Jump to content

Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

(untitled)

I can see you don't want the truth told about Bill Wilson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.15.138.125 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy. If you want to criticize the subject of any article on Wikipedia, you must back it up with facts and cite your sources. Personally, I'm not a member of AA and if you don't like them it's no skin off my nose. However, Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions - not mine, not yours, not even Jimbo Wales'. See WP:NOT for more on this. Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes. RedRollerskate 23:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


AA is a cult and must truthfully be written about as such.

The below "denier" who has a history of "sugar coating" facts(common with AA cult menber) continues to vandalize well documented truths about AA on this page. Can someone ban that user from editing this article?

The above cult comment was left by 64.136.49.229 who has a long history of vandalizing various articles. The user has warings on his/her talk pages that at least go back to September so this is not new. They have been warned repeatedly. Franky I have no tollerance for this. Can someone ban him/her from editing this article? Mr Christopher 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Spiritual Experience

I was curious to see what wikipedia would have under "spiritual experience" - but I was redirected to this page. I am utterly confused...Why would I be redirected from "spiritual experience" to AA? Doesn't make sense - can someone explain it to me? 75.30.176.51 04:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"/Merits of AA/Supporters" Section

I have made an *addition* to the section on supporters of AA. I have not removed or edited any material. Here is a paste of my item: (start paste)

  • AA believes that members cannot "control people places or things." In other words, an AA member cannot control *outcomes*. It is possible to manage one's life, but one cannot force a desired outcome. One *can* work toward an outcome, set goals, make plans, pursue desired ends, and so forth. The results of those efforts, however, are not determinable. An AA member learns to change the things that can be changed, as has been noted.

(end paste)

I made this addition to make more explicit the distinction between "managing" and "controlling." The previous item talks about "footwork," and how footwork is different from results, and that's fine. But I wanted to more clearly lay out the AA concept of "accepting what I cannot change" while making it clear that goals, plans and so forth are encouraged. Ned 10:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

First Sentence

I have changed the first sentence because of a recent edit that said that AA was designed to get people sober. In fact, AA is simply the messenger of the Twelve Steps, and exists to put forward that message. Its only reason for existence is that. It so happens that in creating a fellowship to carry the message of the Twelve Steps, it also creates fellowship and support, but the Twelve Steps are the essence of what AA is about. Cherns

Cherns: Fine, I changed it, but on reflection, your approach is perhaps better. Marcus.
Nevertheless, historically, the fellowship predated the Twelve Steps. "[AA's] Primary Purpose", as the AA Preamble says, is not "to carry the message of the Twelve Steps" but "to stay sober, and to help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety". (Of course, the main texts of AA literature were not written with the goal of internal verbal/literal consistency.) --Haruo 21:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I must add my opinion that AA is not designed to promote the 12 Steps but, rather, is designed to help members stay sober. The Big Book states that the 12 Steps are "suggestions." AA certainly predated the steps and, in fact, the steps are essentially a summary of what early AA members did to stay sober. In other words, the steps are a description of how AA functions, not the substance of AA. This is what the Big Book, 12X12 book, and Bill Wilson's writings have consistently said. Ned 08:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

AA and Atheism

Since when does the definition of rationality involve believing in a higher power?! This article is ridiculous.

I have added a section that addresses the views of the American government on what type of organization A.A. is. I deleted a phrase that I found extremely offensive: I'm paraphrasing but it was something to the effect of "despite the "Higher Power" step/rule, some athiests successfully enter into A.A." This is contradictory: athiesm is the lack of belief in *ANY* higher power. Period.

Much of what was entered was taken from the documentary on A.A. put together by Penn Gillette. Roll your eyes if you wish. The simple fact of the matter is that A.A. REQUIRES, as it's most fundamental step, that you surrender yourself to a higher power - as one of their members said in the documentary, "Whether that's God or, you know, a rock in your front yard." Any organization that requires that you believe in a diety in order to be a member is, by definition (and specifically by definition of the Supreme Court) a religious one. It's as simple as that. And I feel that in stating so I am being completely NPOV. I am not an alcoholic, and I have nothing against the organization, or against religious groups. Bully for all of them! But a fact is a fact.

