviors and devotion. There are many anti-AA folks who also exhibit similar cult-like devotion to their anti-AA diatribes. There are those who speak with open minds and tolerance. There are those who hate AA and love AA and just tolerate AA. The so-called truths I have seen in these articles are more obfuscations depending upon the stance the author takes and upon his or her opinion of AA or God or religion or sobriety. There are opinions based upon skewed statistics and "facts" as looked upon by the viewer. Dick B's so-called facts are just as valid as Secret Agent Orange's so-called facts. Some of these are misinformation, half truths, outright lies and partial reporting taken out of context. Mitchell K. (student of AA history)

This article was tagged with a complete rewrite tag. That seems a little excessive. I do agree it needs some clean up and the perhaps some sections get their own page to shorten it, but I don't know if it needs a complete overhaul. Should this be switched out for a cleanup tag?--Twintone 14:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A clean up tag would be much more appropriate, there is some very good information in this article. To make this article shine mostly all we need to do is remove the original research. I just removed once such section. Um, some attention to spelling would be nice too. We have recent significant contributions to the article and the spelling is awful. This article is actually much better than it was a few months ago. Mr Christopher 14:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the things that make this article so in need of help is the lack of citations and supporting evidence. There is a significant amount of original research that may or may not be true but it lacks any support and therefore does not belong. Much of it still reads like an AA brochure. We should delete the sections that lack support and NOT delete sections that are well supported and cited. If you feel a section that is in fact supported does not belong, please address your concerns here before deleting it. The AA and the Law section is a good example. An editor felt it did not belong, however it is supported. And given the fact that probably hundreds of thousands of people have been sentenced to AA and every single court case contesting being sentenced to AA resulted in the court determining that such sentences violate the Establishment Clause merits its inclusion in this article. Furthermore, I had put well supported documentation in the AA's Beliefs About Alcoholism section yet it was deleted. In fact that was the ONLY entry that actually demonstrated AA's Beliefs About Alcoholism makes it's deletion innapropriate. The remainder of that section is primarily Silkworth's beliefs about alcoholism and Silkworth's opinions are relevant as well but he does not represent AA. AA's beliefs on Alcoholism should be the focul point (lead) of that section (as it is now). The Big Book and Bill Wilson are far superior sources than Silkworth when it comes to AA's beliefs on alcoholism. Mr Christopher 15:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for the delete on Bill Wilsons Quote and the quote about a quote on the big book was that it was presented as AA's authoratative opinion. it was followed by the quote " AA's have no opinion on alcoholism because they are welcome to believe anything they want to." all these quotes are legitamate, cited, and have backing. however the Silkworth quotes come directly from the Big Book which is stated to be the basic text of AA. it is in the first section (after the prefences) titled "The Doctors Opinion". whenever AA publishes somthing that adresses the "malady" of alcoholism they reference this section. so although everything Dr. Silkworth said in his lifetime can not be seen as authoraty for AA,(anymore than everything quoted by Bill Wilson stated can't be seen as AA doctrine. the authoraty in AA comes from the groups, not from any one individual and that has been the case since the begining) the fact that the Silkworth ideas have been repeated and indoctronated into AA literature and polocy, as well as used when working step 1 (using both the Big Book and the 12/12)shows that the silkworth quotes are not only referenced, but backed up as the opinion of the orgonization. I may have been hasty in the deletion of the quotes, but at the time I felt that they where being presented as having the Authoraty of AA behind them, which was not the case at all.Coffeepusher 17:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir, this is an encyclopedia and not an AA brochure and I did not start reading up on AA last week. The Big Book and 12 and 12 are steeped heavily in contradictions yet AA's Big Book and Bill Wilson's opinion are the most relevant sources when it comes to AA. The Big Book was the original text and Bill Wilson its best known member. For that matter Ernest Kurtz is the leading aurhority on AA in North America. He is the most cited author when it comes to AA practices, beliefs and history. As editors of this article we have no obligation to AA or their "no one speaks for AA" mantra. What I had written was logical, objective, well supported and quoted two leading experts on AA, Ernest Kurtz and Bill Wilson. Please keep in mind we do not need AAs approval to write about AA's beliefs and there are no Wiki/AA "12 Traditions" that we have to abide by. And although AA says no one speaks for them, Bill Wilson spoke quite a bit about AA and alcoholism and they never seemed to ignore him so I can't see a good reason why we should ignore the co-founder of AA in an article about AA. Again, we have no obligation to AA in this article. The obligation is to Wikipedia and its readership. The section is AA's Beliefs on Alcoholism, my contribution consisted of the leading expert on AA specific to AAs belief on alcoholism, the other was Bill Wilson's belief on alcolholism and if you read what he said he is in fact speaking for AA. Whether this conflicts with their traditions is irrelevant. Bill Wilson is highly quotable when it comes to Alcoholics Anonymous beliefs and practices and history. Mr Christopher 19:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I want to be clear, Silkworth's comments and AA's enthusiasm for his opinion belong in the article. We might delete some of the "fluff" in the Silkworth paragraphgs (who sponsored who type of insider information doesn't seem to bring much to the article) but by all means his opinion belongs in the article. Mr Christopher 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Silkworth I just tried to improve the flow where Silkworth's opinion is presented. Feel free to improve upon it. Mr Christopher

I understand that this is not a AA promotional broshure (and there is a good argument that mabie I need to be reminded), however the article that I origonaly saw was disgrasefull to say the least (I am not refurring to the edits we are now discussing, rather the stuff that made this article a mess). We are both going for the same goal of informing the reader about AA objectivly. I am sorry that I accedentaly hurt your feelers, to paraphrase you, I didn't start reading about the AA program last week either. my edits have been unbiast, and I deleted pro and con stuff. my mention of traditions was to point out that Bill Willson's opinion was not neccesarily adopted by AA (which is incredably relivent when it comes to discussing what AA's international opinion of a topic is), not to try to "force you" to comply with traditions. I really want to work with you, and I feel we are getting closer to that, however I also feel like you are attacking me personaly because I deleted somthing that you wanted to keep. I like your edits, but using language like "over zelos editor" "coffee guy" and implying that I am trying to convert the world to AA, stateing that only your section was valuble and mine was crap. and generaly not allowing me to come to the table without defending myself has put me in an interesting position. if I am at falt for making you feel uncomfortable in this situation it was not my intention. how can we work together without butting heads?Coffeepusher 21:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, I sincerely apologize for seeming like I was coming down on you. My frustration lies in the history of this article and note when you started getting rid of much of the POV/unsupported information I was quite enthusiastic with your efforts. So much of this article has been written by well intentioned AAers (not suggesting you belong in that camp FYI) who do not have a clue about Wiki standards and write from an conference approved AA POV that is is useless as a Wiki article because it is all POV/original research so when something is taken out that is not POV or orginal research I have a knee jerk reaction. For every 2 paragraphs that are worthy of an encyclopedia we seem to get 20 paragraphs of POV/original research so the article remains a mish mash of useful/useless content. I went to great lengths to actually find something that demonstrated AA's beliefs on alcoholism (and not just some item in AA approved literature that is contradicted elsewhere in other AA approved literature) so I obviously got overly testy with you when you removed it. Another personal frustration is my own lack of time to improve the article :-) Anyhow, yes let's work together. Mr Christopher 21:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to re-write the "how AA works" section in the article. I am going to base it off of sources. It seems to me that it was written based on knowlege or general information. It is a bit dificult to read, as well.--Connor K. 02:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

AA Religion and the Law part II

The title of this section does not make sense and that may be one of the reasons one editor feels the information is out of place or irrelevant. The section is about court mandated/forced AA attendance and the Establishment Clause. As I mentioned there has been numerous court cases regarding this issue, the results had profound implications, the information is clearly relevant and belongs here yet some improving could be done. I propose we change the name of the title to best reflect the actual content. Here is what I suggest:

• Court Mandated AA Participation and the Establishment Clause

Any opinions? Mr Christopher 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I like that title, it narrows down the focus of the article. I believe that there should be both a pro and con subheading to avoid confusion within this section. also, in that case the reference to the establishment clause should be under the con section. there is a lot of recerch for court mandated participation, and tons against and both opinions should be adressed to provide a nutrual pov. thank you for your insight into this articleCoffeepusher 16:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, I think the court mandated section specific to the Establishment Clasue does not belong in a pro or con section. It is not a criticism, it is a fact. That section describes court cases that challenged the legality of forcing people to attend AA and AA inspired treatment programs by the courts. The end result of those cases. We should treat it as a historical and political fact and not as a pro or con piece. Those cases changed the way courts and probabation/parole officers handle people who have been convicted of alcohol related crimes. This is a historical and legal issue and not a pro and con issue. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this and I think it only merits about as much space as it does now. Mr Christopher 19:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on what title we use for the Court Mandated AA/Establishment Clause section? I'll wait a day or so before changing it to see if anyone has a better idea or a concern for that matter. Indeed "AA, Religion and the Law" seems misleading at worst and unclear at best. Mr Christopher 20:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I made the title change Mr Christopher 16:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

AA Critics?

"AA's heavy reliance on numerous slogans [11] [12], including ones used to defer criticisms brought up during meetings, such as "Take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth!"" This whole section needs serious revision. The heading leads me to believe that it will tell me about doctors or other professionals who have criticized AA. Instead it is a list of opinions and interpretations of AA. This does not have a place in Wikipedia. I am going to be bold and change it.--Connor K. 01:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The supporters and critics section is awful (unsupported, uncited, original research, you name it), thanks for helping. I just made a few additional edits. Mr Christopher 16:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do most encyclopedias leave out things like AA? Because people feel quite strongly. Unless a reasonably good source states something, then the rest is original research.-- ¢² Connor K.   21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

objectivity

I find this article to be biased. It is clearly written by those within the AA institution, who believe it is the best/most effective treatment available, which is empirically wrong. I think wikipedia has an obligation to protect the objectivity of this article, as alcoholics' lives are at stake.

Yes I think most people would agree the article is in need of help. Not everyone who has (and is) contributing to it are members of AA and AA members are free and encouraged to contribute. One of the issues is much of the article seems to be written by folks who are unfamilair with WIKI policies and standards, so there are many "experts" writing about AA but very few people are actually researching and citing/supporting what they write or taking the time to understand Wiki standards. That is what makes it appear as if a handful of AA members slapped it together or copied it from AA brochures. And much of the article reads as if it were a book about AA and not a simple encyclopedia article. There is a lot of hype as well.

I want to make a point about your comment:

as alcoholics' lives are at stake.

Wikipedia has no moral obligation to alcoholics and neither do Wiki editors. This article should not be confused with a treatment brochure, an AA pamphlet or an "alcoholism" diagnostic tool. Wiki could care less about people's alcohol problems meaning that Wiki is an encyclopedia and not a means of "alcoholism" intervention. If someone's life is dependent on a Wikipedia article I can assure you that they are doomed. Wikipedia serves as an online encyclopedia, it's purpose is to inform its readership on a given subject. The obligation is to its readers and there is no special consideration for its alcoholic readers. We're here to inform, not reach out or direct people to treatment or AA or help them get sober. So, we're not trying to improve the article to help alcoholics, we're trying to improve the article so it abides by Wiki quality standards and is therefore deemed a quality article.

The best way for us to write a very biased article would be for us to think we have a responsibility to save lives. We do not.

Finally, you're welcome to help us improve it. Get yourself and account and start signing your comments on the Talk pages! Mr Christopher 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

An additional point about the comment above. You say, "It is clearly written by those within the AA institution, who believe it is the best/most effective treatment available, which is empirically wrong." If, as you suggest, there is conclusive empirical evidence that AA is not the "best/most effective treatment available," then that evidence belongs in the article, appropriately cited, probably in the "criticisms" section. --Cmichael 05:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

thought on the How The A.A. Program Works section

I think we should move away from the "some AA members think this or that" type of original research and instead focus on the core of what constitutes the AA program - the steps, the traditions, meeting attendance, sponsorship and such. That will be my focus on my next edits to that section. Any opinions? Mr Christopher 17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. The "core" consists of the basic concepts, beliefs, and methods, which all should be described in an encyclopedia. Some of the other stuff in the article seems to represent regional variations or opinions of the writers, and probably should be deleted.

Anyhow, I felt bad because I took Al-anon and Alateen out of the list in the first paragraph, then realized that they were not mentioned anywhere else in the article at all. I stuck in a brief pair of references in this section. It didn't seem to me like the perfect location, but it was the best fit I could find. I do think they deserve brief reference, if only to direct the interested reader to their own article. --Cmichael 05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference

I am going to combine the page into one type of reference.-- ¢² Connor K.   21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does that mean? Mr Christopher 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean that I am going to make the "Notes" and the "references" sections into one. Instead of having the "references" being a bunch of citations that lead to websites, and "notes" being the citations that link to the bottom of the page, I've made it so that the heading "references" are the citations, and anything I couldn't find in the article, I made it into "further reading". If it isn't good, or was better the way it was, feel free to revert. I am sorry for the mass edits, I couldn't look at it while editing. It just made it easier for me.-- ¢² Connor K.   00:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You did a fantastic job, thanks very much Mr Christopher 13:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It helps me.-- ¢² Connor K.   17:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Things that need work

Check out the peer review for stuff we need to work on: Wikipedia:Peer review/Alcoholics Anonymous/archive1--Twintone 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Geographic cure

The following text was removed from "a typical program of recovery" portion of "How the AA program works":

"Doing a geographical', where the sufferer makes a major change, usually geographical, in the hopes of escaping from circumstances that lead him or her into addictive behaviour. The change can be of various nature, including a job or profession change, moving to another town or country, changing regular partner and friends, etc. Often the deep reason behind it is the belief that it will remove or mitigate certain addictive personal patterns or behaviours."

"Geographic cures" are generally among those unsuccessful strategies alcoholics and other addicts pursue prior to finding AA, NA, etc. They are NOT part of the program. In fact, in general, newcomers to AA, NA, etc. are strongly advised to make no major changes in their lives, such as moving, divorcing, etc., during their first year of recovery. Instead of simply deleting the above, I placed it here for incorporation elsewhere in the article, in another, more appropriate place. --Midnite Critic 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

needs cleanup

It looks like it's been cleaned up before. Did it get messier somehow? Or were edits reverted? I started trying to clean up the references in the History section but gave up, I'm too tired. And beyond the references, it's just very hard to read. I didn't get past the History section, it made my brain hurt too much. If anyone can clean it up please do; otherwise I'll try to come back and clean it up.Xzqx 02:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Logo

As far as I know AA gave up the rights to its logo a number of years back to avoid the controversy over fighting a court battle over it. Hence the logo depicted, although commonly used by AA's is not "AA's logo". It no longer appears on any literature. 24.199.159.196 18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Kartina Muller

Misleading

I would simply like to add that the origins and history of AA is misrepresented in this article.

Ebby, mentioned in the text, as the "one who got religion" did not maintain his sobriety and unfortunately died drunk. The Oxford group, wherein Bill Wilson, according to this article, also "got religion" also did not last very long. Bill visited them, yes, but the result was nil. He continued to drink. His later "spiritual experience" in the hospital was his awakening and he did not return to the Oxford Group thereafter.

