Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alcoholics Anonymous article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Alcoholics Anonymous has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives
Archive of discussion 1 2002-May 2006

Contents 1 AA Critics? 2 Research 3 Is AA a cult? 4 AA's views of alcoholism 5 Twelve Steps 6 AA and Anti-Irish Racism 7 cleanup/quality standards 8 Publisher of the book Alcoholics Anonymous 9 removed from pro-AA section 10 Food at meetings? 11 Article Unreadable 12 extensive edits 13 AA Religion and the Law part II 14 AA Critics? 15 objectivity 16 thought on the How The A.A. Program Works section 17 Reference 18 Things that need work 19 Geographic cure 20 needs cleanup 21 The Logo 22 Misleading 23 AA's Critics include "The Treasonous NY Times July 25, 2006 NICHOLAS BAKALAR" ?? 24 Removed from History Section 25 Removed reference to Garrett 26 Transactional analysis paragraphs relevant? 27 AA is not a religious organisation 28 Factual AA History 29 I am responsible 30 Link purge desperately needed 31 Improper changes 32 Balancing the Information 33 WHAT WE SEE At Meetings!!!! 34 The Orange Papers 35 The Spook Files 36 The "Spook files" References 37 Name one idea that could be occult 38 How does one measure bias??? 39 List of Wiki Policies 40 Why the occult should not get more than a single sentence at most 41 Why the occult should not get any mention at all 42 Why probably 90% of the links should be deleted 43 Closed sources and conspiracy theories 44 Observation

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Things that need work

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The Spook Files

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] List of Wiki Policies

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

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

Minority view for starters Read here.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)