++ There is no requirement within AA that a member believe in God or a Higher Power. In fact, in the book Alcoholics Anonymous it clearly states, "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."++--ErnestExpress 02:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"atheism is the lack of belief in ANY higher power. Period." Nope. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or gods--no more, no less.--Vorpalbla the atheist, 1/27/05
In response, it should be noted that while A.A. refers to a "Higher Power", this need not imply a belief in some sort of a deity. Rather, the point is that the individual is not the most important element, that there is a thing or concept that is more important. A Higher Power can even refer to humanity as a whole. I am aware of a handful of A.A. groups that refer to themselves (in their own group names) as agnostic or atheist. So, to put it another way, agnostics and atheists can "successfully enter into AA". Yes, many members or groups are explicitly religious, but there is absolutely no requirement, explicit or implicit, that members submit themselves to some sort of deity. Having said that, I see no reason to not have the following text (included in an earlier version) placed back in the text: That said, the notion of "Higher Power" is left vague enough that other atheists comfortably follow A.A.'s approach to recovery. My goal here is to make clear both the written atheist critique and the response to that critique. Does anyone disagree? Oh yeah: why is "religous organization" in bold? Is this some wiki formatting rule that I'm unaware of? Fufthmin 20:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"athiesm is the lack of belief in *ANY* higher power"--If that is the definition of atheism, then there is no such thing as atheism, as every rational human being acknowledges forces that are more powerful than the individual. In addition to these forces--both natural and man-made--millions of people worship values such as wealth and status and will do anything to achieve them. Thus, it is possible for an atheist to turn such a pursuit into a "higher power." Within AA philosophy, a "higher power" is simply anything that takes precedence in a person's life. If making your mortgage payment is the most important thing in your life, then your house payment has become your higher power. If taking a drink has become the most important thing in your life, then alcohol is your higher power. Since the person in AA is free to choose any "higher power" he likes--and is also free to change it on a yearly, daily, or even hourly basis--and since this "higher power" need not be a deity of any kind, then it is illogical to categorize AA as a religion, because every religion, unlike AA, has strict and specific definitions of "God." Also inaccurate is your statement that AA is an "organization that requires that you believe in a diety in order to be a member." AA very clearly states that "The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking." There is no requirement to believe in a deity of any kind. Even so, a "requirement" to believe in a higher power would be redundant, since every rational person--whether in AA or not--already acknowledges any number of elements that are more powerful than the individual. The purpose of the "higher power" in AA is to replace alcohol as the higher power in the alcoholic's life, so that the power of alcohol can be broken. This psychological transference can be achieved with any "higher power" that works for the alcoholic, whether that "higher power" be religious, secular, material, or conceptual. This is why it is perfectly possible for atheists to be members of AA--and yes, there are many. --R.C. Young
"because every religion, unlike AA, has strict and specific definitions of "God."" How about Unitarianism? Buddhism? Chinese ancester worship?--Vorpalbla
Since these three belief systems are not interchangeable, the "higher powers" they worship must be distinct from one another. For instance, Chinese ancestor worship is a religion because it requires its adherents to worship their ancestors. AA is not a religion, as it does not require its members to worship anything/anyone in particular. --R. C. Young 3/8/05


R.C. your argument that the "higher power" can be "anything" is so convoluted as to be non-sense trying to justify a NPOV article. It is implied in AA doctrine that this "higher power" is some sort of benevolent and intelligent "power." Without such an implication the doctrine would be non-sense as you could just say, "oh, I'll just remain an athiest, consider the cieling to be my 'higher power'--it's higher than me and contains much more potential energy then me so in a sense is more 'powerful after all--and everything will just be dandy." It can't be anything, or it would be nonsense and usless as one of the 12 steps. It is clear that "higher power" means something that you can alleviate your guilt and resposibilities, and it would be pointless to consider this "yourself" since that's where your guilt ans responibility was to begin with.

Besides, even if you could concievably intrepret "higher power" as such, you would be encouraged (or in some people's POV coerced) into adopting an interpretation more in line with AA doctrine. A belief in a "higher power" simply cannot be reconciled with many people's deepest beliefs, specifically atheists, and in practice, whether in theory or not, atheists are in fact alienated in AA meetings and encouraged to adopt a belief in some sort of intelligent and benevolent "higher power." That is fact, you could argue about possible compatible beliefs in theory all you want, but the reason many people don't feel comfortable in AA is because they feel alienated not by the theory, but the common interpretation of that theory, which they are constantly "encouraged" to conform too. To deny that is to deny the experience of thousands of people who have been driven away from AA, not because they don't want to get sober--as attested by the fact that many have formed alternative groups--but because they have experienced a lack of acceptance by AA members--which is AA--of their deep personal convictions. --Brentt 09:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I must say that the "higher power" in AA is most definitely NOT necessarily a deity, a divine power, or a god of any type. For example, many AA members use the AA group that they are part of as their higher power. An AA "higher power" need only be something "greater than oneself." (For this reason, one's higher power cannot BE one's self.) This issue was explicitly debated at the time the Big Book was written. Many AA members argued at the time that the higher power SHOULD be explicitly identified as a deity. But Bill Wilson resisted, and a number of AA members strongly supported his position, and so the term "higher power" was presented as a necessary thing -- not necessarily an entity -- whose nature would be decided by individual AA members for themselves. Having said this, it must be added that the THIRD of the 12 steps of the AA program does say, "3) Made a decision to turn our life and our will over to the care of God as we understood him." Notwithstanding this, AA literature consistently states that a higher power in AA need not be a deity, and AA literature presents numerous stories of individuals who have experienced lengthy sobriety in AA and do not believe in God. Ned 08:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "God" in AA is used with the understanding that it is interchangeable with any concept of a "Higher Power" a member wishes to use. The first chapter of the Big Book, Bill's Story, states that his friend from the Oxford Group suggested to him "Why don't you chose your own conception of God?" The Third Step states: "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him." (emphasis original, not added.)More references to the freedom to define one's own higher power are made throughout the Big Book and the topic is specifically addressed in detail in Chapter 3: We Agnostics: "When, therefore, we speak to you of God, we mean your own conception of God. This applies, too, to other spiritual expressions which you find in this book. Do not let any prejudice you may have against spiritual terms deter you from honestly asking yourself what they mean to you"(emphasis added.)

Many are atheist if God is defined by others- by parents, dictionaries, and organized religions, for example. However since AA allows each member to individually define "God" those who would otherwise be deemed atheist might not be so as AA defines "God". Often a member's "Higher Power" which they may or may not choose to refer to as "God" is the "Group of Drunks" or in other words the combined power of the fellowship of AA members. If AA allows each member to individually define God then by AA's standards a member who believes in any higher power would not be an atheist. But using traditional definitions of God a member who's higher power was a "Group of Drunks" would still be considered an atheist.

Furthermore agnostics must not decide to believe without reservation in a Higher Power in order to start working the steps in AA. From Chapter 3: We Agnostics: "We needed to ask ourselves but one short question. --"Do I now believe, or am I even willing to believe, that there is a Power greater than myself?" As soon as a man can say that he does believe, or is willing to believe, we emphatically assure him that he is on his way. It has been repeatedly proven among us that upon this simple cornerstone a wonderfully effective spiritual structure can be built." Being willing to believe means that one is willing to work the steps in order to come to find a belief and relationship with one's own understanding of God.72.72.109.253 16:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Misc.

The version of 22:03 Jun 14, 2002 has completely different material. Should it be restored?

In my opinion, no. I think the history of this page is a good example of how wikipedia works. It covers a controversial subject on which many people hold strong views - the page has swung back and forth and now gets pretty close to my idea of NPOV. I think that the so-called "atheist's critique" of AA is actually more of a critique of the court system that insists convicted criminals attend AA meetings as part of their sentence than of AA itself, but I don't see any reason to remove it. In my experience, AA only works for people when they are ready and truly have the desire to stop drinking (that's the only membership requirement after all) not when a court or other authority figure decides it's time for them to stop drinking.

On moderation, I used the first relevant link I found on Google; the article may be biased in one direction or the other but I skimmed it and it looked fine. --Calieber 14:19, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous History should be fully and accurately reported today. For my own part, I devoted 14 years of research and writing to the subject of early A.A.'s origins and spiritual roots. Contrary to what is often passed along today, A.A. had two distinctly different beginnings. The first began with the youth of co-founder Dr. Bob and his membership in the North Congregational Church in St. Johnsbury, Vermont and particularly his participation as a youngster in the world-wide Christian Endeavor movement. From those experiences, Dr. Bob became dedicated to Confession of Christ, Bible study, Quiet Time, group prayer, fellowship and witness. And these principles can be found in the early Akron AA program. In fact that group was called a Christian Fellowship and held "old fashioned prayer meetings." While Dr. Bob belonged to a very limited Oxford Group devoted to helping drunks and read most of their literature, his focus was on reliance on the Creator, acceptance of Christ, Bible study, prayer, guidance. The story with Bill Wilson is well-known as focussed on Wilson's personal friendship and relationship with Rev. Sam Shoemaker, Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in New York. Shoemaker was a principal leader of the Oxford Group people on the East Coast and passed on directly to Wilson the twenty-eight Oxford Group principles that impacted on AA and are discussed in my title The Oxford Group and Alcoholics Anonymous (http://www.dickb.com/Oxford.shtml). The Akron program was highly successful with a 75% to 93% documented success rate, while Wilson had little success in applying Oxford Group principles in New York. After he met Dr. Bob in Akron, Wilson still had little success on his own; but the Akron program grew and developed solidly by 1938. At that time, