Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 MATCH and Vaillant 2 Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous 3 13th-stepping 4 More Match 5 Cults 6 Great Reference 7 Sandy edits 8 Moving Stuff 9 Sandbox 10 Limitations on Research 11 Revert War Update 12 13th Stepping 13 Confidentiality 14 Disease of Alcoholism 15 Reports of Abuse 16 Disease of Alcoholism 17 SPIRITUAL PROGRAM 18 You know how we keep having the same discussions over and over on this page? 19 Disease of Alchoholism 20 Cutter v. Wilkinson 21 Looks Good Ladies and Gents 22 Moderation Management

MATCH and Vaillant

Here is my opinion on these two sections: The MATCH study was "neutral" on AA. Why it gets so much attention here is not clear. As for Vaillant, I would just summarize his work with a short, two sentance paragraph to the effect that he has done a lot of research and concludes whatever it is that he concludes. If I were writing this outside of wiki, I would also point out a huge potential conflict of interest for him as a member of the BOD for AA. Was he on the board when he did these studies? So, I would just refer readers to the Project MATCH entry and reduce the Vaillant dramatically. In actual fact, I think that we are waisting time on these sections at the expense of a description of AA (which is what this entry is supposed to be about).Desoto10 (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

MATCH's conclusion that the three methods of treatment were equally effective, while not dramatic, were vitally important to the treatment of alcoholism. — DavidMack (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I just added back a link to the Wiki article on Vaillant's book, it's just a few words and the article is good and relevant. Vaillant's affiliation is mentioned, so I guess most readers do have the opportunity to conclude that his research is biased, whether or not that is true. I think your original instinct to remove all studies is correct.Mr Miles 10:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I don't believe that Vaillant's research it biased at all. It's a remarkable piece of work. I'm just puzzled at his cleaving to AA despite the results of that research. PhGustaf (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Like a responsible doctor, Vaillant gave support and advice to a group that his research had showed to be effective. Too bad more doctors don't take such initiative. Is an oncologist "biased" for being on the board of the Cancer Society? Some people are so paranoid. Also, the accusation that Vaillant's results were negative on AA are false, as anyone would know by reading the book. The clinic treatment was unsuccessful, but patients who attended AA showed higher rates of recovery (exerpt here). Agent Orange's propaganda is insidious. — DavidMack (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I shortened both Vaillant and Match without changing conclusions (I hope). Both Vaillant and Match have their own wiki entries and so we should just be funneling interested people to those for the full discussions that they deserve.Desoto10 (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous

This is now it's own article (renamed from Research on Twelve Step Effectiveness). This is a good change, and allows for separation concerns. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done.Desoto10 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think .13/MisterAlbert/Melville created the article for things that were previously in this one, I'm just responsible for encouraging a name change. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased you appreciate my humble efforts. This study section should have had its own page. I am surprised no one else came up with the solution. --MelvilleSitter (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This board has gone very silent all of a sudden, not much activity... --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Fred

13th-stepping

The para at the beginning was removed, I checked the archived discussion which hadn't concluded it should be removed. Guess it was an accident so I've put it back for now. Mr Miles 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It was moved to, I think "Organization", after discussion. It really doesn't belong there; it sounds like weaseling about the material that follows. PhGustaf (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry PhGustaf, you're mistaken, I've checked the archived discussion, no decision was made to remove that text.

It is there for very good reason and is certainly not weaseling. The issue of 13th-stepping is pretty controversial from both sides. From one side it's terrible that people who seek help for alcoholism could be 'hit-on' in meetings or the other side that people who want help stopping drinking might be put off going to AA because they fear they'll be raped after reading Wikipedia (based on a survey of 55 people out of 2 million). It's a delicate and sensational issue and needs balancing. Saying that encyclopedias wouldn't have a statement like that at the beginning of an entry doesn't cut it, I've checked the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for AA, no mention at all about 13th-stepping. How big an issue is it? I don't know and neither does anyone else here, although I'm sure we all have stories. Mr Miles 00:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: the passage says nothing about 13th-stepping; it discusses a general (and important) point about AA. Placing it as a disclaimer ("AA doesn't support 13th-stepping") is inappropriate. Nobody is asserting that AA supports 13th-stepping. I don't know exactly how common it is either, but it's common enough that we all know what it means. PhGustaf (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it raises an important point but I think it is relevant. The inclusion of this section (which Encyclopedia Britannica chose not to include) suggests AA might approve of 13th Stepping, we certainly need to make it clear that AA doesn't and Trad 3 does that job well - alternatively, in the longer term, we could ask AA GSO for a statement, but wouldn't that be a problem of primary sources?

I honestly hadn't heard the term until I read Orange Papers.Mr Miles 00:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It was in common usage, or at least I first heard it, in about 1987. PhGustaf (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. There used to be a line in the article about how getting into sexual relations in the first year of AA was discouraged, but no references could be found so it got deleted. Mr Miles 00:30, 15 March 2008

How about if we put something like: 'because AA places no external restrictions on membership, stated in Tradition Three, it is unable to place restrictions on individual members' sexual conduct'? Mr Miles 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like editorializing to me. I have no idea why the "no new sex partners first year" passage went away; it certainly belongs somewhere in the article. One issue is that a lot of AA practice is based on tradition, and is rarely published in quotable sources. I'd love to see a section on AA slogans; there are certainly plenty of them. PhGustaf (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I just emailed AA GSO to see if they have anything published anywhere. Guess we could wait for a bit of consensus from other editors here, if you don't mind. Mr Miles 00:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

They emailed back to say they couldn't help. Tut. Mr Miles 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Just noticed that little tinker MrAlbert moved this again in complete disregard to our discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we had at least a more-or-less consensus to move the passages you've been shuffling, and it would show good faith for you to put them back. Anyway, I'm out of the discussion until, as you suggest, others voices enter it. Let's please not divide us into good guys and bad guys; it doesn't help. PhGustaf (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is quiet correct, I checked the history and it seemed that User13 had been busy adding a load of stuff (like the Brandsma which was riddled with spelling mistakes) so I reverted to an earlier version, with admittedly less studies but still pro/con, and added back the Brandsma (in better copy shape). Desoto10 then removed all the studies and gave a good reason for doing so on this talk page which wasn't - and still hasn't been challenged. I agree about your good guy/bad guy comment, I suggest we stop going on about 12-stepping. Mr Miles 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I moved a whole lotta stuff by accident when I was trying to deal with the acres of references. This may have been shuffled by me by mistake. Sorry.Desoto10 (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I did it deliberately, per the discussion. PhGustaf (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