Bill Wilson did not, infact, gain any 'religion' throughout his sobriety and right up until the day he died, sober, this was the case. The closest he ever came was to Catholicism, through his friendship with the Jesuit Priest, Father Ed Dowling. But, upon careful consideration, Bill was unable to intellectually accept the Catholic church nor any other church as his own. He always maintained that AA is, and was, a spiritual programme, not a religious one, and was then and has never subsequently been affiliated with any religion. Father Ed Dowling himself knew and understood this, and continued to support AA regardless of the fact that it wasn't affiliated with any religion, including catholic. His understanding of spiritual principles went far deeper than that. AA membership covers all corners of the globe and has strong Jewish, Muslim, Animist, Buddhist and even Atheist members, as well as Christian and Catholic. All are united in a common path of recovery that is spiritual, not religious. This is a key factor in its ongoing success. Mentioning religion within the context of an AA article is bound to invite controversy and misrepresents the facts to those who may find recovery from Timbuktu who aren't likely to suddenly become 'christian' - and nor are they required to!

I have never read in all of the extensive correspondence that survives of Bill Wilson that he said he was indeed, "Born Again", but if he did indeed say that, it has been taken out of context. He simply meant born again, with lower case letters - a description of his regeneration and not a description of any religious affiliation with Christianity.

AA's Critics include "The Treasonous NY Times July 25, 2006 NICHOLAS BAKALAR" ??

As of today 03/06/2007 01:22am EST, the "AA's Critics" section includes this hack: "The Treasonous NY Times ^ | July 25, 2006 | NICHOLAS BAKALAR".

If you search the NYT Archives for "July 25, 2006 NICHOLAS BAKALAR", one of the hits is this article: "Review Sees No Advantage in 12-Step Programs".

The link for this article is http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/health/25drin.html?ex=1173330000&en=10dcf1ee6a6a6368&ei=5070

Someone has evidently replaced the reference to "The New York Times" with "The Treasonous New York Times".

Big Al Mintaka 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the "treasonous" out and moved the reference to follow the paragraph. Not sure I marked up the reference properly...I'm new at this...but it is, at least, better than I found it. Cmichael 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What the heck, I also went back and rewrote the paragraph, which was all cut and paste from the 'Times' article, then added a final sentance from lower in the article to provide a little balance. Really, we should go back and cite the original article, rather than the Time's review of it, but I don't have the energy to do that right now. Cmichael 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Cmichael. I haven't figured out the editing thing yet. There are a lot of good paragraphs in earlier versions of this page that really should be restored - such as the one saying something about the Big Book's "patronizing" and/or "condescending" attitudes towards Agnostics and Atheists. Excelsior, Big Al Mintaka 04:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Took some time tonight and tracked down the primary source (at least the summary). Rewrote the paragraph leaving out the NY Times, and citing the Cochrane Library's summary of the original article. Cmichael 00:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed from History Section

I removed the spookroom reference. While completely comical what purpose does this really serve.

"Bill Wilson and company then moved into the occult. He kept a room in his basement called the "Spookroom".. AA has now sealed the Spookfiles from public scrutinity."

Also removed:

"When he wrote the essays on each of the twelve steps, he sent some to Ed Dowling, a Roman Catholic priest, to evaluate. In his accompanying letter of July 17, 1952, Wilson says, "But I have good help - of that I am certain. Both over here and over there" [Robert Fitzgerald, S.J., The Soul of Sponsorship: The Friendship of Fr. Ed Dowling, S.J. and Bill Wilson in Letters, Center City, MN.: Hazelden Pittman Archives Press, 1995, p. 59]. Then he explains that one spirit from "over there" that helped him called himself Boniface. Wilson says:

"One turned up the other day calling himself Boniface. Said he was a Benedictine missionary and English. Had been a man of learning, knew missionary work and a lot about structures. I think he said this all the more modestly but that was the gist of it. I'd never heard of this gentleman but he checked out pretty well in the Encyclopedia. If this one is who he says he is--and of course there is no certain way of knowing--would this be licit contact in your book?" [Ibid., p. 59].

Dowling responds in his letter of July 24, 1952:

"Boniface sounds like the Apostle of Germany. I still feel, like Macbeth, that these folks tell us truth in small matters in order to fool us in larger. I suppose that is my lazy orthodoxy" (Ibid., p. 59].

One can see the stretch of years during which Wilson received messages from disembodied spirits. The official biography of Bill Wilson says, "One of Bill's persistent fascinations and involvements was with psychic phenomena." It speaks of his "belief in clairvoyance and other extrasensory manifestations" and in his own psychic ability [Pass It On., op. cit., p. 275]. This was not a mere past-time. It was a passion directly related to AA [Ibid., p. 280]. The manner in which Wilson would receive messages not of his own making was definitely channeling [Ibid., pp. 278,279]. The records of these sessions, referred to as "Spook Files," have been closed to public inspection [Ernest Kurtz, Not God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous, Center City, MN.: Hazelden Educational Materials, 1979, p. 344]."

Many Christians see 12 steps as a conflict of between belief in Jesus , the one true god, and the steps concept that god can be anything you want him to be.

Again, while the "Soul of Sponsorship: The Friendship of Fr. Ed Dowling, S.J. and Bill Wilson in Letters" maybe accurate, it truly makes no sense on this page, as this is an encyclopedic definition of A.A. in the generic. Specific spirtual practices by Bill Wilson (only illustrate the need for some to demonize A.A., Bill Wilson, et.al ) while strange and down right goofy, make a world of sense if you rather not die from alcoholism. So please lets stay to the topic at hand and answear "What is A. A."? I won't even go into the flame baiting "Many Chritsians quote..." -cre8tif--71.57.124.153 18:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The emphasis on Jesus Christ as the solution in the AA program of recovery seems inappropriate. The emphasis is on a "higher power" - god as we understand him. There are 12-step websites with Jewish and Buddhist orientations.

Perhaps the most compelling case for diminishing the reference to Jesus Christ in the article comes from the "big book" - "Alcoholics Anonymous - the story of how thousands of men and women recovered from alcoholism". See 12:2 "My friend suggested what then seemed a novel idea. He said, 'Why don't you choose your own conception of God?'" [This is an important question: “why not create your own idea of God instead of relying the beliefs of others?”] There is only one reference to Jesus Christ in AA's basic text - see 11:1 "To Christ I conceded the certainty of a great man, not too closely followed by those who claimed Him. His moral teaching - most excellent. For myself, I had adopted those parts which seemed convenient and not too difficult; the rest I disregarded."

The emphasis on Christianity is contradicted the section following the text where Dr. Jung tells the American business man, Rowland Hazard, about a "vital spiritual experience" (p. 26-27). The text then refers to William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience" a learned tome published early in the 20th century, about 30 years before the advent of AA.

p. 28:3 The distinguished American psychologist, William James, in his book" Varieties of Religious Experience”, indicates a multitude of ways in which men have discovered God. We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only one way by which faith can be acquired. If what we have learned and felt and seen means anything at all, it means that all of us, whatever our race, creed, or color are the children of a living Creator with whom we may form a relationship upon simple and understandable terms as soon as we are willing and honest enough to try. Those having religious affiliations will find here nothing disturbing to their beliefs or ceremonies. There is no friction among us over such matters.

p. 28:4 We think it no concern of ours what religious bodies our members identify themselves with as individuals. [This means AAs have no reason or need to care about which church, faith, or creed others prefer.] This should be an entirely personal affair which each one decides for himself in the light of past associations, or his present choice. Not all of us join religious bodies, but most of us favor such memberships.

The co-founders of AA and the early members of the fellowship were Americans born and raised circa 1900 in the eastern half of the United States. Christianity was the predominant religion at that time and place and it's doubtful many of them were adherents to any other set of religious beliefs. It is then noteworthy that Christianity is absent from their basic text. Accordingly, Wikipedia's entry on the AA program of recovery should not impose the belief systems of Dick B, an ardent Christian, or any member of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Don@Karabelnikoff.net 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more. Thanks for the research and edits Don. --Cre8tif 12:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed reference to Garrett

This reference to a blog seems inappropriate. The blog is a commentary on a book. (Rodger Garrett, the author of the blog, has marked his comments with "RG", interspersed with the original text which is marked "EK".) Garrett states that he and his acquaintance have noticed that "antisocial participants" are predominating in AA and are either driving out or creating "toxic bonds" with the more vulnerable or dependent members. This paragraph was placed in Alcoholics Anonymous by "Rajah524", which is the same as the author's email address at the end of the blog. This is not a peer-reviewed article, nor does it come from an authoritative source, so I removed it. -- DavidMack 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Transactional analysis paragraphs relevant?

Does the cited book Games Alcoholics Play actually mention AA? If not, this new entry should perhaps be in Alcoholism. Citations are also needed for the weasel words "Cases have been reported ..." etc. — DavidMack 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Has no business in the article, I removed it. Mr Christopher 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AA is not a religious organisation

Once again, the edited page on AA is entirely missing the point. AA is not a Christian organisation, nor is it even a religious one. The Oxford Group was a Christian, religious group that failed to continue. Bill Wilson broke away from the Oxford Group and from religion. The Christian writers of this article are more concerned about Christianity being the foundation of AA than about the recovery of alcoholics. If some alcoholics, in recovery, choose to join a Christian church, then that is a seperate issue and has nothing to do with AA. Just as many rediscover their own religion, be it Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist. And many remain atheists too - sober ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.255.250 (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

The Big Book chapter to the agnostic is a ruse. It basically says, that some of us were agnostics too but we came to believe. How does this make an agnostic feel welcome?

It's hard to accept it as a non-religious organization. Here are the pertinent steps of the 12 steps in AA.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

These are basic principles of AA. I don't see how it can be argued it is a non-religious organization. I realize that some AAs probably treat these steps differently than others, but just look at the above steps. Perhaps you can argue it isn't specifically Christian, but it is clearly Abrahamic in nature.

The "Big Book" is filled with religious terms. Author Vince Fox found in the first 164 pages of the actual text (excluding the personal stories) found 174 references to "God and God associated words." (Fox, 1993, p. 51). Another researcher found, "The name 'God,' spelled with a capital 'G,' appears at least 132 times through page 164 of the Big Book; and pronouns for God, such as 'He', 'Him', 'His', etc., are mentioned eighty times" (Stewart C., 1986, pp. 115 116, cited by Dick B., 1992, p. 97). Some may notice that Alcoholics Anonymous in fact is a Religious Organization.

References: Fox, V. (1993). Addiction, change & choice: The new view of alcoholism. Tucson, AZ: Sharp Press.

Stewart, C. (1986). A reference guide to the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous. Seattle: Recovery Press. I'm new to this, so sorry if I made an error with references or anything else.--Amerikasend 01:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Factual AA History

For a factual history of AA, instead of opinion, refer to the books "AA Comes of Age" and "Bill Wilson and the AA Message". There the full account of Ebby's failure to stay sober and Bill Wilson's breaking away from the Oxford Group is recounted. The birth of a non-religious organisation called AA is described.

AA Comes of Age - AA World Services Bill Wilson and the AA Message - AA World Services

198.54.202.250 11:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am responsible

I tried to log in twice to edit the article on AA, was told I would get sent a new password which I never received, and when I tried to create a new account, was told I already existed.

Needless to say, I don't think my inability to understand this technology precludes me from acting in good faith.

The personal opinions, gossip, controversy and quotes that were used out of context and therefore misleading, were harmfull and detrimental to the recovery of alcoholics in AA, in my opinion.

So yes, I take responsibility for "vandalising" the text and removing it all. I will accept any and all "punishment" for that. I did it because I care more about the health of any potential or recovering alcoholics than I do about personal opinions regarding religions etc that has nothing to do with AA.

Instead I included a brief definition of AA that is World Services approved, as well as a link to their website.

Kerry Somers email: kerry at somers dot co dot za —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.250 (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I put it back. I agree that this article is less than perfect, particularly the history section. I also agree that a lot of the religious stuff is useless and has nothing to do with a "higher power" as I conceive of it. This does not need to be a Christian tract. On the other hand, there is a lot of good work in this article, and a number of editors have been working toward consensus on it. If you want to work on paring down and improving the sections that need rework, particularly history, then I would be totally supportive. But, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Thanks. Cmichael 14:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Link purge desperately needed

External links to avoid include:

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.
• Links mainly intended to promote a website.
• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Many of the external links look like people's "favourite sites", rather than authoritative sources. If a site _is_ authoritative its contents should generally be discussed or summarised in the article with appropriate references. A purge is needed.

— DavidMack 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Improper changes

207.232.97.13 (talk) has added back a bunch of stuff that was removed. S/he added back some paragraphs on Bill W.'s post-AA spiritual, occult, and drug experiments, which have nothing to do with AA and should go in Bill W. if anywhere. S/he also added back some personal opinions on transactional analysis that were discussed earlier (Transactional analysis paragraphs relevant?) and removed. S/he also made of mess of the references section. I have reverted all these changes. — DavidMack 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Whoops. 207.232.97.13 put the changes back again, without discussion. Does anyone know how to proceed here? — DavidMack 00:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Placed templates on his/her talk page on neutral point of view and unsourced material. — DavidMack 19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

207.194.108.93 (talk) is also repeatedely adding irrelevant and personal opinion material (on the application of Transactional analysis to treatment of Alcoholism), without discussing it on this page. I placed a warning on this user's talk page. — DavidMack 19:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, ...13 just did it again. I reverted it this time. I think I inadvertently went back on revision too far, and apologize for that...I'm just learning to use popups. I agree with DavidMack about this, but don't know how to proceed. I don't want to be in a revert war, but wish ...13 would come here and talk over this stuff before making any more changes. Cmichael 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a level 2 warning template to 13's talk page. Cmichael 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

All the vandalism and nonsense seems to be from various anonymous IPs. Perhaps we should request the article be locked from anonymous edits. Mr Christopher 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I put a note on Talk:Bill W. that that article needs to be re-written as a bio of Bill instead of a history of AA. The article Bill W. would be a good place to talk about some of the strange spiritual practices described by 207.232.97.13. — DavidMack 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted some more unsourced spook stuff by ...93. I would really be grateful if ...13 and ...93 would discuss changes here on the talk page before making them in the article. This is a pretty active and controversial topic, and we need to work toward consensus before making changes Cmichael 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The material should be in Bill W. in a balanced form.

That would follow the wiki guidelines at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes: "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." I'll put the material in when I get a chance, if no one else does. It's all in the Cheever biography of Bill. That might satisfy our anonymous contributors. BTW, a lot of their material is copied from www.Orange-Papers.org. — DavidMack 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Balancing the Information

I have attempted to balance the information in a neutral form. There is no disputing the fact that AA drew heavily form the Oxford Group's {an evangical christian organization} practices and principles . However there was another equally influential source for Bill W. and some of his followers and that came through the practice of the occult.

Bill W. firmly believed in what he was doing and a dead monk by the name of Boniface became his muse in writing the twelve steps and twelve traditions. I firmly believe it deserves mention. The letters serve to show the strength of his convictions.

eg. If Ernest Hemminway had a Muse, someone he contacted through the a seance or ouiji board, and the muse influenced many of his books, then the fact would be noted in the history. If he chose to write about his muse, the most logical thing would be to source that information.

What is interesting about the AA is that they have sealed the records of the Spook Sessions. So what little we have on this topic is from the book Pass It on and the Letters to Father Dowling.

The problem with trying to present this as part of the history is there are those that believe it would be detrimental to the organization. Well the fact remains, Spook Sessions were undertaken, a dead Monk influenced Bill in his writing of the twelve steps and twelve traditions a book still in use today. To hide this information or try and make it irrelevant is simply a practice in deception.

--207.232.97.13 03:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Anonymous user--

It seems pretty clear to me this information was taken almost verbatim from orange-papers.org [1] [2], and has the same weaknesses of the very similar edits you made to Bill W.. For the same reasons I mentioned in the Bill W. talk page, I am reverting the edits. -- Craigtalbert 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User 207.232.97.13, thank you for breaking your silence and entering the discussion. I agree this material should be in Wiki. Give me some research time and maybe we can come up with a version that makes for a good Wiki entry. — DavidMack 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What we see in the 12 steps are not spook influenced but typical Christian influences (mostly Catholic at that). No doubt Bill Wilson had some interesting ideas but those ideas are not reflected in the 12 steps or the organization of AA. Bill's spook practices and beliefs belong in the article about Bill and not AA. Note that you do not see seances, Ouija boards or channeling at AA meetings nor are they mentioned in the steps or traditions. There is WAY too much Bill Wilson in the article already so adding his strange spook ideas just makes the article that much more off target. Mr Christopher 16:32, 30 March 2007

(UTC)

The Orange Papers are certainly biased, however , I didn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Scource materials came from Susan Cheever's book " My name is Bill". The orange papers had some source information in terms of the letters. Pass it on had some information.

If I see inforamtion on CNN or Fox News, does it mean I throw it out because it is biased in my opinion or do I check it out.

I check it out. If Fox news or CNN has some facual information that can be substanited then it can be included. How orange presents the information reflects his opinion. However I stuck with the facts.

It appears to be very clear that there are people on this board that do not want this information available for public viewing and will go to great lengths to discredit the poster and the facts. — 207.194.108.93, 18:30, 30 March 2007 diff

Good move - when you don't get your way start suggesting there is a conspiracy to silence your ametaure viewpoint. Nice. It's better than whining I suppose. Another explaination is some people here, unlike you, are familiar with Wikipedia policies and standards and actually work to see those standards abided by in this article, they also do crazy stuff like discuss major changes prior to making them in an attempt to arrive at editorial consensus. And some of us were not and are not thrilled about your vandalism of this article and your att5empt to divert the article to be about Bill's nutty occult beliefs. He also had some nuttier ideas on vitamin "treatment". Some editros here are aware that this article is about alcoholics anonymous and not bill wilson's nuttier ideas. Mr anonymous IP guy, name one step that has a relationship to the occult please. Name one tradition that is rooted in sorcery, the occult or was chanelled by a dead (or living) monk. Thank you. Unless you can find a reliable source that demonstrates where specific steps or practices came directly from Bill's occult beliefs then this occult stuff about Bill Wilson belongs in the Bill Wilson article. Mr Christopher 18:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WHAT WE SEE At Meetings!!!!

Quotes from above:

User 207.232.97.13, thank you for breaking your silence and entering the discussion. I agree this material should be in Wiki. Give me some research time and maybe we can come up with a version that makes for a good Wiki entry. — DavidMack 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What we see in the 12 steps are not spook influenced but typical Christian influences (mostly Catholic at that). No doubt Bill Wilson had some interesting ideas but those ideas are not reflected in the 12 steps or the organization of AA. Bill's spook practices and beliefs belong in the article about Bill and not AA. Note that you do not see seances, Ouija boards or channeling at AA meetings nor are they mentioned in the steps or traditions. There is WAY too much Bill Wilson in the article already so adding his strange spook ideas just makes the article that much more off target. Mr Christopher 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this implies to me you attend meetings, hence how can your edits be neutral Mr.Chrtisopher???

Mine posts are designed to expand the history. I agree the Orange Papers hold a particular viewpoint but then again so does Susan Cheevers. Cheevers in the camp that says it works , Orange is in the camp that says it doesn't. What the Orange Papers had on file were the letters. I included references from Cheevers {which I have read} and Orange { which I have read}. I could further expand on it by including references from Dick B. {who is in the camp that it is Christianity that works }.

If the letters are factual, then they are of importance and need to be addressed on Wikapedia.

I have put Bills spook sessions, in the Bill Section and someone has taken it upon themselves to edit.

I agree there are pro AA people on this board that are doing their best to squelch history. If the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions are handed out today and were inspired by contact with the supernatural then do we not have a right to know????

I also found a pro christian bias on Dick B.s website , do I throw the information he has gleaned on that basis only.

I have to add I am new at this and so my inexperience in posting do show up, I make many mistakes , but the intent is to bring to light information.

It disturbs me that AA has sealed the Spook Files, I am sure there is much in them .

The fact is that Bill's Spook Sessions make him a more interesting a likable guy, on my part , however I am not allowed my opinion.
— 207.194.108.93, 18:47, 30 March 2007 diff

Nice, attack fellow editors because we won't go along with your POV. Sweet. If the author of the orange paopers is not prminantly displayed on the articles cited it should not be a source. How about you spend a little time learning about Wikipedia and less time trying side track this arfticle for a while? Mr Christopher 18:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Orange Papers

I like rading that site and don't have an issue with any of it but as long as the author is anonymous ("special Agent Orange") we cannot use it here. I'll dig up a Wiki policy after lunch. Mr Christopher 18:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please dig up the policy now? That's been the longest lunch break ever.... 62.6.180.130 14:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I know "Agent Orange" and have forwarded a link to this discussion to him with a suggestion that he explore ideas/options as to what he can to assist or give permission for use of his research in the article. Let me state quite clearly (as AA does tend to carry some controversy with it) that I am absolutely ambivalent toward AA (all things being equal, what works for one person does not necessarily work for another). I do, however, have to agree with the general consensus, here, that this article is overly biased toward and does little to nothing to address all sides of AA as an issue (opinion as cult, etc.) and Orange's work on the history of the AA movement (as well as the Oxford Group, etc.) would be, in my opinion, quite a valuable addition to the article, IF it could be used. Dewisant 08:39:49 Thursday May 17, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can "use" Orange's work directly. From what I've seen, Orange picks out parts of books that are of most interest to him and ignores the rest. His references are very helpful, though. — DavidMack 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've found most of the edits and research done by AO are opportunistic and out of context. This article is the the busiest thing on my watch list, and it's mostly the anonymous editors trying to turn this article in to a mirror of orange papers and/or morerevealed. All and all it's really just been obstructing any progress on this article. -- Craigtalbert 16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think orange sites his work with references, which would make it easy to site some of the criticism with the same references.... 62.6.180.130 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of referenced material that our "edit warriors" pasted in from the orange papers site has already been incorporated. For example there is now a more complete description of Vaillant's results (of which Agent Orange only discussed one table that supported his own argument). AO's reference that suggested some of Bill W.'s writing was influenced by his spiritualism is now mentioned in Bill W.—Life After AA. I did check AO's other references on this topic and found that they were not relevant to his claims (see section "Closed sources and conspiracy theories" below). There is still some more material critical of AA that I would like to put in the Research critical of AA section – in neutral language, of course. — DavidMack 20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Spook Files

Note the references in the Brackets and tell me where you see the Orange Papers????

The "Spook files" References

As I am new to this I suggest someone with more experience could clean this up and insert in the appropriate place.

Check the References: Another source had the same information as Orange , I did not see him citing the Orange papers. Other links supports the letters... search AA and the occult

The Occult

Much has been written on the evolvement of Alcoholics Anonymous from Frank Buchmans's evangelical Christian Oxford Group but what has been overlooked is the importance of the Occult. This clears up a misunderstanding that Bill was inspired by soley by a christian god.

Bill Wilson kept a "Spookroom" in his home where he and others participated , over a number of years, in group seances, the use of the ouiji board and automatic writing. [Susan Cheever, My Name is Bill. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004. ISBN 0-7432-0154-X, pages 201-209.]

AA has sealed the "spookfiles," so what exists on this topic are found in the Letters to Sam Shoemaker and Father Dowling that verify Bill's sincere convictions in his spirtual quest of the supernatural. The letters draw attention to the inspiration he received from the "otherside" by contact with a dead monk named Boniface in his writing of The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, a book still in use today.

In a letter to Rev. Sam Shoemaker in 1958, Bill wrote:

Throughout A.A., we find a large amount of psychic phenomena, nearly all of it spontaneous. Alcoholic after alcoholic tells me of such experiences and asks if these denote lunacy -- or do they have real meaning? These psychic experiences have run nearly the full gamut of everything we see in the books. In addition to my original mystical experience, I've had a lot of such phenomenalism myself.

[Pass it on: The story of Bill Wilson and how the A.A. message reached the world, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, page 374.]

Bill wrote to his Catholic Priest friend, Father Ed Dowling, telling about the help and guidance he was receiving from spirits of the dead while writing his second book, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions (July 17, 1952): [The Soul of Sponsorship: The Friendship of Fr. Ed Dowling, S.J. and Bill Wilson in Letters, edited by Robert Fitzgerald, S.J., pages 59 and 116 (footnote). Hazelden Pittman Archives Press, Center City, MN, 1995.]

The "over there" refers to the spirit world. It was, he said, the voice of Boniface, an apostle from England to Germany, Bavaria, and France, who reformed old church structures, and as bishop with powers from Rome, set up new monasteries and bishoprics. Bill ended this letter by saying that he is "coming back to earth" (from Boniface) and that Harper was interested in publishing the book. [The Soul of Sponsorship pages 59 and 116.] (footnote).

The Spook Sessions

In the official A.A. history book Pass It On, Bill Wilson described the "spook sessions" this way:

"The ouija board got moving in earnest. What followed was the fairly usual experience -- it was a strange mélange of Aristotle, St. Francis, diverse archangels with odd names, deceased friends -- some in purgatory and others doing nicely, thank you! There were malign and mischievous ones of all descriptions, telling of vices quite beyond my ken, even as former alcoholics. Then, the seemingly virtuous entities would elbow them out with messages of comfort, information, advice -- and sometimes just sheer nonsense."

Bill would lie on the couch in the living room, semi-withdrawn, but not in a trance, and "receive" messages, sometimes a word at a time, sometimes a letter at a time. Anne B., neighbor and "spook" circle regular, would write the material on a pad. Lois describes one of the more dramatic of these sessions:

Bill would lie down on the couch. He would 'get' these things. He kept doing it every week or so. Each time, certain people would 'come in.' Sometimes, it would be new ones, and they'd carry on some story. There would be long sentences; word by word would come through. This time, instead of word by word, it was letter by letter. Anne put them down letter by letter.

[Pass it on, pages 278-279.)

--Anonymous User-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello 93. Thanks for the contribution. I'm making an effort to reply because I don't want you to feel like you're being ganged up on. These quotes do show that Bill was involved in some pretty strange practices. What we really need is a reference for the crucial point you have been determined to make, which is that Bill's spiritualism influenced AA literature. Do you or Mr. Orange have a reference for that? That would be important. Thanks. — DavidMack 21:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Name one idea that could be occult

Quote:

"here are aware that this article is about alcoholics anonymous and not bill wilson's nuttier ideas. Mr anonymous IP guy, name one step that has a relationship to the occult please."

Well it doesn't surprise me that the occult was a source of inspiration. Take a look at the steps. What AA teaches is one needs a relationship with the supernatural to recover.

The Higher Power can be anything want. Certainly beleif in the occult has existed for thousands of years. You can go back to the Eyptians and find such practices. In fact in some peoples mind anything that isn't Christian can be occult.

The AA concept is it can be anything you want her to be, the higher power I mean. You can borrow my higher power until you get one of your own.

What I don't get is the concept of Biases in terms of the Wikapedia.

I mean reading the article and reading the complaints Many of these people { Cheevers, Dick B, or the Orange Papers} would not be a suitable source for a Wikapedia reference.

I mean the Big book itself is a biased account in favor of the program. In fact anything to do with AA could be suspect of bias.

User name.. I am anonymous too.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Quite a stretch. I don't support any of this yet if it were better sourced it would appropriately belong in the Bill Wilson article. Oh, and if you read AA literature its pretty obvious the higher power is the judeo christian god, he hears your prayers, grants you favors, removes defects of character, not exactly Egyptian idol or sorcery stuff. AA literature and Wilson say when they are talking about the higher power they are talking about god. Again, quite a stretch. You would do well to learn a thing or two about Wikipedia. — Mr Christopher 20:01, 30 March 2007

How does one measure bias???

AA encourages the use of a higher power {a relationship with the supernatural}. So it doesn't surprise me that many engaged in the occult.

In fact occult practices have been around for thousands of years. Reading tarot cards, following the stars, voodoo could all be considered occult.

AA states the power can be anything of your understanding. Obviously Bill Wilson chose to pursue his through the use of the Occult. Why keep it out?

So, since this is the case and Bill Wilson chose to pursue this venture why not keep it?

The fact is Bill Wilson was influenced by the occult , it went on for years, many different people have source information.

It seems interesting that sources such as Susan Cheevers and Dick B. would be considered crediable when their own biases are quite clear and the Orange papers not.

So the question is how does one measure bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello 13: Again, thanks for your input. There are good explanations at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Giving "equal validity". We should keep to verifiable facts. One fact is that Bill was interested in the occult, so that should go into the article Bill W., which I'm working on. For the AA article, we are discussing the possibility that Bill's occult practices influenced the 12 steps and traditions. If there is no credible evidence then there is no reason to mention it. If someone researched it and published it as a fact with supporting evidence, we could and should mention it. I agree that it is a piss-off that AA sealed the records on the spook room. Personnally I'm not too worried about it because I took a good look at the 12 steps and they relate closely to the Oxford Group principles. Likewise, the 12 traditions seem like good common sense to me with not much spooky about them.

P.S. If you type "~~~~" at the end of your messages it will sign them with your user name or IP address and date them.

—DavidMack 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that AA sealed the "spook records?" It does seem like a very un-AA thing to do. -- Craigtalbert 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That sentence comes from the notorious Orange Papers site. Orange's reference for that information is as follows:

Ernest Kurtz, Not-God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous, Hazelden Educational Foundation, Center City, MN, 1979, page 136 and pages 416-417, "Closed Sources and Their Status To Scholars".

If anyone would like to check on the source, that would be helpful. FYI I have checked a couple of Orange's references, and they were accurate. It's his spin on them that I find very biased.

— DavidMack 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Wiki Policies

For starters, everyone should familiarize themseleves with a few basic policies found here.

Why the occult should not get more than a single sentence at most

Minority view for starters Read here.

Why the occult should not get any mention at all

This is an encyclopedic definition of A.A. Not Bill W. and spooks, not Dick B. and his self-promotion, not Orange-Papers and their axe. Those of you who feel the reference should be included have been invited to add your research to the Bill W. page. I doubt you'll do that largely because your axe is with A.A. Why? None of us knows. What is known is that in a matter of a few paragraphs A.A. is either Occult or Christian and Bill W. is your target. I don't think anyone should have to be too understanding of your POV if all you seek to do is derail a simple definition of A.A. You obstruct more than you enlighten. Say "Hi!" to Orange while your at it.

--Cre8tif 00:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why probably 90% of the links should be deleted

Here is the policy on external links, note probably 95% of the links in this article conflict with Wiki policy found here.

I still don't see reason why Orange Papers should be removed (other than a lot of AA people don't like it. Can anyone provide me with a solid reason why it shouldn't be listed as a link, at the very least?

Also, those wishing to reference the Orange Papers could look at the rather exstensive referencing in almost every article on that site, and could there fore circumnavigate the "no anonymous researchers" policy in an above board manner.

Lastly, I don't see any reference to Stanton Peeles work in any of the criticism sections. Peele is a widely and highly regarded expert on addiction, and has written extensively on the pitfalls of AA treatment. I can see no reason (apart from pro AA bias) why he is not referenced more in this articles criticism section.

Personally, I would like to see a section on the "anti AA" movement, and maybe an article on the orange papers. Don't have the time or knowledge to do it, but think it could be useful.... 62.6.180.130 14:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Orange Papers is a very good resource for those wanting a critical look at AA. The problem with using them as a source is I believe they fail the reliable category. The author is anonymous. Someone should probably look closely at the reliable source policy. And Stanton Peele's opinion would be good to add but we want to avoid going over board. Finally, a seperate article on the "Anti-AA movement" is a good idea I think. Mr Christopher 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some contributurs have been copying the references from Orange Papers without reading the actual source material. — DavidMack 15:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Closed sources and conspiracy theories

OK, I went to the library last night. Could have stayed at home and watched TV, but this is important. To recap, The Orange papers site says, citing Ernest Kurtz, (1) that Bill W.'s interest in spiritualism influenced his AA work and writing, and (2) that AA has sealed the records on the spook sessions. The evidence is that (1) is not true and that (2) was partially true, at least in the 70s when Kurtz was doing his research. The following are quotes from Ernest Kurtz, Not-God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous, Hazelden Educational Foundation, Center City, MN, 1979:

• "Before the present project, never had any researcher been granted the access to materials that I requested as necessary to this endeavour. Yet, over several meetings I felt not so much screened as welcomed into a sharing of their responsibility. For such trust I am grateful." (Preface, p xi.)

• "The Wilson correspondence is closed under three degrees of restriction. The present research was the first scholarly access to the first two of these degrees." (Closed sources and their status to scholars, p 344.)

• "Some of the more timorous among A.A.'s trustees ... [and Bill] carefully shielded from public scrutiny three areas among the co-founder's many activities: ... Wilson's interest in spiritualism, his experimentation with LSD, and his promotion of the Vitamin B-3 therapy." (p 136) "It is under this sensitivity that the only archive restriction ... was imposed by A.A. on this research, and it is a restriction this book shall respect. An evaluation of this restriction... [appears] in the dissertation from which this book is derived. (Footnote to the first sentence, p 302.) [In other words, for detailed discussion of the restrictions, go read Kurtz's original PhD thesis.]

• "Wilson's main efforts outside A.A. in the final fifteen years of his life were attempts to remove the mental or psychological and physical obstacles that impeded some persons from openness to the spiritual." (p 137)

• "... despite his conviction that he had evidence for the reality of 'the spiritual' and so — in his logic — of the actual existence of a 'higher Power,' Wilson chose not to share, much less to proclaim or to impose, this foundation for faith either with, to, or upon Alcoholics Anonymous." (p 136)

To summarize, AA did not grant access to all their documents, but Kurtz was not too worried about it. Kurtz emphatically stated that Bill W.'s extracurricular activities remained outside AA.

And I have to hand it to Agent Orange and his sensitive nose for a conspiracy. In a book of 300+ pages of a detailed history of AA, he ignores all but the footnotes describing what documents were accessible.

— DavidMack 15:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Observation

I started following this wiki after someone had vandalised the wiki entry describing my place of employment a year ago. I thought at the time I wonder what the A.A. one looks like. Agent Orange and his ilk like to come in here every couple of months and insert there "sourced materials", which then in turn sends everyone into a froth, to which he/they bemoan how we're biast and unreasonable for reminding them that this is an encyclopedic definition A.A. and that:

A. Unsourced, single sourced, original research just really is not a good idea. B. No this is not personal. C. We really mean A. and B.

--Cre8tif 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

External link cleanup

As others have mentioned, the external link section for this article was out of control. I've taken a critical eye to it and have removed many links, with an eye to adhering to WP:EL while also attempting to be bold yet not reckless.

Originally, I was going to give rationale for each link removal - but there ended up being far too many to handle this way. For those interested, I give rationale for the links I removed from the section, 'Unofficial AA Sites on the Internet' below.

I removed a great number of links under the subcategory 'External Links'. My main guideline: Wikipedia is not intended to be a mere directory of links. Most of the links in the 'External links' subsection were links to sites critical of AA. I don't take issue with that, but I've whittled them down, boldly, and kept it to three links which I believe offer the most resources, without suffering from original research. I know that this edit is going to peeve people - may I suggest that rather than adding another link to a site critical of AA you instead find resourced material and work that into the article itself. Or: consider starting a 'Criticisms of AA' article. (Take a look, for example, at this article.)

Seeing an opportunity to upset people on both sides of the issue, I've removed the 'Testimonial' section. I can't honestly think of a good reason for this to be included. Do we really want to link everyone's blog who sobered up 'through AA'? You know, aspirin works wonders for my headaches. Should I write a blog about it and then link it from the Aspirin article? (No offense.)

And finally, I've removed the 'AA alternatives' section. What is this doing in this article? No, seriously. Put it in the main article about alcoholism, or one about recovery. Should we add an 'Alternatives to Christianity' section to that article (try paganism!), or maybe an 'Alternatives to English' section to that article (some people speak French!), etc.

Here are the reasons I've removed specific links from the 'Unofficial Sites...' section:

www.alcoholicsanonymous.org/ The Unofficial Website for AA Related Information There is very little here in terms of additional resources or information not already included in the article.

www.dickb.com/index.shtml (Early AA History) www.dickb-blog.com (articles, audio, resources) These seem to suffer from NOR: the central idea of these sites is that AA began as a Christian organization. Fine...but the central theme seems to be that it was more effective as such, which violates NOR, IMHO.

www.thebigbook.org There is already an official link to the book included.

alcoholism.about.com/ This link is about alcoholism, not AA. Perhaps this link would be better suited in the article about alcoholism? www.aa-francite.org Online group in French. Links to avoid include foreign language links. Perhaps better suited for the French entry on AA?

www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/7372/brainwashed.html An anonymous blogger’s defense against the charge of AA ‘brainwashing.’

www.ballina.net/aa Example of Regional Unofficial Site Is an example necessary?

www.aahistory.com/ Again, little in the way of additional resources, information, etc., that is not available from official sites.

www.aa-uk.org.uk/ How to find AA in the UK, Wales, etc. Is including separate links on how to find AA meetings in every region of the globe necessary? This information can be found from the official main AA site.

aajustfortoday.org A daily alcoholism podcast about personal rehabilitation. Are we supposed to start linking every podcast available on AA, alcoholism, etc.?

www.recoveryrealm.com/
www.pluginthejug.com/
stayingcyber.org/
Online AA meetings. I suppose these could be considered good additional resources, BUT there are also numerous online AA meetings, so the question becomes is there anything about these that makes them unique resources. I’m proposing that we cut the links to individual online AA meetings and keep the link to www.aa-intergroup.org/index.html instead. It’s a list of the numerous meetings available online.

Snackycakes 17:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful work and good contribution to the quality of this article. — DavidMack 22:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! Mr Christopher 14:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It will take an effort on all our part to keep the "see also" and other sections from becoming a useless link farm again. At this point I think less is more, and the few links should be very good ones (as we see now) Mr Christopher 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

All that is left at the moment is the official AA site. That cannot be useful. I'm probably going to put a link in to stanton peele's site. I can't see any reason why this should not happen 82.19.66.37 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting study, if someone wanted to integrate it

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/may23/12step.html -- 128.138.212.206 08:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. — DavidMack 15:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

online aa recovery

After reading it about a dozen times to make sure I wasn't overlooking anything, I just deleted this whole section that said virtually nothing (except a plug for a private website). AA has a website, this is noted in the article already. AA members are anonymous, already noted, AA has traditions, that too had been noted. I cannot see dedicating an entire section of the article to the fact that AA has a web site, and they are anonymous, and they have tradititions, etc. And I think people have enought brain matter to know not every single 12 step web site in the entire universe is the offical AA one and we already link to the official one. Mr Christopher 22:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Section on debate on AA's effectiveness

As you can see, I have put a big effort into creating a referenced and neutral section. I had hoped the section would resolve the continuing edit war. Changes were made to the section by 86.1.101.146 based on what s/he saw as logical or substantiated. My message to 86.1.101.146 is first, the negative personal anecdote was from a published book; if you don't like it, please feel free to dig up a negative anecdote from what you consider a reliable source. It is important to maintain neutrality. Secondly, I added a referene to back up the section you deleted -- next time please add a reference needed tag instead of just erasing. 86.1.101.146, please remember that this is a balanced, unbiased, encyclopedia. — DavidMack 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the Rebecca Fransway quote but have replaced it now respecting your point about neutrality. Can you find a less extreme quote though? 'Rape' and 'Sexual abuse' obviously mean something different to Rebecca than they mean to me - I think those two terms can only be applied where consent is withheld (or the victim is a minor), being taken advantage of by a sponsor is hardly rape! Inappropriate certainly, but rape? Was the guy ever charged?! I also still stand by my point that her book is biased and motivated by financial gain.

The last paragraph in the George Vaillant section didn't make sense, the first sentence referred to a different argument that's my reason for changing it. I also think that testimonials should be placed at the end of the main article.

Ball's in your court.

[86.1.101.146] 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, in my opinion (which I have based on attending many hundreds of meetings and working with sponsor etc) the article should reflect the genuine AA experience, which I think is that of the recovered Alcoholic. Perhaps we should be wary of allowing the article to become too negatively skewed by the 'Agent Orange' types, who shout loudly yet don't represent the reality of AA.

Thanks

[86.1.101.146] 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article should NOT reflect the AA experience, regardless of how many meetings you have attended or how many inventories you're written. This is not an AA brochure and agent orange types are just as welcome as you to contribute to the article. "Negative" information needs to be well cited/sourced/and be noteworthy.

DavidMack - I think the AA's effectiveness serves no real purpose. For every article that says AA helps people to get sober you can find one that says AA is useless or harmful (and both would be right). So I think a well written criticism section would be good but I don't see how the AAs effectivess serves the reader very well since it is purely subjective and even many of not most of the studies are loaded including Valliant. In fact Valliant himself pointed out that AA style treatment didn't seem to do one bit of good in one of his "studies". Your efforts to improve this baby are noted and appreciated. I wish I had more time. I'm in favor of deleting the "AA's effectiveness" section. Mr Christopher 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Mr Christopher I was just trying to help, you clearly have an strong idea of what my intentions are - I didn't mention inventories - but you're wrong. I actually don't want an 'AA brochure', I think AA's 'attraction rather than promotion' attitude is right. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia, a place where people can go to find out accurate information about a particular subject. How would you expect the facts of an organisation like AA to be conveyed, except from people who know what it is? Because of the nature of AA, the most reliable source of information about it is from people who have quietly spent many years as a member - unless you think it really is a cult?! Agent Orange's experience (and I'm speculating) was likely he/she went to a few meetings didn't/couldn't get it or had a bad experience and now has spent thousands of hours ranting about how terrible the cult of AA is - do you think his opinion is accurate? I suspect his motivations are other than informing the world (he/she must be dedicating their life to writing that stuff - it's quiet sad). I wonder if an article explaining the function of the medical profession would be accurate if written by someone who's doctor raped them? As I said previously, I don't think the encyclopedia will be well served in accuracy by including the extreme views of the Agent Orange minority - this is an article, not a debate, we are all effectively editors and perhaps should think like editors.

I also don't think the 'AAs effectiveness' section should be there, however my take on David Mack's reasons for including it are to attract debate away from the main 'factual' body of the article - which seems quiet sensible to me, for example, if you look back at the history, someone deleted the whole article and replaced it with 'AA is a kooky, kooky cult', which is quiet funny! I can see why the founder recently washed his hands of Wikipedia and said it doesn't work anymore!

[86.1.101.146] 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The notion that AA members can understand and talk about AA, or understand what it is simply nonsense. Like I said, this is not an AA brochure and people like agent oragne are not a minority, the overwhelming majority of people who go to aa reject it, and they have good reasons for doing so. Mr Christopher 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful debate, folks. I agree that the negative example I selected is too extreme and not representative -- just when I've taken the book back to the library! I'll find another example. I believe a balanced section on effectiveness is essential because supporters and detractors both have a point. We need views from the insiders and from objective outsiders. And part of Wikipedia's mission is to present information from reliable sources. — DavidMack 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous confessions?

What next we start quoting anonymous former AA members who hate AA? Good lord this is not an aa brochure, we need to avoid quoting anonymous sources and these confessions and such. Mr Christopher 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Christopher, I strongly disagree. These are not anonymous confessions, they are referenced excerpts from authoritative sources, including academic articles and national news magazines. They give insight into the inner workings of AA, which is valuable information in an encyclopedic piece. There should certainly be some cases that illustrate that AA does not work, which I will dig up since I put one in that was very severe and unrepresentative. Would you please consider putting the erased section back? — DavidMack 15:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

DavidMack, with all due respect let's chat on the subject. So what do we do when we have other well sourced anonymous people who have all sorts of nasty things to say about their AA experience? "Bob M credits AA with saving his life, Susie L says AA ruined her life" This is my point, I cannot see where it serves any purpose. And these emotional confessions smacks of trying to sell something to readers. I mean if people want to read emotional confessions about their AA exprience wouldn't it seem more appropriate to link to the AA site or something than put it all here? It's not worth arguing over, but if we put the happy AA confessions in this article then we'd better plan to quote people who cannot stand AA (to show the whole inner workings of AA because most people cannot stand AA). This is exactly what I think the article needs to stay away from. I mean in the christianity section do we have these heartfelt confessions where people tell how christ has saved them and/or quotes of people who said they tried christianity and found it unhelpful? Tell me your thoughts. Mr Christopher 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For this controversial subject, my intent was to present authoritative information that would establish that AA sometimes helps and sometimes hinders. I was trying to achieve a flow to the article by starting with these referenced personal statements, then proceeding to the larger studies. I did put in a statement from someone who had experienced harm from AA, but someone removed that at one point. The statements may be 'heartfelt', as you say, but the psychological fact is that some perceived that AA was helpful and some otherwise. If I dig up a more appropriate negative personal statement, would you go along with this section? (Just have to get that frikken book back from the library.) Bear in mind that you removed fully referenced, relevant information placed there in good faith. — DavidMack 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well testimonials is what AA and other step programs are about. It was a technique borrowed from its forerunner the Oxford Group as a means of inducting others to Join. Ken Ragge outlines this in his book.

Rebecca Farnsway addressed the problem of predators in the rooms. On the AA deprogramming site here was an article from the Gaurdian Newspaper that addressed this issue. From what I remember it was from a notice cirucluated in AA.

It is interesting that Farnsway comments would be deleted.

I remember the case of the Roman Catholic Church and how it dealt with its predators. The Subject was never up for discussion and predator moved from Church to Church. It would make sense that there would be predators in the room given the nature of drug and alcohol abusers make up a large percentage of violent crime. However, you have chosen to eliminate the comment.

{anonymous author} — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Alcoholics anonymous loaded language

In your text you state it is a program that offers suggestion yet the language in the texts of books used in AA contains a lot "musts" and "obeys" in order to obtain a sober lifestlye. Look at the opening preamble . In otherwords in the program of suggestions strict adhearance to its doctrines must be followed and obeyed to obtain the sober life stlye promised.

That only those incapable of self honesty will not get the simple program. Hence the person's character is queston and not the doctrine of the program.

Also offered up by Charolette Kasl is the fact that in her examination of AA and alnon literature in here paper Zen Reovery and Feminism addresses the fact there is not an example of a fully recovered person: she states " a search of approved addiction literature of A.A. and Al-Anon provided me with no definition of a healthy, mature,” recovered” person. One is always an addict, dependent on groups. and always at the brink of relapse if he or she doesn’t follow certain directives and trust external authority. It is heresy to say I am recovered, I don’t need a group. Personal power, competence, self-reliance, intellect, and happiness are also suspect. Most of all there is no room for questioning — the bedrock of expanding one’s mind and developing a set of internalized values that provide an inner sanctuary of personal strength."

Kasl in her book "many paths one journey " discusse how the program is held up to be perfect and the fact there is no questioning or discussing its doctrines. Now to me that sounds more like a cult or a specific religion.

In fact it was Bill Wilson that stated once an alcoholic always an alcoholic, another fact in the rooms you will hear there are "no graduates' and only an alcoholic can understand an alcoholic.

{anonymous author} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Interesting. Can you put all of this in clear, neutral language, with references? This is a public encyclopedia. — DavidMack 01:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Since sexual harrasement has come up for discussion

Check this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368218/site/newsweek/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

It hadn't come up for discussion until you mentioned it. Got a personal experience?

AA and sexual harrasement

A confidential report was leaked to the London Guardian newspaper July 2000. (Source: AAdeprogramming.org; click "Non-Organizational Resources" in "AA deprogramming".) Article "Drink advice service confronts sex abuse: AA acts on rising reports of attacks by volunteers." Gerard Seenan. Guardian. Wednesday July 5, 2000. Quote:

Vulnerable alcoholics seeking help for their addiction are being subjected to sexual and other abuse at the hands of long-serving volunteers from the world's largest alcohol support group...

An internal memorandum circulated to every Alcoholics Anonymous group in the country reveals that volunteer members are increasingly being investigated by police forces examining allegations of sexual abuse....

A spokeswoman for AA yesterday confirmed the leaked document was genuine, but refused to comment further.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

The language of AA . A program of suggestion ????

Quote:

"Note, however, that AA’s techniques may be subtle. “There aren’t any ‘musts’ in this program,” newcomers are told, “but there are a lot of ‘you betters.’” A major piece of AA literature, though, puts the matter more directly. Although the program is supposedly “voluntary” and the Step mere “suggestions,” AA cofounder Bill Wilson wrote that, “unless each AA member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps of recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant . . . We must obey certain principles or we die.”[44] Heavy stuff. Obey AA or die from drinking. The principles that must be obeyed, of course, are the invulnerable truths of Alcoholics Anonymous."

from the web page: http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/criminal.justice/aacult01.htm

Note the use of the word obey. If you don't obey you die!

How it works: http://www.carburettor.co.nz/AA_NZ_Resource/howitworks.htm

So those who don't get with the program are henced described as "unfortunates", who are born that way.

In how it works it is quite clear one must give themselves "completely " to program for it to work and those who don't , well then their self -honesty is drawn into question. The impression I was left with is the program is perfect and the fault lies with the people who fail to get it.

it goes on to state: "Remember that we deal with alcohol- cunning, baffling, powerful! Without help it is too much for us. But there is One who has all power- that one is God. May you find Him Now!

So we have a drug called alcohol that has devil like characteristics of being cunning , powerful and baffling and the solution to ending the drinking is to find God {note in male form and singular}.

The idea of complete surrender is reinforced as it is made clear " half measures" are to no avail.

Now is that a program of suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I think AA and the twelve-step programme contains only suggestions. My evidence? Well, if you don't like what is suggested, then leave! Don't come back. Find some other form of treatment for your alcoholism (seriously, you should). Don't attend AA meetings, stop reading AA literature, stop going on message boards to talk about AA, in short - STOP thinking about AA! It seems to me that the only people that have been brainwashed are the anti AA ranters! Get on with your lives and forget about AA, or perhaps you can't?

Wow! the above comments about Anti AA ranters... Who wrote that ,...I don't see a signature. It is certainly explosive and emotionally opinionated and not based on facts or reasoning.

{signed Freddy 2 shoes}

Sexual harassment in bars

Much evidence has been produced (citations freely available) to suggest that men have been approaching women in bars, with the sole intention of obtaining sex. These bars, which are unregulated and self-supporting through the contributions of those in attendance, are frequented by predatory, 'old-timers' - men who have been hanging around in these places and plying unsuspecting and vulnerable women with alcohol for many years. Many of these vulnerable women going to bars are lonely and seeking companionship, many are suffering from low self-esteem, and some are alcoholics. It's important for people to realise that this kind of abuse has been going on for years and it beggars belief that nothing has been done to protect these women. Some so-called liberals have argued that adults have free-will and that people who experience harassment of this kind should confront the abuser in front of the rest of the drunks or else find another bar to frequent. That of course is insane, these places are evil and all should be closed down.

It's also been argued that other environments in our society are infected with the same kind of problems and behaviours. Examples include: night-clubs, gyms, parks, restaurants, libraries and even our places of work. This harassment is an outrage and must be stopped by closing down these places too. — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Miles (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I see your point. To translate it into wiki terms, AA groups are open to all comers and have all the benefits and risks of any community: mutual support and abuse are both possible. — DavidMack 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Also a wider point about nihlism.

David Mack...the many of us who frequent the Wiki are simple folk who do not have the intellectual capablities of those of you who edit. Your command of the english language and your abilty to be fair and present both sides of the picture are appreciated.

(Thank you. DavidMack 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

However, Christopher's reasoning for eliminatiing the testimonial of Rebecca Farnsworth who went on to wrtie and publish a book about the abuse she experienced in AA and at the same time allow the favorable comments to reamin is suspect.

If you read the first chapter of Ken Ragges book and his conclusion of how and why many in the programs do not see the deception of their practices not honest, but are so into "carrying the message" regardless of the cost to the people they practice it on, Your including the testimonial section was important.

http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_5.jsp

The conclusion: "Evidently, if people don't know that the bearer of yesterday's message is drinking himself to death today, it doesn't matter. The messenger can do God's work, bring others under God-control and “give to others that which has been so freely given.” This is what the early AA members where doing with the radio interview cited at the beginning of this chapter. There was no question of honesty. There were doing what God told them to do. And they were afraid not to. If they didn't have faith in (be obedient to) God and work to bring others into the Program, they would be in serious danger of drinking. To avoid that danger, individual Alcoholics Anonymous members, and AA as a whole, have been very obedient ever since."

this ties into observations made by the Great Pschiatrist Eric Berne and his Game theory , Transactional Analysis.

"The game is played from the Victim role as "see how bad I've been; see if you can stop me." The purpose is self-punishment and the garnering of negative (persecution) strokes and positive ones of forgiveness, and the vindication of an "I'm not OK" existential position. The game often becomes elaborated into a self-destructive life script, especially if the parents were also chemically dependent.

Progams designed to arrest the symptoms, rather than cure the underlying cause, such as 12 step groups, merely allow the addict to continue to play the game from the Resucer Postion, insetead of as a Victime. Cases have been reported of chapters of AA, the members of whiich returned to drinking when they ran out of new alcholics to rescue, that being the only way in which they could continue to play the game."

This goes a long way to explain the behavior of the those people who embrace the AA doctrine and their need to carry the message. {Freddy 2 shoes}

Well, that's not what Mr Christopher was arguing, so you've got the wrong end of the stick. His point was that if you include positive testimonials, for balance you should include negative ones too. He however, got the wrong end of the stick too, he didn't realise that the testimonial from Rebecca Farnsworth's book WAS negative. And ridiculous, in my opinion, how can you be abused in AA! It's not an orphanage, people are adults and free to leave at any time - which was my point in starting this section before it was hijacked by another anti-AA rant.

As I said, a wider point about nihlism. There's conspiracy everywhere if you look hard enough.

90 meetings in 90 days came of the $$$$ treatment rehab industry

David Mack...the 90 meetings in 90 days is from the multi million dollar treatment industry and not AA.

It has been adopted and heard in many AA meetings, however it was never part of the original program.

It implies that the Treatment industry does not work. http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing.html

Treatment doesn't work. http://www.baldwinresearch.com/treatmentdoesnt2004.cfm

Two more anti-AA rant sites. What is the attraction of these websites? Obviously it's easier to point the finger at AA than look at yourself, but surely people suffering from alcoholism would be better off spending their time looking for recovery (if not in AA then elsewhere) than spending hundreds of hours writing and looking at this stuff.

If it doesn't work it doesn't work. "Two more Anti AA sites. " It would be nice to see a signature posted under those emotional rants. ( signed Freddy 2 shoes.)

The fact is much of what is being promoted in AA is not from the original program, it comes from the treatment industry.

Your suggesting that Mister Christopher didn't know that the VERY BRIEF description of the sexual abuse R. Fransway endured as a result of engaging in 12 step meetings was Critical?

Hard to believe!! {signed Freddy 2 shoes}

I would like to put the testimonials back in, but with a more representative, less extreme 'negative experience' ... when i get the Fransway book back from the library. — DavidMack 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me David. Testimonials are a major part of the recruitment for newcomers to meetings, so it is good to hear both sides pro and against. {signed Child of the Universe May 14, 3.p.m}

More on The abuse suffered in AA , step programs

Well if you want to explore the abuse issues Stanton Peele has a page regarding Rebecca Fransway.

http://www.peele.net/lib/twelve.html < {signed Freddy 2 shoes}

Yes I agree with Stanton Peele when he talks about the "incredible bravery of Rebecca Fransway". I don't find it credible either.

It seems surprising to me that there are no Police reports or newspaper reports for Stanton to reference, particularly the story of the wheelchair lady's rape, or the other story of: "Another woman, who repeatedly attempted to gain support in dealing with her rape by AA members". AA members? So it was a gang-rape? Or did she go back after the first rape for more?

I've never heard of such a thing - not even on my recent trip to the center of the Earth, or whilst holidaying with my oldest friend Ghandi!

Mr Miles 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Miles what gives you the idea it is a lie to sell a book? How do you draw that conclusion? You Must know Rebecca Fransway personally! Do you?

I have reviewed The Guardian on the Sex Issues in AA and here comes the problem ! Quote From the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,339726,00.html "It is impossible to quantify the allegations since AA is committed to anonymity and will not be drawn on any aspect of its work. But the document makes it clear the group's general service board has known of the problem for some time and feels it must be tackled at a national level." {Signed Child of the Universe May 14, 2000}

I do think it would be a worthwhile discussion to determine the how and the why of the anonomous principals.

It appears in Ken Ragges book

Sorry DavidMack, I appreciate your efforts but I would like to make clear my vote against adding content from Fransway's book. It's unsubstantiated and I agree with Mr Christopher that testimonials are inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia

Mr Miles 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Miles , for every reported rape case there are numbers that go unreported. The shame and humilation keep the victim from speaking.

You appear to treat Rebecca Fransway story lightly. However , if you check the links above you will find plenty of news stories on AA and sexual harrasement/rape. Given the nature of the rooms and the principal of anonominity to protect the organization, it is understandable there would be no police reports.

[unsigned IP address:207.194.108.93]

Yes, shame and humiliation do keep rape victims from reporting the crime, but then do those victims, who are afraid to speak with the Police, normally tell their story instead an author who publishes it for a profit?

I treat Fransway's book with the gravitas it deserves, it's a shame she hasn't compassion enough for real rape victims to refrain from inventing stories to further her money-making schemes.

I believe Stanton Peele's services come at a price too - I wonder if that has any connection with his speaking out so strongly against AA's free treatment?

Mr Miles 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on recent discussion

• Remember to discuss improvements to the article, not AA itself.
• Please sign your posts by typing four tildes: "~~~~". (What if someone else signed 'Freddy 2 shoes'?)
• You can indent a paragraph by starting it with ":" or further with "::"
• Article needs to clarify, with references:
  • if AA presents a 'compulsory' or 'suggested' program.
  • if AA sees itself as the only way (note that things have changed since the early days when AA was pretty much the only hope for many alcoholics.)
  • if AA sees its program as open for discussion, and whether this harmful narrow-mindedness or a life-saver.
  • If AA blames the alcoholic when the program doesn't work.
  • if the AA program helps or hinders (a lot of info on that is in already)

— DavidMack 00:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll have a go at answering your points:

• • if AA presents a 'compulsory' or 'suggested' program.

From pg 164 of the book Alcoholics Anonymous: "Our book is meant to be suggestive only."

And from the official website (www.alcoholics-anonymous.org) "Sobriety is maintained through sharing experience, strength and hope at group meetings and through the suggested Twelve Steps for recovery from alcoholism"

• • if AA sees itself as the only way

Again, from the official website "The Fellowship has adopted a policy of cooperation but not affiliation with other organizations concerned with the problem of alcoholism. We have no opinion on issues outside A.A."

• • if AA sees its program as open for discussion, and whether this harmful narrow-mindedness or a life-saver.

The website states that members "share experience as it relates to their alcoholism and their recovery", which means any methods a member has found useful to stay sober are discussed. But anyway, AA makes no demand on it's members other than "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking" (Tradition 3, pg 562 of the book Alcoholics Anonymous), which means a member can hold any opinion or belief and not be kicked out as long as he/she wants to stop drinking. Hard to imagine a more liberal attitude - well at least I can't think of one which also maintains the purpose of helping people to stop alcoholic drinking.

Additionally, see my quote at the end of this.

• • If AA blames the alcoholic when the program doesn't work.

Well, anyone who has read the AA literature (or gone through the whole lot with a highlighter pen like the crazy Agent O!), knows the 'how it works' section of the book Alcoholics Anonymous (pg 58). Which states (the relevant bits): "Those who do not recover are... ...constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves... ...They are not at fault." Personally, I think that whole bit is slightly confusing and sounds patronizing, I believe Bill Wilson wrote the whole book in 9 months and would probably have written a few things differently, I'm also sure he wasn't perfect (are any of us?!)

• • if the AA program helps or hinders

Isn't the answer to this (statistically at least) already suggested on the Wiki article already by referencing Project MATCH, the Moos and Veterans studies? On an individual level, if it works great, if not try something else, no problem as AA doesn't "follow up or try to control its members" (from the offical website).

Finally, I think this point from AAs leaflet 'Information on AA' is quiet relevant to your third question, but also perhaps illuminates some of the motivations behind the anti-AA phenomena:

"A renowned psychiatrist, who served as a nonalcoholic trustee of the A.A. General Service Board, made the following statement: “Singleness of purpose is essential to the effective treatment of alcoholism. The reason for such exaggerated focus is to overcome denial. The denial associated with alcoholism is cunning, baffling, and powerful and affects the patient, helper, and the community. Unless alcoholism is kept relentlessly in the foreground, other issues will usurp everybody’s attention.””

That's me done.

Mr Miles (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry DavidMack, I didn't notice you had pointed out that "a lot of info on that is in already" on the last point when I wrote that response.

Mr Miles (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Mr Miles. OK, I'll take yours and everyone else's advice and not push the personal testimonials any further. I will continue to add material based on discussions, if you haven't already. I seem to be hooked on this — DavidMack 21:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How Anonymity came to be

David Mack further exploration could be undertaken regarding the idea of anonymous and the purpose it served.

http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_14.jsp

"The Oxford Group, through the Firestone publicity, presented itself as having a “program” explicitly for drunks in addition to sinners in general. The meeting left behind at T. Henry Williams' in 1933 was an Oxford Group meeting and was to stay that way for several more years."

http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_24.jsp "While these events had their effects on the development of Alcoholics Anonymous, probably none affected their doctrine so greatly as the continued public drunkenness of the Firestone heir converted to God-control. One of Oxford Group's biggest public relations coups became, if not for Oxford Group as a whole, certainly an embarrassment to their contingent of ex-drunks.

To prevent this embarrassing situation from happening again, AA's public relations were built upon the “spiritual principle” of “anonymity.” While “God” had told the Oxford Group it was everyone's duty to give public testimony, God seems to have told the early AA's, very pragmatically, that if people were one night swayed by testimony on the radio, and the next heard how the speaker had gotten drunk, it would hurt His program.

The idea of “anonymity at the media level” springs from Wilson's vision of a chain of alcoholics. AA literature tells of how the founder of AA in Boston drank himself to death but during periods on the wagon managed to carry the message to others. As they tell it,"

Sorry but I don't have tilda's signed " child of the universe15 May 2007 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk)

My tilde is left of the "1" key. — DavidMack 01:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why a section is needed for AA in popular culture.

It is pointless . { signed : friend of the wiki} — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk)

I'm mad at 93

Message to 207.194.108.93
93, you added a reference to a Reader's Digest article that was basically a personal rant critical of AA. BUT, in that same issue of RD was a scientifically-based article that stated that AA was just as effective as cognitive behavioral therapy. Why did you only put in the negative article? Do you know how much work we're trying to do to get this article encyclopedia-neutral???
— DavidMack 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The back and forth on the talk page with 207.194.108.93 and 207.232.97.13 is getting ridiculous. I think it might be worth it to see some intervention from an admin. -- Craigtalbert 04:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not just the back and forth on the talk page, these two, 207.232.97.13 and 207.194.108.93, are constantly adding unreferenced comments and links to other treatment programs. I think the odd mistake is acceptable, but this persistent abuse of the rules is effectively vandalism. Can admin do anything though? Mr Miles 22:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Swedish study twelve steps vs alternative on college students

http://newrecovery.blogspot.com/2007/03/brief-skills-training-is-effective-to.html

"Thursday, March 01, 2007 Brief skills training is effective to curb college drinking A study in Swedish colleges, where over-use of alcohol is widespread, showed that a Brief Skills Training Program was effective in reducing alcohol consumption over a two-year period.

Students were randomly assigned to a brief skills training program (BSTP) with interactive lectures and discussions, a twelve-step–influenced (TSI) program with didactic lectures by therapists trained in the 12-step approach, and a control group. More than three quarters of the students were rated "high risk" on an alcohol consumption score.

At follow-up two years later, the high-risk students who had received the BSTP program showed significantly better outcomes than high-risk students who had undergone TSI. The TSI students did no better than the control group.

The study results are in the March issue of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. Abstract."

P.S. I didn't wait for you to post it, I have already done so. I don't want to leave it here unposted and cry foul when Mr. Miles or others of you fail to post it for me.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.108.93 (talk)

Interesting, this piece will be a welcome addition to the Wiki article on Alcoholism.

Mr Miles 22:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted reversion

User 86.1.101.146, thank you for reverting what you saw as vandalism. However, those changes were intended as improvements to the article. I removed the Saturday Evening Post articles and put them as references to the appropriate point in the text. I removed the title "AA literature" because the further reading section should include all types of books, not just "AA literature". I included some books critical of AA to provide a balanced list. — DavidMack 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AA in popular culture

I just did a wiki on the Catholic Church, I did note that the recent sexual abuse cases have been discussed however what was lacking was the Catholic Church in popular culture.

For example The Catholic Church in movies and entetainment:

• There is Sally Field star of The Flying Nun
• There is the Exorcist (1973)
• The Exorcism of Emily Rose
• Rosemary's Baby
• 1959 A Nuns Story
• The Omen....and the list goes on

Why were these not added to the wiki?
What is the point of AA in popular culture????
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2007

There's a debate about "In popular culture" articles. Some people make a hobby of putting in a ton of tiny references, mainly for fun. I believe "in popular culture" sections are only helpful if they improve understanding of the subject and it's impact. — DavidMack 17:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean in order to understand AA , I have to watch an episode of Desperate Housewive.

Why don't we reduce the number of Popular Culture references? There are a lot. Guess the cull might start with the less popular shows/films/books.Mr Miles 22:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I found this Wikipedia:Handling trivia a very cogent piece that applies here. The references that are purely coincidental to AA should be removed. Debatably, the references where a character attends AA, but not central to the story should go ( we might as well list on the Pepsi page, all movies depicting a character drinking Pepsi). If one likes Pop Culture sections at all, a case can be built for the satire/commentary ones (i.e. South Park), or the movie Clean & Sober, where alcoholism/recover/etc. is a key part of the story.Cander0000 10:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Would anybody be opposed to my adding Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace to the Pop Culture section? One of the main characters is in AA and the entire novel is about addiction. It's over 1000 pages and I'll bet a good 200-300 pages (or more) are devoted to AA. Tudwell 04:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That whole section should be removed. There's no way to establish the notability of the various shows it's been mentioned on. If it's so subjective, there's no point in including it. -- Craigtalbert 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Editing and Removing Texts on Wiki due to POV

Okay Here goes what 86.1.101.146 has been removing:

• 22:31, 14 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Alcoholics Anonymous (→Removed Readers Digest article link, this little-known journalist's personal opinion on AA is not 'popular culture')

Check the Wiki on the Journalist J. Timothy Hunt

If not in popular culture why place it elsewhere? See Canada Readers Digest publishes "12 Steps to Nowhere" If not popular culture then what is it???? Why not inserted elsewhere?????

• 22:20, 15 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Alcoholics Anonymous (→Removed 'Swedish' paragraph, this is an article about AA, the link added by user 93 connected to a website called 'New Recovery' unrelated to this articles subject)

How arrogant!!! The Swedish Subject Removed. Doesn't matter it links to the real story....Why again removed???? Why not put elsewhere???

Thank you David K for including Ken Ragge Book and Rebecca Fransway.

However I think Charolette Kasl(once a member of AA) books and papers be included Many Paths One journey and of course her excellent paper on zen , recovery and feminism.

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2007

207.232.97.13: Yes, it's frustrating when people erase stuff without discussion. I believe we should include articles if they have something helpful to add to the subject. That means, if you find a link to a Reader's Digest article, go to the library and read it, like I did, and decide if it's of any value. If we just add links to articles we haven't read we get a link farm. My opinion of this particular article was that you can tell he doesn't like AA, but he doesn't really explain why, so it's not much help for an encyclopedia. I also believe it's not a good entry for AA in popular culture because it's a piece of journalism, not entertainment. Just my opinion.

The Swedish study is not directly AA, but it could be a good example to show that AA is not the only way. The only problem I have is, I've never heard of that alternative treatment, so is it of any help to this article? I'll read the Zen book and try to get it in. But give me a few days, this isn't my job, just an obsession.

— DavidMack 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not every library carries readers digest. I was able to download and read the article online. His point is he like 50% of the people out there quit on his own, he did not face jails , institutions and death . Jails , institions and death are a favorite line in the program.

The Swedish study dealt with high risk drinkers hence the 12 steps were used to deal with the drinking. They didn't deal with other drug uses. It is an important study.

The Swedish study compared 12 steps with something called "brief skills training program" (BSTP). I don't know what BSTP is or how it applies to the AA article. — DavidMack 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

== biased sources: Dr. Valiant a distortion of facts Bias could also be applied to Cheevers quotes.

I know Orange is not considered here as the best source , however, I have used his research on Valiant to further my own knowledge and read the various books I could get My hands On.

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant

Now ignoring Orange's opinions and looking at the data he has sourced out.

The tables clearly show that there is only a 5% success rate by those involved in the program. 95% resumed drinking again.

Orange is very good at picking out tables that support his arguments. There are dozens of tables in that book from various studies. For the overall view you have to read Vaillant's text (like I did). 5% is not his final conclusion, just one study he included. — DavidMack 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So the question is raised why does Valiant support a program that doesn't produce the results. Orange Points out that Valiant was a member of the Oxford group. A group that supported God Control.

A review of the Valiant Study should state that even though his studies showed a 5 % success rate Valiant as a non drinking member of AA continued to support Alcoholics Anonymous. Lets us follow a course of logic.

David you have eliminated the Timothy J. Hunts article the 12 steps to nowhere in the Readers Digest Article on the basis of personal bias.

I didn't erase that one. — DavidMack 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the same logic could be Applied to the Valiant study as presented by the Wiki. The man was a strong supporter of AA, given that reasoning his personal bias influenced his opinions on the subject of AA attendance. Obviously his study showed a 5% success rate.

—Vaillant was an experienced researcher who claimed AA worked some of the time (see article). You better read that book, buddy; agent orange only writes about the parts he likes. — DavidMack 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now personal Biase in Regards to Cheevers and her opinion of Bill W.

It appears Orange has sourced Cheevers and this should be checked out:

"Note that in November of 2004, Susan Cheever was elected to the Board of Directors of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency -- the NCADD -- the A.A. front group founded by "Mrs." Marty Mann to promote Alcoholics Anonymous.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.108.93 (talk)
— When you make an entry, please paste in this at the end: — ~~~~, then we know who's talking.

This article has used Cheever as a source of historical fact, like when Wilson got married etc., but not as an argument as to whether AA works or not.

93, I'll make you and 13 deal. You give me the sources you think are important, and I will look them up. If they're useful, let's put'em in. — DavidMack 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

93 PLEASE! Sorry for shouting. 93 could you please take that link to More Revealed The library away? It's not a book, it's a list of books and two of those books are already listed as further reading. Please don't put books up unless you have taken a look at them and you figure they're worth listing. I'm working with you here. Could you please take it off??? — DavidMack 21:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already removed that more revealed link. This is the third time I've had to do it as 207.194.108.93 has tried to slip into other sections before. Actually one time it was 207.232.97.13 that put it in, wonder if we're dealing with Superman and Clark Kent here?! Anyway, that link breaks Wiki's rule 3 under 'Links to be Avoided', which is "Links mainly intended to promote a website.", and many of the other rules too. Let's hope we don't see it appearing again somewhere else (under the logo or something!). Mr Miles 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Further editing

Any overall ideas about how we can make this article better? It's already had a peer review, I don't think all of the suggestions from that were implemented (or they have since been lost). Have a look.

It seems generally over-long to me, some points are over labored too, for example the piece about Bill and Ebby's conversion, is huge, there is a reference to the history book 'Comes of Age' in further reading. I would propose condensing that part at least.

Any thoughts?

Mr Miles 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this article was originally written by AA adherents, and it still carries a tone of the legendary, miraculous beginning of AA. It needs some tightening up to make it encyclopedic. And yes, I agree that the conversion passage is too long. — DavidMack 15:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, someone is editing that section, so I will leave it for now. Mr Miles 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Vaillant , Zen etc

Addiction Information: http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/94/1/Zen-Feminism-and-Recovery/Page1.html

http://www.counselormagazine.com/content/view/152/63/

Kasl had spent a number of years in AA , before leaving.

Her book Many Paths One Journey addresses a number of issues, one being the program is held up a perfect and the individual is at at fault.

Ken Ragge From his Book More Revealed

Vaillant wrote of his project in his book, “The Natural History of Alcoholism,”

“It seemed perfectly clear...by turning to recovering alcoholics [AA members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients...into the treatment system of AA, I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.

But then came the rub. [We] tried to prove our efficacy. ...

Stanton Peele, an investigator independent of Vaillant's study, after examining some of Vaillant's unpublished data found,

“Of those who quit drinking on their own, none of the twenty-one men followed up since the end of the study were abusing alcohol. ...Relapse was more common for the AA group: 81 percent of those who quit on their own either had abstained for ten or more years or drank infrequently, compared with the 32 percent of those who relied on AA who fall in these categories.”64 Footnote: 64. Peele (1989):194 Peele S, The Diseasing of America: Addiction Treatment Out of Control Lexington, Mass.:Lexington Books, 1989

ON Vaillant:

One possibility is that George Vaillant is “God-controlled.” He gives indications that this may be so. In attempting to explain the division between those (like himself) who believe that AA works and those who don't, he offers, “[F]or AA to work, one must be a believer.”66

Footnote: 66. Vaillant (1983a):298 Vaillant GE, 1983a. The Natural History of Alcoholism. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1983

“Clinicians and relatives alike need to take the first ‘step’ of Al-Anon seriously: they must admit their own ‘powerlessness over alcohol.’”67*

Footnote: 67. Vaillant (1983a):303 Vaillant GE, 1983a. The Natural History of Alcoholism. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1983

Sooner or later, and preferably sooner, the alcoholic should be induced to attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous.”68 Footnote 68. Vaillant (1983b) Vaillant GE, 1983b. Can Alcoholics Go Back to “Social” Drinking?. Harvard Medical School Health Letter Oct(1983):3-5

Another Point in The Book:

One study of many which indicate how AA works in hospitalized patients brings to mind “Oxfordizing” and the five C's. In a Texas hospital69 35 men of various lengths of hospitalization in an AA-based program underwent psychological testing. It was found that the longer a patient was in the program the higher he scored on responses indicating defeat, guilt and fear. Perhaps most important, as the patients became more indoctrinated in AA, their self-concept became progressively more negative than when they first sought help for their drinking problems. As the Oxford Group before them, Alcoholics Anonymous uses guilt to bring about conversion to membership. Alcoholics Anonymous has the added benefit of manipulation through fear. With these tools at its disposal, indoctrination

Footnote:69. White and Porter (1966) White FW and Porter TL, Self Concept Reports among Hospitalized Alcoholics during Early Periods of Sobriety. Journal of Counseling Psychology 13(1966):352-355

All interesting, and should be included as objections to Vaillant's research. You realise someone has to read all the referenced material, though? I would like to have a shot at it, if no one else has, but it'll take me a while. — DavidMack 16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding bias in Removing the Link Ken Ragges online library which allows direct access to read the books

Your reasoning for taking down the online library is not justified. If it is promoting a web page then the page to Alcholics Anonymous which is a direct link will have to go.

Readers are not children, your claim to 93 , " I am working with you" is not the case. When you look at the AA section, every reference to an outside link has been deleted with the exception of Alcoholics Anonymous, now I wasn't aware that the Wiki was here to endorse AA, and delete those sites that question or criticize it.

The external link cleanup was done by Snackycakes, discussed in detail in the section above entitled "External link cleanup". — DavidMack 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I went into the Wiki and Searched Scientology. There are a number of links promoting webpages and the same goes with the Catholic Church.

I invite readers of the discussion page to go down to books and references and source out those that connect with web pages.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Scientology you will see a number of online links...maybe

same with the Catholic Churchhttp://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church

if you scroll down on these websites you will see a number of links to other sites for informantion

Now on this website you have decided a link to a book is not allowed, You claim you are working with me, I don't agree.

Now here is a solution.

The books online and available:

http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_0.jsp

http://www.morerevealed.com/library/rfhorror/rfhorror.jsp

I would even put the Big Book up , however, since they sued the bejezzes out of a group of AA members who published and provided big books for free over their copyright I am reluctant.

We are trying to keep the number of links to a minimum, in accordance with Wiki policy. If there is a good book on the topic of AA, especially if you have actually read it, maybe you could consider putting it under further reading. Links to book lists are not much help to the reader. All links should be to reliable sources, especially in a controversial article like this one. The AA site is official information, so the links belongs in the article. For more guidance see Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Reliable sources — DavidMack 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki insists that all sources should be published by reputable (and preferable academic) houses. Sharp Press, who have only published a few books in small numbers and of deliberately radical content, I believe fall foul of this guideline.

Additionally, on their website (www.seesharppress.com), the publisher describes itself thus: 'Sharp Press is a "cause-driven" small press. Our mission is to make available radical books and pamphlets that would otherwise not be published, especially in the areas of anarchism and atheism.' Wiki defines unreliable sources as: 'Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.' Sharp's mission of publishing material that 'would otherwise not be published' clearly contradicts the prevailing view of the academic community, and therefore contravenes Wiki's policy.

Finally, on neutrality, Wiki states: 'Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views.'

On the strength of these points, I have deleted the links to Sharp Press publications.

Mr Miles 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Paradise Research Publications possibly also contravenes Wiki's reliability policy but I can't find a mission statement from the company at the moment. Mr Miles 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Paradise / Dick B. books as a follow up to the removal of the Sharp Press books. The Paradise books focus on promoting AA as miraculous and divinely-inspired, and as such should not be part of an authoritative list of further reading. They could be referenced in the article as giving a perspective on AA. — DavidMack 00:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Effective or not Deceptive headline... Based on Vaillant the Wiki has decided that AA is effective

AA is an organization that heavily emphasises the responsibility of the alcoholic in achieving sobriety, unlike, for instance, a doctor-administered antibiotic that does its work with minimal commitment from the patient.[52] Research has indicated that alcoholics reporting a lack of motivation reverted to their drinking levels soon after leaving clinical treatment.[53] It appears that AA shows its advantage over other treatments in the long term because, as a cheap, community-based fellowship it is easy for people to keep coming back. Vaillant argues that "AA is the most effective means of long-term relapse prevention in the physician’s armamentarium."[54]

Anyways, on the wikipedia page on AA critics, shouldn't that information be moved down under "The Effective or Not?" area. The editiors seem to only cited material that agree with AA in the "Effective or Not?" The First two sentences in my mind of that section have nothing to do with AA efficacy. The last sentence where they cite George Vaillant, is the only information provided that is relevant, but biased. As it is just one source of information on the Efficacy of AA.

—Yes, I agree. I'll get to it in a coupla days if no one else has. — DavidMack 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I am Amazed this got missed. It was so blantantly biased. It was presented like this for a number of days.. An amatuer was able to pick it up. Where the Brandsma study is labeled under a headline of AA critics and right below the Above comments under a heading "EFFECTIVE Or NOT " the comments above unchallendged and unedited. was allowed to remain.

 It should be noted that footnote 52  reference cited a only a name Edwards and a page number. and that was it!!!! 

{207.232.97.13 20:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Another Reader of the Wiki}

I think that the "effectiveness" word should be removed because it inflames so many emotions. How about just "Research on AA", which may encourage a more balanced outline. "Effective or not" was supposed to be the final summary, but it can be shifted back into the section on Vaillant. — DavidMack 02:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the word "effectiveness" should be removed, it seems to of caused a conflict amongst the anonymous posters, and others. Changing it to "Research on AA" would fit better and make more sense. I think the Brandsma Study and Ditman study should be placed in their own sub-section, instead of under "The Veterans Study." "The Veterans Study" section doesn't make much sense right now. Also, it's probably best to move the last paragraph of the section, citing Vaillent research, into the "George Vaillent" section. 146 or 93 changed it without discussing it. Those are my thoughts. --Amerikasend 03:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What amazed me was the above was allowed comments were allowed to remain and footnote included and an article such as the posted below was rejected.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_45680.html

Going to try this again. Under "Researching AA's effectiveness." I think the sub-section labeled "Effectiveness" should be removed and have the Brandsma Study and Ditman study in their own sub-sections under "Researching AA's effectiveness." It doesn't seem right, to have a sub-section underneath "Researching AA's effectiveness," labeled "effectiveness." Just a thought. --Amerikasend 21:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Continued vandalism on this article

A warning to User: IP 207.232.97.13.

Any further additions of Original Research, Synthesis and outright vandalism on this article, adding for example under the section G Valiant:

"he also stated AA certainly functions as a cult and systemically indoctrinates its members in ways common to cults the world over"

And I will suggest to Wiki that your IP is blocked. Please grow up.

Also, 13, how come you never sign your posts, even after repeated requests? Other pages would have started to erase your posts on the basis of no signature, no input. — DavidMack 02:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I made an error editing page

I attempter to change the second sentence in the very beginning of Alcoholics Anonymous. There is no evidence that gives proof to AA having a global community and/or over 2 million members. That's hear-say, since there are no figures to prove that claim. Now I attempted to edit it, but when I look at the history page, it says my name, but right after my name it doesn't say what I edited. Sorry If i messed anything up.--Amerikasend 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I corrected the mistake. Actually the figure is not 'hear-say' but based on AA World Service figures, it is approximate which I will correct and add reference. If you have a different statistic (with reference), please change it.

Mr Miles 22:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did someone delete the Stanton Peele Link?

I posted stating that I would add it. No one objected, so I put it in. It most certainly adds to the balance of this (hugely unbalanced) article, as well as conforming to Wiki's external links policy. I put my thoughts in this section. I thought the idea was that you discussed before making changes?
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous#Why_probably_90.25_of_the_links_should_be_deleted
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.6.180.130 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2007

I don't know why 86.1.101.146 removed the link, but s/he has been removing links that s/he judges to be unauthoritative and anti-AA. Has Stanton Peele written any scholarly papers? If his work can be considered authoritative, perhaps you could summarise it in the article. — DavidMack 15:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My contribution to this thread would be to say that I have previously deleted several links to Stanton Peele's promotional website myself. I would have removed it this time if someone else hadn't. This article is frequented by the anti-AA conspiracy lobby regularly; their contributions reflect their 'cause'. I'm not saying you are one of them user 62.6.180.130 - actually can you sign in so we know who you are? Thanks.

The article is about Alcoholics Anonymous and, I believe, should provide information about that organization in accordance with Wiki's principals. Including, for example, AA's stated aims and any research (by reputable academic institutions). A website published by an individual selling his own treatment for alcoholism has no connection to the subject AA and doesn't belong in this article - perhaps in the article about Alcoholism - but certainly not here.

Mr Miles 22:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What on this earth could be defined as "the anti-AA conspiracy lobby"?

What most people would like is a little truth telling.

http://www.divisiononaddictions.org/html/reprints/vaillant.htm

Well, I don't know how to address you as you didn't sign in. But one definition of an 'anti-AA conspiracy theorist' might be someone who regularly tries to add hysterical and inaccurate content to this article! User IP13 is a good example, he/she added, for example, as a quote from G Vaillant: "he also stated AA certainly functions as a cult and systemically indoctrinates its members in ways common to cults the world over", which I don't believe G Vaillant ever said! The AA conspiracy theory would actually make an interesting topic in itself, perhaps someone will start an article.

That's an interesting link: which bit did you want to draw my attention to, what is the truth as you see it and who are these 'most people' you refer to?

Anyway we digress, Stanton Peele's treatment for alcoholism has nothing to do with the article subject, my stated reason for removing it.Mr Miles 21:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

George Vaillants comments on AA functioning as a cult can be found here on page 266. Check with David Mack , he has read the book.

Vaillant, G. (1995). The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, page 266(207.194.108.93 signed Petulia Petunia}

Several things - Dr. Stanton Peele is recognised as one of the foremost experts on addiction through-out the world, and has written many books on teh subject. He has also written fairly extensively on AA, and is specifically critical of the disease theory. His work could certainly be considered authoritative from the "anti-AA" camp.

Just because a website is frequented by anti AA people, this is not a reason to delete a link. Please read the wikipedia "external links" guidance, which Mr Peeles website certainly conforms to. The AA website is obviously frequented by the pro-AA crowd. Is this a reason to delete it?

Actually, I am ever so slightly "anti-AA" (though this would indicate that I care more than I do). I used to attend, no longer do (though hold no real grudge against the organisation), but do see some (well documented) problems with AA, ones which are not represented in this HUGELY biased article.

I don't have an account, and dont make enough changes to justify getting one.

Mr Miles, Peele is recognised by many as an authority on addiction, an academic and a well known critic of AA. I think that anything that he has to say on the subject would be very well placed in this article. An article about AA does not only talk about the organisation, but should also represent what people have had to say about it, good and bad. As opinion is so divided, I would have thought that Peele would be an ideal candidate to even up the balance in this article.

I think it would be worth quoting Dr Valiants comments on AA functioning as a cult. I see no reason why they would be removed.

To sum up, the only problem that I can see people having with the peele link is either a, it says that AA isn't 100% good, or b, it isn't about AA (which it is). Seeing as neither of these reasons are good enough, if I don't get soem better ones I shall put it back up again....

www.peele.net, is a website promoting the sale of books and consultancy services (including PayPal online payment options) for a private company Stanton Peele Inc. The para-AA approach Peele uses to promote his products does not not make his website a valid link from this AA article - read Wiki guidelines. Incidentally if you don't sign in how do we know you're not user IP13 using another computer, like IP93. Or an employee of Stanton Peele inc. for that matter! Mr Miles 13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having taken a quick look at the wiki policy and at the Stanton Peele site, I would say that it does not breach external link guidelines. It CLEARLY does not exist primarily to increase sales of his books (or any other sevice). The wealth of information on there goes far beyond your standard promotional website. Selling his books is indeed a sideline, but the guideline does not specifically prohibit sites with any sales angle.

Furthermore, having looked further into said guidelines, it states explicitly that where there is a subject with multiple POVs, there should be links to sites reflecting these points of view. There are many to choose from, so pick one or put the peele one back up. Perhaps "more revealed" would be more to your preference?.

Uh, I don't have to sign in, mate. Thats kind of the point of "a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I'm not anyone other than who I am. I use two computers (my home and work one), and that is my prerogative. I have no idea what your gripe with IP13 or IP93 is, but it is bordering on the paranoid. 82.19.66.37 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's talk about this. I had another look at Wiki guidelines and www.peel.net and I believe www.peele.net clearly DOES exist primarily to increase sale of his books and services. I'll run you through the user experience: The homepage opens with his smiling face and a big image of his book 'addiction proof your child' (also a link, which takes you to the option of buying it from Amazon OR Barns and Noble), below that a picture/link of his new book. Across the top of the homepage is of course the menu: 'ABOUT PEELE'- a paragraph about him then straight into 'SERVICES' - sales paragraph and PayPal link, next 'LECTURES'- a list of his lectures with dates (which are probably pay-to-attend) and at the end of each lecture he sells books!, next 'RESOURCE LIBRARY'- not a library but a list of advertisements for his books, then 'BOOKSHOP'- isn't the whole site one!, finally 'ASK STANTON' - hurrah, useful academic-referenced information? Well no, just some emailed questions and Stanton's opinion (his books are in a frame on the left-hand side of the page of course). That's it. The site exists to sell his books and doesn't belong in this article. Why do you want to include it anyway, he's not particularly anti-AA? I'd quiet like to read some of his academic articles, perhaps you can track one down (one that's connected to AA of course) and we can put it in.

Additionally, Wiki's Code of Conduct excludes personal attacks, or am I being paranoid?!

Mr Miles 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Having looked through the site again, it appears you have been somewhat lax in your analysis of it. The only commercial sections are services and books. In the resource library, you can actually find several of his books and articles available (for free!).

The "ask stanton" section contains a link to a Q&A on AA, which I think would be incredibly useful (and was the only page to which I linked). It is decidedly anti AA. I also imagine that the AA site would not be "rigourously academic" and may feature some sales of (some very big) books.

I don't feel the need to track down any of Peeles articles on your behalf. I don't want to read them, though you can if you like. I am simply interested in rebalancing this article.

Yes, I do think you were being paranoid. Not sure that constitutes a personal attack, given that you (falsely) accused me of being a "sock puppet".

Again, I ask what link you would suggest to address the link imbalance in this article. 82.19.66.37 08:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get drawn further into this discussion, Peele's website is clearly promotional.

The AA Official site is there because it contains the organisation's stated aims, that doesn't have to be academic, just offical. For example, an article on the Surrealist art movement would be nonsense without their manifesto. That article might then go on to describe how (by citing academic studies) their work deviates from or adheres to their stated aims in the manifesto. That's how I see an encyclopedia working.

Now why, bearing that in mind, is this article imbalanced? We have AA's stated aims and history (none of which are disputed) and then a research section which contains articles demonstrating success: Project Match, Vaillant, Moos and Veterans; And articles critical of AA: Ditman, Brandsma and Bower. We could certainly add another critical study to make it completely symmetrical - I'll try to track one down. Reasonable?

I'm not going to suggest any additional links, you can if you want, just make sure they're not commercial and stay on the right side of Wiki's NPOV: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Mr Miles 11:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Peeles Website is not clearly promotional, and furthermore, you do not have carte blanche to decide what goes on in this article. Not sure what the official procedure for changing a page when there is no agreement is, but I'm pretty sure YOU do not get to decide. I have tried to respect Wiki policys regarding democratic decision making, but it seems that you believe you have an authoritative right to dictate the weight of this article.

I dont disagree with your interpretation of how an encyclopedia works, though think it should be expanded thoroughly...

I wasn't talking about the studies (though believe that the information on the critical studies could be expanded...). Some more information on documented controversies, such as the AA definition of alcoholism (the disease theory), GSO's prosecution of the AA members in mexico and germany who did their own translations of the big book (surely that goes against the stated aim of anonymity?), an examination of accusations of AA cult tendancies. I think all would have a valid place in the article....

The next most obvious link is http://www.morerevealed.com/library/index.jsp which is the book section of More Revealed. Completely non commercial, books which have been published. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

External links are governed by the "external link" page. The following is particularly applicable....

Avoid undue weight on particular points of view On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.

Clearly this means that the AA site should come first, followed by something that is critical of AA. 82.19.66.37 10:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Do what you want, you are going to anyway - slip in a link to Orange-papers whilst you're there eh? Perhaps I should credit the readers of this article with enough intelligence to see that stuff for what it is, I think they will. Mr Miles

Well, I wasn't going to do what I wanted. I was going to respect the democratic nature of wikipedia, arguing my case for, whilst countering points made against.

For the moment, I shall take your "do what you want" as permission from you to put up the more revealed link. If anyone wants to take it down, I assume they too will similarly respect wiki policy and discuss it with here first.... 82.19.66.37 11:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As you pointed out, it's not up to me to give 'permission'. And just to avoid any confusion I oppose putting that link up, it's just that arguing with you wasn't making me very happy, my happiness is more important to me than this article, so I stopped arguing. Mr Miles

I suggest that links to Stanton Peele (and 'More Revealed') are no use to the reader. Instead, someone needs to read the material and briefly explain it, with references, in the article. — DavidMack 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that they are of use to the user. I suggest that they contain information from reliable experts in their respective fields, and that perhaps the main reason that people keep reverting them is because they are members of AA who dont like to hear bad things being said about the organisation.

I invite others to find more appropriate links. I would like OP, but dont see that happening. I think either of these two are the next best, but am more than open to suggestion. In the mean time, I shall keep putting the link back, as this IS a controversial subject, and as I have stated more times than I care to remember now, Wiki policy states that controversial subjects should have links to all POVs. I think a link is better than no link. 82.19.66.37 18:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reported you for violation of the three revert rule — DavidMack 22:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Was unaware of this rule, but will take my 24 hours like a man and keep my reverts to two in any 24. Cheers. 82.19.66.37 23:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. An edit war is when "two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article," and we want to avoid this. Wikipedia:External links says that "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." So instead of replacing the link every chance you get, could you please read the material and give a neutral summary in the article, of appropriate length, with citations? It takes a bit of extra work, and what you insert is still up for debate, but a lot of us have put in quite a bit of reading time to improve this article. I am willing to do that chore; it just may take me a while to get to it. — DavidMack 15:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems within Step Groups Midtown AA Banned from third church

The current events appear to research undertaken by two sociologists in the mid eighties. [3]

More controversy Police officers wife comes forward. [4], [5], [6]. Quote:

Leaders of St. Mark's Presbyterian Church on Old Georgetown Road in Rockville said the group could no longer meet there, News4's Pat Collins said.

Last week, St. Patrick's Episcopal Church in Northwest, D.C., said the group could no longer meet at it's building.

Midtown also left The Church of the Pilgrims in downtown, D.C., about a year ago after church officials launched an investigation amid allegations of misconduct, Collins reported.

Melissa, whose real identity has been concealed because of the nature of the story, said she only stayed in the group for two months because she was disturbed by its sexual activity.

"I would describe Midtown as a cult," Melissa said. "(I was sitting at a table with) three young women, a 15-year-old, 17-year-old and 21-year-old, in their group homes. They were talking about all the men that they had had sex with in the group. It was very unnerving for me, and they were all laughing about it and talking about stories of the men that they had slept with in common."

Pastor Roy Howard of St. Mark Presbyterian Church said, "My concern is that there are too many allegations about this group for me to feel comfortable that they are about helping people recover from alcoholism."

Newsweek magazine recently ran a story about Midtown AA, discussing some of the alleged sexual exploits of some of the members and what some described as a cult-like atmosphere.

Melissa said the group tries to cut members off from old friends and family.

Attempted contact with the Midtown AA group from News4 has received no response.

However, a current Midtown member who was not identified said, "These allegations are based on gossip and untruths ... AA is based on love and service."

Members of other local AA groups described Midtown as a fringe group that does not follow all the traditions of Alcoholic Anonymous.

Videos: [7], [8]

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2007

I'm sorry, how is this relevant? Can you sign in please? Mr Miles

It identifies issues that are a result of the anonimity principal. That is why it is so difficult to place charges against perpatraitors in the alcoholics anonymous venue. It is a result of people wanting to guard their own anonimity or not be identified as a member of the organization. Have you noticed in the articles that people are not willing to be identified and thus the paper is protecting their anonomity by giving only a first name. {signed anonymous} — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2007

Message to 207.232.97.13. Thanks for the news items. I have included them in the article. A couple of requests. Please sign your comments with "~~~~". Also, there is no need to paste in long quotes from the news in this area. Finally, please keep to reliable sources like academic articles and news magazines. It is no help for you to paste in quotes from amateur websites; we can't use that material in an encyclopedia. Remember, we'll work with you if you can try to understand how Wiki works and follow the guidlines. Thanks. — DavidMack 16:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

DavidMack, AA has 100,000 meetings worldwide and has been running for over 70 years. You have found one example of abuse from the Mid West (in which it was admitted the group bore little resemblance to AA) and a seven year article from the British Guardian, which was based on a leak and never followed up by that paper.

Can I ask you if you think those articles represent 50% of most peoples experience of AA? or 5%? or 0.05%? If the latter, don't you think that it might be considered a minority view? If the former and if AA has many negatives, why don't we have authoritive sources to reference?! Perhaps we just need to keep looking, I would like to see a balanced article too, but two press articles and a load of conspiracy theories is pathetic!

Again Wiki's policy on neutrality:'Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views.'

I'm not going to remove those press links, especially as you have spent quiet some time working on this article, but please bear in mind who suggested their inclusion and remember that it is not only AA members who have an agenda. Mr Miles 21:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Yes I believe the agenda of the person who found the links is suspect, but my intention was just to indicate that abuse can happen, with reference to reliable sources. You asked my personal view? I think abuse in AA is rare, but by definition AA is for the emotionally unwell, so it's not surprising that AA attracts the odd predator. I disagree that it's a minority view; it's just a rare occurence which I believe should be mentioned. It doesn't hurt alcoholics to know that some people they might encounter in AA may not have the healthiest motives. — DavidMack 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I agree with your point that any community has the potential for support or abuse, and also with your inferred acknowledgment that a large part of the audience for this article is alcoholic. You're right, by definition AA is for the emotionally unwell. I'm going to suggested that an emotionally unwell person who tries treatment in AA and (for whatever reason) has a bad experience, may have an unrealistic and disproportionately negative response. It would be unfair if an alcoholic seeking information on AA as a possible form of treatment was prejudiced by a negative response before they had the opportunity to find out for themselves.

I've changed the title of your section to 'occasions of abuse at meetings', rather than 'abusive AA groups' as The Guardian article didn't refer to particular groups and I think the Washington group was so far from the Traditions that it might not be considered an AA group. I also removed 'or groups' from your 'no external vetting' point because AA is assessed at the group level (voluntarily of course!).

Anyway, thanks again for you comments. Mr Miles

Hey what's next and what do I do?

You guys have nothing for the person who comes to you looking for help, to figure out what is going on in the persons life and what is the best way to go about fixing this persons life. You have a resume but no path. No assesment to go about? what do I do now? How do I get started on which course to take? Am I asking to much?

                      Johnny   sighbrrdude@yahoo.com

Hi Johnny, this is an encyclopedic article, the subject being AA as an organization, as such it should neither promote AA as a treatment for alcoholism, nor should it be a forum for anti-AA groups and their agenda. The aim here is, I guess, to describe AA with accuracy and neutrality. A person looking for a way to 'fix' their life would probably not be best served by Wikipedia. Are you going to stay and contribute? Mr Miles 10:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Conform or Die AA a new state religion is from Official Positon in AA world serivice pamplet

This certainly presents a case against the idea AA is a program of suggestions.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2729337/A-state-religion-Alcoholics-Anonymous.html

Conform or die is an official AA position in the pamphlet The 12 Concepts for World Service ((c) 1986). "We know we have to choose conformity to AA's Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions or else face dissolution and death." If spiritual conformity under life and death pressure is not religious, nothing is. AA writes of "complete defeat." The client of the professional Steppist counselor, the victim of the indoctrination, being defeated by alcohol is not enough for AA. It wants complete defeat as a person, so its phony idea of the person replaces what would be the not-addicted selves within everyone.

The very common argument "The steps are merely suggestions" is frankly a false argument, designed to draw the person further into AA for the purposes of indoctrination. The client who objects to the steps must then endure endless promotion of Stepping at virtually every meeting. The argument is plainly false in actual practice.

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2007

Checked your link user IP13, it's an article from an magazine promoting an Athiest agenda. The quote you have accurately copied and referenced by the magazine to the 12 Concepts pamphlet is:

"We know we have to choose conformity to AA's Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions or else face dissolution and death."

The real sentence from the actual pamphlet is:

"We know that we personally have to choose conformity to A.A.’s Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions or else face dissolution and death, both as individuals and as groups."

Why did the magazine deliberately change the sentence?

This section of the pamphlet called 'warranty six' is underlining the liberties enjoyed by the organization, for example the preceeding paragraphs contain the sentences: 'like the Society of Alcoholics Anonymous which it serves, the Conference itself will always remain democratic in action and in spirit.' and: 'In preceding Concepts, much attention has been drawn to the extraordinary liberties which the A.A. Traditions accord to the individual member and to his group' and then: 'no member to be expelled from A.A. — membership (is) always to be the choice of the individual'.

When you see the full picture (by reading the whole section), Bill Wilson (who wrote this), is basically saying that with all these freedoms, members should remember to actually do the stuff suggested. This is quite clear when you read the whole paragraph the quote is taken from: ”It is probable that we A.A.’s possess more and greater freedom than any fellowship in the world today. As we have already seen, we claim this as no virtue. We know that we personally have to choose conformity to A.A.’s Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions or else face dissolution and death, both as individuals and as groups.

Funny how the big-picture can change the meaning of selective quoting (which Wiki refers to as 'synthesis').

Incidentally, with regard to your statement '"The steps are merely suggestions" is frankly a false argument'. In looking for the sentence you quoted from the pamphlet, I did a search on a pdf of the pamphlet (which can be downloaded from: 'http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/en_pdfs/en_bm-31_05-06.pdf), using the search term 'conformity'. This is what also came up:

'Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity.'

'no penalties to be inflicted for nonconformity to A.A. principles'

Seems to me that the founders of AA did everything they could to make it clear that the steps are merely suggestions. But then the Book 'Alcoholics Anonymous' also states clearly 'Our book is meant to be suggestive only'.

If you try hard enough, you can find conspiracy everywhere. I think the 'anti-AA conspiracy theory movement' would make an excellent study in itself.

Mr Miles 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Miles, thanks for doing the background check. It's easy to copy and paste random material like some users do, but actually reading the source takes dedication. — DavidMack 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Miles I am glad you posted that link, there is no question about it , the entire pupose of the service manual is carrying the message, increasing membership in AA, the big book bieng its source on inspiration.

You can certainly see the evanglical christian roots of this organization. Even though they say it is a program of suggestions, however, if you don't give yourself completely over to the program and conform the outcome is death.

Can you imagine going to a doctor and he tells me Ihave /illness whatever, and the doctor states he has a program for me to attend called the ABC Program. He tells me it is a program of suggestions, and yet I hear if I do not conform to the program I will surely die!

Next the prgram ABC outlines its concepts and it is very clear that I need to carry the message and expand the programs growth. I have to provide services and go out and rope others in.

And in order to cure my illness it is necessary to take a moral inventory and confess to a third party.

I am glad you posted that link , it is an important link, it outlines quite clearly what you would be getting into if you joined this organzation/cult. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk)

13, don't kid yourself, alcoholism can be a fatal illness.

I'd like to know your personal opinion: do you think AA has ever saved anybody's life?

— DavidMack 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to answer that. I went to12 step meetings thinking they had answers for people who were close to me that drink. I went to a number of meetings, then quit , then went back again to see what had changed. Well one person went out and did a sucide. I found out later that it is not unusual for people to sucide while they go to meetings. This was not a new thing.

I noticed that many who had attended went back out and started drinking and one person who had been there for 8 years was preachin and teachin 12 steps and still drinking on the side!

Then they would do these big sales meetings where a person would get up on the podium and telling everyone how it had saved his life. It was like a script , They all had the same story. In realty they thought they were different. That only they had the problems and normal people did not. I queried them on this and all I met was hostile stares! I pointed out that was part of being human , people all over feel that way. I watched the unconditional love and acceptance dissapper and angry hostile stare take over. They want to see themselves as unique and different from the rest of the human race. Not true I said . Not true.

I watched as they tried to convince people they had a disease! I watched as they ignored their history! I watched , then I went home and did what a number of people had done before me. I did an internet search on 12 steps/ AA etc as a cult and what I had observed was confirmed.

People save themselves, or they get a real religion and a bible and do it that way. AA does not save people. They have sold themselves on the idea it has . But not true. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.108.93 (talk)

Mmmm, as I suspected, Superman and Clark Kent... Mr Miles 13:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, 13/93, I certainly respect your personal experience with AA. I know many people with very different views, but it's good to hear where you're coming from. — DavidMack 14:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good studies on the value of self-help groups

http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php/type/doc/id/993

That is a list of studies on self-help and mutual aid groups (including AA, and substance abuse groups) showing their effectiveness. All studies are either longitudinal and/or compare self-help participants to non-participants. I would integrate them but I'm currently busy working on other articles, and the intense rancor and disorganization of discussion in this one turn me off. — Craigtalbert 05:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"the intense rancor and disorganization of discussion in this one turn me off". All the more reason for you to contribute and improve the article! That's an excellent link, thanks. Mr Miles

"I'm an alcoholic of the hopeless variety. Actively in AA myself. Your page is a welcome article to me. I don't defend AA or any literature or my recovery. When I follow the 12 steps I'm okay, rather less defensive or scared like some. Preferably understand others alcoholic or non-alcoholic have a right to interpret and criticize anything they wish, this is a democracy in Canada. I have no opinions on other recovery programs or centres. AA worked(s) for me so I'm available for someone who wants to do the 12 steps and see if it's for them. Terrible it is to be proud, puffed up like a prideful balloon when someone outside of AA mentions it in a critical or analytical way."