Talk:Twelve traditions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Anarchist dogma?

At the very end of the article it says that AA traditions are often compared with "Anarchist dogma." Forgiving that that's an oxymoron, what specifically about Anarchist dogma is similar to AA traditions? Theshibboleth 03:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A copy of UKNA magazine, Clean Times, featured an article in 2004 or early '05 about whichever tradition states that "our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern". This is of course very much in keeping with anarchist theory. Other aspects of the traditions, such as calls for unity, also fit in well with the anarchist worldview. Seeing as I wrote pretty much the whole criticism section (with minor edits from others), I concur that perhaps "dogma" was the incorrect word to use ("theory" seems sound) but apart from that, think that statement should stay. SR


[edit] Neutrality

Ok, there's a tag up the top saying it should be checked for neutrality, and I agree. Mostly in reference to the "critisisms" section. Also, it seems to contain a whole bunch of quoted statements with no source that seem to skew the meaning of them. For instance: "However, outsiders often hear of courts "forcing" offenders to attend meetings and keep a record of their attendance"

Will do a slash and hack fix for now, because I'm not personally familiar with the subject matter, but anyone who is should potentially reiterate the points in finer detail. --Angolon It's cold out here, and there are wolves after me. 11:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The twelve traditions are adopted guidelines a particular group uses in dealing with internal matters. When it comes to talking about matters of chemical dependency, there is controversy. But as for the traditions, they are the adopted guidelines of a group of people self identified as members. This is no bias in such guidelines, technically I would call this a political protocol. I am thus removing the neutrality dispute claim. If anyone has any questions or disagreements with this claim, please drop me a note. Thanks! --pozcircuitboy

[edit] 12 and 12 in other fellowships

I'm familiar with the literature of NA, CMA, SCA, SAA, SA, and I have never heard of anyone else using the title for the step and traditions study literature -- further, I doubt US copyright laws would allow that. Ex: NA published "It Works: How and Why" as their step and tradition study. I'm going to go ahead and make a minor adjustment to the wording here to reflect this change, and make a few other minor spelling/grammar edits.

[edit] First sentence

I think you should mention "Alcoholics Anonymous" in the first sentence. As it is now, this article has some no-context issues. Greswik 12:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a general article referenced by various wiki articles of twelve-step groups it's sufficient to state AA right below it in the heading for their version of the Traditions -- in other words, this isn't just an article about "AA" Traditions. And since it is mentioned there, it is redundant to mention it directly beforehand. Origins also explains how Traditions began in AA, to give credit where it's due. -Bikinibomb 13:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact it is referenced by other articles is not the point. It should read allright if someone gets here as a random act. And then it should have an opener like "The twelve traditions is a fundamental part of AA thinking." (this just to state the idea, it's not my suggestion.) Greswik 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with 12 step program article

Unless anyone has objections this should be merged with Twelve-step program article and redirected there since it is essentially duplicated. -Bikinibomb 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. Once you've merged them, the articles that link to this page should be edited so they point to the appropriate section in the Twelve-step program article. -- Craigtalbert 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)