More Match

DavidMack writes:

MATCH's conclusion that the three methods of treatment were equally effective, while not dramatic, were vitally important to the treatment of alcoholism. — DavidMack (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. One could also phrase this conclusion that "the three methods were equally ineffective". The MATCH study did not conclude anything about the absolute effectiveness of the three treatments--it could not because that was not part of the experimental design. The conclusion was that matching patients to different treatments was unnecessary. This is an important conclusion relating to alcoholism for sure, suggesting that ANY treatment has about the same effect on patient outcome. As an important study relating to alcoholism, MATCH should be cited. As some kind of validation of the effectivenss of AA, not so much.Desoto10 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying that it's a validation of the effectiveness of AA -- AA wasn't even in the study. It had a group with professional TSF used with alcoholics, and that's close enough to include in this article. David said it was vitally important to the treatment of alcoholism, the equally effectiveness/ineffective just semantics - the patients in all groups had similar outcomes. It seems like we all agree that MATCH is important enough to include in the article and that we're more or less on the same page about what the results me. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cults

This sentence:

"Helpful aspects of AA include tolerance, a non-threatening personal style, and acceptance of self and others"

seems new, or I just never noticed it. Besides having nothing to do with cults it makes several assertions that are not obvious or cited. Helpful how? Tolerance of what? Who has a non-threatening personal style? etc.Desoto10 (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, i thought that to, line is removed as no cite. - SandymcT (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I just added a bit of text to the 'cult debate: Alexander and Rollins thought that any thought reform was negative and thus AA was a cult, but Wright in another study (in 1997) found that those techniques where seen as beneficial and thus AA wasn’t a cult, kind of what Vaillant was saying. Mr Miles 16:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Erm, I take it you didn't approve of my change Coffeepusher?! Mr Miles 17:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Yes I like the change, sorry for the confusion. it is a long and complicated explination...but I put back your work as best I could. take a look at it and make shure I did a good job.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. But why wont anyone explain to me why I get signed in twice? Mr Miles 17:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Great Reference

Here is an excellent review of AA effectiveness. http://www.msu.edu/~msujml/dehn.pdf Pitched from the legal aspects of forcing attendance, but the guy goes to great lengths to be impartial. He also seems to come to the same conclusion: most people drop out, but many of those who stay benefit.Desoto10 (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Desota it should be added to the article, possibly under court rulings. put in the references. It is an interesting article. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Fred

Sandy edits

My issues with this edit: Removing the Mary Larimer material; creating the "Other Criticism" second and removing most the Thirteenth Stepping material; the Arthur H. Cain material is an opinion piece from a source that doesn't have a reputation for fact checking. The other changes the wording I don't have any problems with.

Sandy has a point about the Shute reference [1], but there's no point to having a sentence like "Total abstinence as the only form of recovery from alcoholism has been questioned." This gives the reader absolutely no real information. What in the world hasn't been questioned? The change from vs. to "or" also seems okay [2]. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy moved the Mary Larimer material here: [3], which I'm okay with. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

one of my big problems is this edit in the thirteenth stepping section. it defines the term, and gives the advise from the study, but takes that completely out of context with the study itself. I think this can be cut down while maintaining the referances and would help to make the article better. instead of detailed discriptions I propose we offer one sentance (or so) briefs with the citations attached, and mention that a study was done that caused consern in the medical community.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the drama about the group with the sex scandals is probably unnecessary, but I like the summary of the peer-reviewed article as it is. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

P.s. I am sick of using edit summerys and personal talk pages for discussion and ask that sandy either use the talk page itself or stop complaining about edits beeing removed.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm 100% with you. Bold edits are one thing, ignoring editors and discussion is another. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

you have not discussed just reverted! I have made some ok edits, and by wikipedia rules. you can change as you like but you spend to much time on this site changing and controling, that is why this article is bad and has to big controversy at end because you argue all the time. it looks more like a book from a shop now and not so strange like an arguement. SandymcT (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is all the work you're willing to put in to justifying your edits, then many of them will probably be reverted. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

HaHa, I have done all you ask, explaned every edit and writen on talk page, what else? You have no problem with my edits except that you have not made them, controling. why dont you let other people write the article for change? it was wrong before why cant you admit that and thank me for my effort?

I have looked at my deletes again, the newspaper from britain from 2000! that does not belong here, why so much writing about this? what is there now explanes the 13thstep.

and the reserch from the journal is there an a link to. why more? -SandymcT (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

and the title for other criticism youll like better now. maybe we can call it 'other very important notable criticism' ;)

-SandymcT (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of arguging here, and it is easy to get controlling, but edit wars go both ways. At any rate, throwing in nonsensical edits with summaries like "my american friend says this is better for yo" is not helping anything. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ok i will change it back, you say you have issue with 'other criticism' but dont say what issue! i dont know why 'other criticism is wrote, it is good for me. SandymcT (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

i like notable, so it is back. i have done, you can control again. -SandymcT (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

are you here to discuss, or here to WP:TROLL? I will not let you take complete controll of the page and then yell and scream at us to let you do it your way, we have all invested alot of time on this page and don't appriciate someone telling us how we should have done it. so either explain point by point what you feel should be changed, or I will make bold edits myself.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression he has finnished with his "i have done" which matches his language. personaly I feel assulted and want to undo the entire thing based on his tone and lack of regard for anyone elces edits alone. is there any real reason we should salvage this whole assult, or should we just revert and go back to buisness as usual. (please note, I am discussing it...rather than outright changing everything)Coffeepusher (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not grouse about a revert, but I've used my ration for the day. Some of his copy edits are quite good, and make the material clearer. If we could tame him a little, he could help the article. For now, though, revert away. 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was already templated for a "revert war" which caused a really bad wikiday. so I am going to sit this one out...humm, fred just did the same edit that I was reverted for...under an Ip name...and it was an IP that did the origional edit... (sorry fred, I jumped the gun and was unfair) Its been a bad day, and I don't want to get blocked (I so far have a clean record).Coffeepusher (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to undo the damage Sandymac has done and revert to the version by Scarpy but the wiki is set not to do reverts.

I thought they would dissappear after attacking the research and study section and it was designated its own wiki page. --MelvilleSitter (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

then I owe you an appology for my former comment. It seemed suspicious that you "added" the same content that was disputed earlier...and now I understand what you where doing. if you hit the "edit" function on the origional page and then save it will work just like a revert, only for a much earlier page.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I did the changes...I even saved that picture david left for us (I thought it looked good). well, its been quite a day, and I think I will read some theory and write a paper or two to burn off some steam.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good I agree with your decision. Coffemaker. His edits have been undone innumerable times by most the editors on this board . I was in the process of repairing when I realized you had reverted the page. Scarpy may want to put sandymac on notice notice if he keeps vandalizing the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelvilleSitter (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy that the article needs improvement in many ways. But every word in it has been argued about over and over. Next time, Sandy, just make one simple change, and explain your change on this page. Do that three or four times, and other editors will start to perceive you as a colleague rather than a loon. PhGustaf (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I Sandy just reverted back again...and I am not interested in dealing with an editor who refuses to discuss changes that have been shown to be contriversial. Yes sandy alot of us believe that changes should be done, however we are not giving you permission to turn the article into whatever you like, you will have to work with us. that means if you want to change somthing...

1. come to the talk page (this page) and type out what you want to change and why. if you use the same tone as you did above and attack us and call us stupid you will find that we will be less likely to accept your change.

2. I recomend that you explain it in a way like "I think that [incert text] should be changed to [incert text] because [rational explination] what do you guys think?"

3. wait for our responce.

4. READ OUR RESPONCE AND ALLOW US TO INPUT INTO THE PROSSESS!!!!!!1!!!!11!!!1111!!!!!!!!!

5. once that part has been discussed...then move to the next major change (go back to step 1).

if you do this, you will find out that many of your changes will be allowed, if you don't then you are just beeing a disruption and will be delt with accordanly.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there - First off, thanks to everyone who has worked so hard on this page and in making sure we all have civil discussion. It is much appreciated.

Secondly, this might not be a popular comment, but I actually like Sandy's edit better, for what the comment is worth. Not to disregard the hard work of everyone thus far, and not to say I support the side comments or the manner in which this is getting played out. Is there some civil way to come to an agreement on some of the changes? Could we go one at a time? Everyone just wants to have the best article possible correct? So I like what some people have said regarding making the changes one at a time, or at least having a discussion explaining why the changes are made. I, for one, would be receptive to them...

Sandy I think the group is just asking for you to try to work within the conventions they have agreed to for editing this highly controversial page. I'd like to see you get some of them passed rather than reverted.

Lucida.ann (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy writes very well, and many of his or her copy edits are excellent. But, Sandy, do them one at a time and explain them. Slambang 3K edits just don't help. 01:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhGustaf (talk • contribs)

Jesus what a debate. I just looked over the C&C section and it looks great, it always seemed unbalanced to me to have a section on Thirteenth-stepping that was bigger than the meeting section. The word count is more balanced now too, so the change gets my vote.Mr Miles 16:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

But, I also added bullets, thought it might clarify that there are separate points made there. Mr Miles 16:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Ok, I don't hate sandy, and I do like some of the contributions, however as I have said before discussion needs to be done. I have transplanted sandy's edits (+ mr. miles contributions)to the new sandbox that I created (see explination below) so as not to loose some valuble contributions. You can link it here[4] my idea is for people to add changes, and then single bracet the edit change page onto the discussion...or you guys may hate the idea and scrap the entire thing. I do believe that this version has possiblility, but it does need input from more than one source.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

since sandy isn't discussing their changes, I have started a wikiedique alert for this entire situation. it is on [5].Coffeepusher (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving Stuff

I moved some info out of 13th step and into the program information where it belongs. I also removed a POV off the Attrition section. It assumes because people don't stay long the program is not effective, I saw nothing in the reference material that shares that view. --MisterAlbert (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave your edit of the Attrition section, but I believe that common sense suggests that a program of any sort that looses 95% of its members within the first year cannot claim a great deal of effectiveness. The goal of all alcoholism treatments is to help people overcome their dependence on alcohol. If that treatment fails 95% of the time, then it is not very effective.66.120.181.218 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaving AA ≠failure. — DavidMack (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that is your opinion, but it does not make any sense. What possible logic do you use to support that claim?Desoto10 (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

An attrition rate is not a failure rate. Making that connection is POV. I have used before the example of the gym: 95% of people drop out of gym attendance at the end of a year, so is exercise therefore unhealthy, or did exercise 'fail' those people? The answer is no, but we should acknowledge that gyms have a high attrition rate. Beyond that, we need to find reliable information on why those people left and where they went before we publish conclusions. — DavidMack (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your gym analogy is an excellent one. If you go to a gym a few times a week for a year and stomp on Stairmasters and move metal around you will wind up thinner and healthier. If you go to AA meetings for a year and make a reasonable stab the Steps you will wind up soberer. These are both pretty much tautologies. (And you get a lot of tautology in AA.)

Much of the early attrition can't reasonably be called "failure". It includes, for example, friends and relations giving support to "alcoholics", students in psychology or social work seeing what AA is about, and drunk drivers who are there because a court told them to. And, "AA is not for everybody". If someone gives AA a fair shot, and decides is isn't for him, this is not a "failure" of either AA or himself. PhGustaf (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is not, and cannot be, any way to figure out what happened to those 95%. Some of them sobered up, some stayed drunk, others got moderate, others came back to AA, other got dead. It's a little like Heisenberg's cat. Study AA too hard and it stops being AA. PhGustaf (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I had just typed up a long explination on the problems with statistics...but you guys really don't want to hear it. I even came up with great examples...they where falicies and I knew it, but they where good (one proved God was dead based on the above logic). I just wanted to say I liked Alberts editCoffeepusher (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I get a little suspicious when someone needs long explanations to argue what is obvious. AA has an attrition problem. Plain and simple. AA knows it and wants to do something about it (at least the groups that I am involved with). Ignoring it or trying to argue it away does nothing. People go to one AA meeting and never return. The treatment has failed for those people.Desoto10 (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

People go to one AA meeting and never return. The treatment has failed for those people." What I would argue and believe that PhGustaf and DavidMack are trying to say, is that the leap from the first sentence to the other contains logical fallacies. First off the treatment never began for those people, if they only attended one meeting. That is like saying of a person took one treatment of chemotherapy and never came back that "chemotherapy failed for them." Also, as many of the reference material states, not everyone who comes to AA is an alcholic. The treatment didn't fail for them. I think the most important problem with that survey is that nobody yet has come up with a way to get a random sample of everyone who enters AA - how can you generalize to a population as a whole without a representative sample?

Does AA have an attrition problem? There are plenty of people who say "yes." I would not at this point say "no they don't," but I need to see something besides this one study and some rather unfounded conclusions.

I think it's more interesting to look at the dropout rate after 30 days or so, where the widely-replicated graph starts. The 30-day people weren't scared away by the first meeting, and hung around long enough to learn at least a little about AA. But most of them are gone 335 days later.

But going to meetings for 30-days doesn't equate to going through the 12 steps, that is the 'treatment' provided by AA everything else is just support. AA should be judged on what number of people have completed the 12 steps and then gone out and drunk or stayed sober. I like Davidmac's gym metaphor, no gym would be judged harshly if people turned up, stood around for a few hours then left without using the machines, then complained after 30 days that the gym didn't get them fit. That pretty much matches my pattern at the gym anyway. Perhaps AA should be faulted for not pushing the steps hard enough onto newcomers - but then the cult-claimers would have a field day. Mr Miles 17:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

It sure would be convenient if everybody were issued a smart card at his first meeting, and had to swipe it every time he went to another meeting or bought a drink. Best wishes on your research, Lucida. PhGustaf (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am currently researching the effectiveness of several self-help addiction groups, such as AA and SMART recovery, amongst other methods, so I have a vested interest in making sure research is not misrepresented, and also in seeing that people who come to any one of these groups on WIKI have access to the most accurate information possible if they are coming to make a decision about where to go. I do not want to keep someting out of this article that is true and well-supported by research. I have concerns over the number of items - favorable and negative - in this article which are in here based upon a single, poorly constructed study. My biggest concern is the 13th stepping "survey" that I will probably write about as an example of how NOT to conduct research.Lucida.ann (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Lucida.ann, the 13th stepping survey looks very suspect, I checked the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for AA and it made no mention of 13th stepping, I don't personally think it should be in this article at all, although I'm sure it goes on, it just seems like a kind of slur for the sake of it. Anyway Wiki is about compromise I guess.Mr Miles 16:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not helpful to compare Wikipedia with Britannica -- for one thing, wiki is about 20 times as big. This is partly because Britannica gives less detail about, for example, Buffy and Pokemon. Yes, it's about compromise, and unfortunately about persistence too. PhGustaf (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's helpful in the sense that Britannica is edited by people (I presume) who are trained to create such content, that would have an instinct for impartiality which we Wikipedian's wouldn't. I'm also suspicious that the info on 13th Stepping - and the idea of putting it in - came from Orange Papers, I don't think a Britannica person (or any other encyclopedia academic) would be looking there for inspiration!. Anyway for what it's worth, I think it should go, particularly as the only reliable source on the subject is a 'poorly constructed study'. Also, even if an expanded article in Britannica did include 13th Stepping (which I doubt) they wouldn't make the entry as large as the one explaining what meetings are!

Why do I always get signed in twice! Mr Miles 16:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I thought the 13 step section was helpfull, but way too long. is there a way we could just say somthing like "[incert appropriate definition of 13 step 2 sentances or less] 13th steping has been reported in the news media in relation to some individual groups abusing newcomers and a study that occured in England [citation of both midtown and england study] The orgonizational AA responded that it has no governing authoraty over the community." this would cut it down to about a paragraph, and leave all the relivent citations for anyone who is interested.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The report in the Guardian was that AA had been deciding what to do after reports of sexual abuse from the Police in UK meetings. It didn't mention 13th Stepping (targeting newcomers for dates/sex). It also wasn't a criticism of AA, on the contrary, it showed that AA head office was possibly over-stepping its own remit in trying to take action against the abuse - it was also quite old. The midtown group wasn't 13th Stepping either, it was a cult, and it was only one example whereas 13th Stepping is a type of meeting behaviour. Mr Miles 17:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've convinced myself, have moved the Midtown junk to the cult section. Bit tabloid though isn't it? That Guardian article shouldn't be there either for the reason I gave, but if I remove it PHgustav will call me a 12stepper or something worse! Mr Miles 17:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Actually, the Midtown group kind of disproves the cult theory in that it was an isolated example, if AA were a cult that kind of stuff would be happening all the time. To use Midtown as cult evidence is like using Harold Shipman to evidence that all doctors are serial killers - which to my knowledge, they're not. Back off Sign-bot Mr Miles 17:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Sandbox

I had an idea and wanted to see how it worked. I created a sandbox on the top of this page (click "test page" at the top). my thinking is that we would be able to copy sections of the article into it, and referance it into the talk page without messing up the mainspace in the prossess. It would be a great way of saying "here is my idea for a change" and then someone elce saying "I tweeked the language to this" etc. then when we come to a consensus (read 2012)(sorry, my smartass chip wasn't disabled) we can simply add it to the article. What do you guys think? will it work, or am I having a crazy moment?Coffeepusher (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't wish to P on your B, but can't we just make edits on the main article, it's kind of quicker. Plus people who just visit and want to make a change won't know about the Sandbox. Also, the bad guys will just vandalise the article anyway. Mr Miles 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

yes we can make changes in the mainspace, and I agree we should. However for major edits it may be a good place to work on things, and it would relieve tension created by the thought that "right now the article looks like this!!!!". also on a personal note, I feel like I have contributions to make, but I understand my limitations on minor editorial conserns, so I am aprehensive on adding things to the mainspace because I don't trust my own skills. this way I would feel more comfortable editing and contributing (I understand that it is kinda silly, but that is just a personal problem).Coffeepusher (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that seems good to me. Mr Miles 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the Sandbox version of the article:

Moderation vs. abstinence

The debate about moderation versus total abstinence is one of the most hotly contested issues in alcohol treatment.

line has been removed, I agree with this as the citation doesn't support the statement.

Belief in the disease theory of alcoholism and high commitment to total abstinence were found to be factors correlated with increased likelihood that an alcoholic would have a full-blown relapse (substantial continued use) following an initial lapse (single use).

line has been removed, I agree with this as removal makes the section more succinct and it was moved to studies anyway.

Disease of alcoholism

The concept of alcoholism and addiction as a disease is controversial', changed to: The medical community has not agreed that alcoholism is a disease

I agree with this as it is a statement of fact rather than opinion.

Other notable criticism

"Thirteenth-stepping" is a euphemistic term describing the practice of targeting new AA members for dates or sex. In an article, Why Alcoholics Anonymous Is Not Always a Safe Place for Women, chemical dependency treatment providers were advised to be aware of this trend, and that vulnerable people like those with histories of sexual abuse should be referred to single-gender-only groups

The Guardian and Midtown reports have been removed. This is right, as neither report 13th Stepping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would rather have this than the previous huge section, it covers all the same points and the study is linked if people want to read further. I don't agree with it's inclusion though as the study is so tiny how can it be representative? Don't all organisations have these kind of problems, is this really a criticism of AA? If the issue is not a consequence of AA's policy then I don't believe it to be controversial. It's inclusion is also loaded with POV.

The cult section is 'Alexander and Rollins' v 'Vaillant' in this version. I agree with this change, but as no-one seriously believes AA is a cult (in the negative 'Wako' meaning of the word), does this really need to be here?

Overall I prefer the size of this section (which is now about a quarter of the article rather than half!) with the less important criticisms as bulletpoints

What do I do Coffeepusher, change the sandbox version to how I think it should read in accordance to what I've written? I'll do that, let me know if that's not what you expected. Mr Miles 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that would work, right now the entire page is in the sandbox in order to give sandy's edits due consideration (in spite of personal feelings on the matter, just because s/he won't come to the table, their edits have merit...and they shouldn't be outright thrown out just because sandy dosn't understand/respect other editors opinions...but an endurance war should not be rewarded as well...hence the conflict) once we reach consensus on this issue, I don't see the entire page beeing in there, only one or two sections. so I would say note your changes like this...[6] ...and everyone can see what you have done, that and it will atomaticly be logged in the history page, so we can go back to it later.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was also just thinking that a couple of controversies are not covered in the article:

• AA is suggesting a spiritual cure for a medical problem (personally I think this is THE controversy around AA)
• AA is suggesting that lay individuals (as opposed to medically trained individuals) are responsible in providing/teaching the AA recovery programme. particularly relevant to the US where AA is a major part of the governments alcoholism treatment programme.

I'll try and find refs, if we agree these are 'issues'. Mr Miles 14:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are heading here, Mr. Miles. I don't think that there is any issue over whether or not AA is suggesting a spiritual cure, or that AA suggests that non-professional interactions are key to AA-recovery. It is all in the big book. I don't know if you want to open the can-o-worms about whether or not either of these is truly effective, given that we cannot agree on how "effectiveness" is measured (see the attrition section). In any case, that Tonigan fellow has a massive amount of research on spiritual issues on his website that should be of interest to you. Maybe I have missed your point here. BTW, why is the article protected?Desoto10 (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean that there is controversy around whether or not AA is offering a spiritual cure, as you say that is a fact clear from AA literature. But rather, I'm saying that, to the science based medical community, a spiritual cure is always going to be highly controversial (almost regardless of efficacy). I'm suggesting that this IS the biggest controversy of AA and should head the list. The non-professional interaction as treatment is controversial for the same reason. How we Wikify that, not sure. Mr Miles 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

OK, I get it now. Since the consensus seems to be that there is no way to judge the effectiveness of AA, given that you cannot randomly assign people to AA or not-AA groups, then I don't know what you can do other than say that modern science rejects the notion of spiritual cures, much like science rejects creationism and faith healing. Your statement about science rejecting spiritual cures regardless of efficacy is a bit disingenuous. If you can show, using scientific methods a causual relationship (not corellative) between AA and outcome, then "science" would accept it. Naturally, scientists would still object to the "spiritual" cause and claim that other factors are at play, but they would still accept the finding. Apparently, we have agreed tha this cannot be done, so I don't know how you are going to proceed. If I can help in any way, please let me know.Desoto10 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to think about this one a bit more. Worth noting, I didn't say the medical community had rejected AA - rather, in a way it has embraced AA (the US mandated attendance for example), perhaps because of the lack of viable alternative - just that the medical community finds it controversial. What do you think of the Sandbox version, have any changes Desoto10? Mr Miles 17:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

You are correct in that the medical community HAS embraced AA. I am surprised that there isn't more about this in our entry. I suggested to David Mack that he could probably find some stronger references to the fact that the vast majority of rehabs use AA concepts and facilitate entry into AA.Desoto10 (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We currently have a section with a short paragraph relating to this. A couple more lines should probably be added to explain the mechanics of referral perhaps? With AA receiving 31% of its membership from treatment centres, that would seem right.Mr Miles 21:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I just took a look at the sandbox version. Some parts are pretty good, some parts less so. In our paranoia about citations, most of it appears simply as disconnected sentances with a reference. However I understand why this is. Any non-cited sentance will be pounced upon by one side or the other as being biased. I am a little concerned about the loss of the 13th stepping (maybe I missed where it had been shuffled off to). It is a well known problem in AA and other addiction recovery groups. I am involved with a variety of AA groups that run "in association" with hospital rehab centers and the therapists involved are all aware of and concerned about 13th stepping. I know that some people claim that this sort of thing happens in all groups, but I think that you have to concede that a group of newly recovering alcoholicsa and drug addicts are fundemenatlly different from , say a group of amateur astronomers, or a book club, or the Elks and their meetings. Freshly rehabed people of both sexes are clearly vulnerable and it is well known that they are targeted by more experienced members in the groups.

The third External Link is a bit weird, being a clearinghouse for "faith-based" recovery. It is clearly biased.Desoto10 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree a group of newly recovering alcoholics are particularly vunerable, and I don't think enough is done at meetings/treatment centres to raise members awareness of potential abuse. However, I don't think the 13th Stepping section belongs in an encyclopedia article, it's not Wikipedia's job to provide this information to AA members. You rightly point out that this sort of behaviour (people hitting on other people), happens in all social situations/groups. I think the important questions are: Does it happen any more frequently in AA than in other social groups? Do the policies of the AA organisation encourage it? If the answer is yes to both questions, and reliable sources can be found, it should go in.

I agree with your comment about the 3rd external like being weird, I removed it.

Do you agree the rest of the content Desoto? By the way, make changes if you have any, it's a sandbox you can go crazy! Mr Miles 22:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the sandbox version, and it seems a little less...well, you know how we have been cramming in studies and research and it read like some people crammed in studies and research...there is a lot less of that. there are enough sub pages for AA and 12 steps that we can link the main page to them and forget about it, so I like that feture. the point is I like it.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, are we good to go with this sandbox version? Any more comments? Mr Miles 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Done. Mr Miles 09:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

Limitations on Research

The following sentence has been here for a while, but reading the paragraph, it does not seem to fit:

"Membership is voluntary and determined by the individual, not by the group, with no requirements, dues or fees, or membership lists.[49] "

If you read the paragraph without it, you won't miss it. The fact that AA membership is voluntary, etc is covered in sections earlier.Desoto10 (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the last sentence of that paragraph:

"AA is effective, but how well and for whom has not yet been adequately researched.[52]"

makes a conclusion that AA is effective, based on a textbook chapter, which is not the subject of this paragraph and is already covered in the lead. This paragraph is about why it is difficult to study AA in isolation of other factors, not whether or not it is effective.Desoto10 (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, and then I changed the Effectiveness section order and added a subheading for Studies. I think that the Limitations on Research should go first followed by the Studies and then end with the comment on attrition.Desoto10 (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those two sentences don't add anything, and I think your reordering makes sense.

The attrition section has a problem in its use of the word "sober". There are certainly people who have dropped out of AA who are sober and people still in AA who are not; all the attrition data shows is how many people still show up at meetings. PhGustaf (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I like your changes Desoto. Thanks.

The data used in the attrition section does not include people who have dropped out of AA, nor does it include previous periods of sobriety in AA prior to 'slips'. The survey data shows length of time sober AND length of attendance of AA meetings (current sobriety), so the use of the word sober is correct. Mr Miles 21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected on "sober". PhGustaf (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you two talking about the same section? There are stats in the Attrition section and different stats in the Demographics section. I think PhGustaf is talking about Attrition and Mr Miles may be talking about Demographics. Then again...Desoto10 (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the source for the attrition section, the famous 5% paper, and noted that it cited "sobriety" rather than "attendance" for members with over a year. I'm really suspicious (and you gotta be suspicious about data based on questionnaires) but that's what it says. PhGustaf (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert War Update

User:SandymcT put her changes back in again, despite thier discussion being unresolved and a note from an admin saying that that action would lead to her being blocked. She also readded or edited the template that displays the nasty padlock, apparently thinking she could extend the protection by five days all by herself. Doesn't work that way, fixed now, so much for good faith on Sandy's part. Come back tomorrow for another thrilling episode. PhGustaf (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:207.194.108.93 and User:207.232.97.13, the IP addresses of the Sockpuppet account:User:MisterAlbert, have been making substantial changes to the article without entering into discussion and just re-adding material rejected by consensus. I hope the regular editors with give this user the same short shrift that User:SandymcT received for the same behaviour. Mr Miles 21:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

13th Stepping

This one needs work. I think that we could just mention that it happens in a sentence, but I believe that we are placing too much weight on what was essentially a pick-and-choose study. In other words, the presented statistics have no value and our putting them in there makes it seem like they do.

OK, that should piss off the anti-AA folks, now let me piss off the pro-AA group ;) The first paragraph:

Mutual support and abuse have both been observed in AA groups.[18] AA undertakes no external restriction, screening, or vetting of its members, and the long-form version of Tradition Three states that any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an AA group.[63]

should be removed as it seems to be an apology for the next paragraph, but really does not make much sense. Look, for every seemingly bad thing about AA, we don't need to provide an apology or a good factor. 13th stepping is well-known and is a bad thing. If anyone can provide real statistics about it, great, or if anyone can find statistics about it happening in other non-addiction groups, fine. As it is, we have very little to go on and I would like to reduce this section to simply state that it occurs, and reference it as best we can.Desoto10 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish we could get beyond "pro-AA" and "anti-AA". Yes, the 13th-step bit is too long, and yes, putting disclaimers on facts that show bad facets of AA is destructive, and makes the article read like a tract. Readers notice stuff like that. I'm fine with your suggestions. PhGustaf (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't promote that attitude. Sorry. Desoto10 (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good discussion. The line: Mutual support... should go, however, doesn't it make sense to keep the AA undertakes no external restriction, screening, or vetting of its members line? Isn't that the criticism, or at least that was my take on its inclusion?

I've reintroduced the line "Thirteenth-stepping" is a euphemistic term describing the practice of targeting new AA members for dates or sex. with the original reference. I still have an issue with this, which is basically; where is the criticism? Why are we including this? Are we saying: AA has failed to act on this recurring problem in its ranks... ? Or are we saying: One consequence of AA not vetting its members is 13th stepping... Or are we saying: One unfortunate side effect of alcoholism is transference of addition which can lead to sex addiction and 13th stepping... If we include it in this section (and where else would it go?), then we need to say what is being criticised, with ref of course. (And that what is being referenced is actually 13th Stepping). Mr Miles 19:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made those changes in the Sandbox. Mr Miles 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I think we are just saying that 13th-stepping happens. We don't get to analyze it. PhGustaf (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But if 13th-stepping is a negative thing, and I presume that is the point of including it in the criticism section, then who is being criticised? Smoking has many negative consequences, smoking happens at AA meetings, so shouldn't that go it too?

Mr Miles--yes, absolutely we would have put in a section on smoking at AA meetings if we were writing this 20 years ago when virtually every AA meeting was one big fogbank of smoke! "AA" realized that this was an issue and, at first, some meetings had smoking and non-smoking sections, then lots of meetings became non-smoking entirley.Desoto10 (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What about dating within AA, has that been criticised, by whom? If not when does 13th-stepping become dating, after a year of sobriety, who says? What is the definition of 13th-stepping? If targeting newcomers is called 13th-stepping and is a real phenomena and a problem, then there has to be referenced from a reliable source (the survey referenced now didn't base it's results on length of sobriety). It is the inclusion of the topic without clear purpose and with a lack of clear definition that makes it POV (and gossip). In my opinion, it's inclusion is not encyclopedic, because as you say Desoto, we have very little to go on. Mr Miles 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a reasonable effort to find reliable references for any kind of statistics about 13th stepping and, except for that Addictions Nursing article, came up with zilch. I know it happens because I have seen it and I know many therapists who know it happens and they watch out for it, but nobody seems to have made any serious effort to document it. Mr. Miles askes the excellent question "does it occur more often in AA groups than in other situations?". My knee-jerk response would be "yes", but I have nothing other than my personal experience to back that up. Given this I suggest paring 13th stepping down to a sentence.Desoto10 (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess we can include the line as it stands (as controversy, not criticism). My problem with the study we cite is that is gives a definition of 13th-stepping (targeting newcomers) then the research was not made from interviews with newcomers! I think it was just a couple of researchers trying to grab some headlines, its a shame we're giving it to them! But if that is the consensus. Mr Miles 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I believe what we currently have for 13th stepping is about all we can say. I think it sums up the truth: it happens, but nobody knows how prevalent the practice is. Apparently the March 2008 edition of the AA Grapevine mentions the subject, but I don't want to subscribe.Desoto10 (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Confidentiality

The sentence:

Twelve-step program members are not legally bound to keep confidentiality agreements

makes no sense. What "confidentiality agreements" are we talking about? Do AA members enter into some sort of confidentiality agreement when they attend AA? No, of course not. If they did and they were signed agreements, then they WOULD be legally bound to keep them. I believe that we mean to say that, even though most members are encouraged to maintain confidentiality, there is no legal requirement for them to do so.Desoto10 (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How about:

Although a statement is read during meetings that what is said there should remain confidential (the ‘yellow card’), AA members, unlike lawyers or clergy, are not legally bound to maintain confidentiality.

Not sure that's is any clearer than your edit Desoto. Mr Miles 09:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Either one is fine with me. Somebody might want a citation for the "yellow card" bit.Desoto10 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody reverted the sentence (by mistake, I am sure). I put Mr Miles' version (without reference to yellow card in this time.Desoto10 (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Disease of Alcoholism

We could probably use a better reference for the fact that there is a controversy than

Alan I. Leshner. "What does it mean that addiction is a brain disease?" Monitor on Psychology (American Psychological Association) Volume 32, No. 5 June 2001

Leshner, at least in the short summary that I linked to in the main article seems to conclude that alcoholism IS a disease. Granted he mentions that there are some who disagree.Desoto10 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We should also aim for consistency. In the AA entry we have:

The medical community has not agreed that alcoholism is a disease

and in the Disease Concept of Alcholism we have:

The disease theory is generally accepted by the medical community, which argues that genetic, neurological and behavioral studies distinguish those with alcohol dependence from problem drinkers.[

Would anybody object to putting the same language in both entries? Any suggestions for what that language should be? Is there a consensus among an identifiable group that it is a disease, and a consensus among another identifiable group that it is not?Desoto10 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the two articles should agree and would add the disease theory entry to the AA one. From what I have read, which isn't much, it seems there is consensus in the medical community that alcoholism is a disease entity, but agreement is not unanimous (a few dissenters like Peele for example). Mr Miles 09:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I made the edit. If somebody changes one, please change the other.Desoto10 (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Reports of Abuse

Reports of abuse are abuse , the media did not mention 13th steppiing so it was not added to 13th stepping but addresses abuse in general, both sexual and other.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Fred

Thanks for your edit. I've removed it for the following reasons:

• You have re-added material that was already discussed and removed from the sandbox version.
• There is no clear reason for the inclusion of the reports. Wikipedia guidelines remind us that Wiki is not just a collection of facts.
• You have added a news report from the UK from 2000, and one from the US from last year, and seem to be suggesting a connection between the two, but you have not made that connection clear.
• Wikipedia offers us some guidelines on the inclusion of news reports: Routine news coverage and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. And Wiki discourages the inclusion of a news report unless it goes beyond the context of a single event, and is in proportion to its importance to the overall topic.

You've added this kind of material so many times, can you give a reason why you think it is so important?

Also, can you please use the sandbox before making major edits as agreed.

Thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Disease of Alcoholism

We mention that AA operates under the assumption that alcoholism is a disease and point out Bill W's contention of "obsession" and "allergy". The allergy part is clearly not a currently viable hypothesis as there is no classical allergic response to alcohol in most alcoholics as far as I know. I think that we need to add that the currently hypothesized physiological mechanisms for alcoholism (disrupted neural pathways) do not coincide with Bill W's, nor, by association, AA's. In fact, AA seems to have a very special definition of alcoholism as a disease because it would be the only disease that could be put into remission by faith.Desoto10 (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting subject. AA literature retains the original text from 1930s when the physical craving aspect of alcoholism was hypothesised as an allergy. Bearing in mind the medical understanding of allergies has moved on significantly since 1930s, but doesn't current medical opinion still maintain that there is a physical component to the disease? I note, AA's website now omits the word allergy, so perhaps AA's GSO no longer attributes the term to alcoholism? Does the current psychological hypothesis for addition not still match (in essence) AA's description of 'obsession'? This is a can of worms because (my neurologist mate informs me), the psychology field of the medical community doesn't agree with the neurology field regarding definitions/causes of addiction anyway.

'AA seems to have a very special definition of alcoholism as a disease because it would be the only disease that could be put into remission by faith' - hardly that special, what about homeopathy! ;)

Mr Miles (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just throwing it out there. Don't get me started on homeopathy!! I was cetainly not arguing against a physical component of alcoholism. In my worldview, there is no mind-body duality at all. Everything is physical. Note that this view does not at all rule out the power of faith (it just fools with the basis). I will work up a short paragraph and pass it around.Desoto10 (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a bold move and separated the disease concept AA into the main body of the article as it is neither criticism nor controversial (the medical community generally agrees). The criticism is represented by the Stanton Peele line, which I have left in the C&C section. My reason for making this change is to emphasis this section because I believe the disease theory to be quite significant (regardless of my personal agreement with it), and AA was prominent in spreading this idea. I am not at all precious about this change so move it back if you like (and apologies for not using the sandbox, bit short of time today). Mr Miles (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

SPIRITUAL PROGRAM

I am concerned that AA is being referred to in this article as a "religious" organization. Whatever the courts may have determined in the discussed case, the 12 steps are designed to have a spiritual focus. But AA is not a religious organization by any stretch. Its focus on a higher power which is personally defined by the individual in recovery as he sees it does not qualify it as a religious organization. Does this concern anyone else, and how can we clarify that in this context? EyePhoenix (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your consern. however the summery in that section comes from the quote "requiring a parolee to attend religion-based treatment programs violates the First Amendment," the court said. "While we in no way denigrate the fine work of (Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous), attendance in their programs may not be coerced by the state." from a reliable source. Please note that the only times "religious baced" is used in this article it is to accuratly convay the meaning of the sources provided. although we personaly may or may not agree with the said quotes, they are accuratly portrayed and are from a WP:RS, and any modification of those quotes comes close to WP:OR. if you have a better way to phrase this, I would be glad to hear what you would like to say to summerise this section.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The finding of the case agrees with your point that AA does not qualify as a religious organization EyePhoenix, stating:

We do not hold that AA/NA is itself a religion.

But it goes on to say:

We hold only that, for the purposes of reviewing the grant of summary judgment and on the facts alleged, the AA/NA program involved here has such substantial religious components that governmentally compelled participation in it violated the Establishment Clause.

Do you think that's clear enough in the article? Mr Miles (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we cover the spiritual nature of AA as well as possible. Nowhere is it claimed that AA is a religion. One would be hard pressed to argue that AA is not religious, however. Indeed, it would be difficult to argue that in the US, AA is not Christian. Most AA meetings begin with a plea to God (not a "higher power", but God) and end with the Lord's Prayer. I am not saying this is bad, just that it is. It has always seemed to me that "spirituality" is just highly generic "religion".Desoto10 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked. Relig* occurs only in the references and in the Court Cases bit.Desoto10 (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, AA's 'spirituality' has a lot in common with the religion Unitarian Universalism, but AA's focus on a specific problem denotes it as a 'spiritual treatment' rather than religion, although I would say AA is more complex than that and involves psychological effects. The confessional aspect of 4th/5th Step is a good example of AA's psychological/spiritual duality. Mr Miles (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You know how we keep having the same discussions over and over on this page?

So, I was reading the Barack Obama talk page, and saw their FAQ box. It would say everyone a lot of time if were kind of summarized the questions and conclusions of common discussions it in. Just click edit, and add to it. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The value of a FAQ is that it stays on top, while the archives get buried. Keep in mind that we have the same discussions over and over because new people come on board. Just because an argument was "resolved" in the past does not mean that a new person would see it as resolved now. People also change their minds or learn new stuff. For example, I suspect that we will never fully resolve AA's spirituality vs. religiosity or the disease concept of alcoholism no matter how many times we discuss them. But that's OK, Wikipedia articles are always chsnging which is why it is different.Desoto10 (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear that you agree with me? -- Scarpy (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a FAQ can be useful. I am less concerned about rehashing old discussions.Desoto10 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Disease of Alchoholism

I suggest that the following sentence be removed, since it has nothing to do with alcoholism as a disease:

"Alcoholics, he argued, can never safely use alcohol in any form at all, since once forming the habit, they cannot break it.[27]"

I wish that somebody with a little more knowledge about philosophy, spiritualism and religion would step in and write a paragraph about the seeming paradox of how AA contends that alcoholism is a disease that cannot be put into remission by willpower, but can be put into remission by faith in a higher power. There seems to be a disconnect there. In fact Bill uses the disease model as a reason why willpower cannot work.Desoto10 (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. In that statement, Silkworth gives a definition (AA's) of addiction. Disease of alcoholism = disease of addiction, the two are the same (to AA, hence there are 12-step programs for other addictions). whether or not he is correct that addicts can never learn to take their substances moderately again, is a separate issue, but the line is a most important statement of AA belief.

Personally, I'm becoming more interested in Neurology and the advancements being made there in the area of addiction. For example, the frontal lobe is responsible for controlling the other functions of the brain including its ability to 'multi-task' (shutting down one thought process before it has finished in order to begin another). If the frontal lobe isn't working properly (injury, disease or development reasons), thoughts are not shut down. Neurologists connect this with obsessional thinking - addiction for example (the thought of having a drink enters the addicts mind and he can't let go of it). Meditation is considered a very effective way of exercising the frontal lobe, improving its function and ability to 'let go' of thoughts. Trying to force through conscious effort (willpower) the same closing down of thoughts doesn't work as well. I imagine that prayer and faith might act in a similar way to meditation, without any recourse to the supernatural.

From the point of view of this article, AA's model of addiction is a combination of religion/spiritualism (Oxford) and science (Silkworth), a deeper study of AA's model should probably be approached from both sides. Mr Miles (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One other point. There is no disconnect between AA's statement that alcoholism is a disease and AA's recommendation that its spiritual program is the answer. Firstly because the 12-step program is not JUST spiritual, there is sound psychological basis for some of the steps (Step 9, removal of guilt, for example). And secondly AA promotes its program as a solution explicitly because there is no scientific cure for alcoholism currently available: "although there may one day be" writes Bill Wilson. Mr Miles (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to leave it in, just checking. Interesting that you bring up the frontal cortex. I know a neurosurgeon in Toronto who is putting deep brain stimulation electrodes there to alleviate some OCD issues. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't thought of addictions.Desoto10 (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cutter v. Wilkinson

Interesting. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW - I found it while researching for the LifeRing Secular Recovery article. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks Good Ladies and Gents

I was here a few weeks ago - I don't know what changed, but the article is far more solid and continues to evolve. Quality work! Lucida.ann (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Moderation Management

I finished an article on Moderation Management. Would appreciate some of your lively feedback. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)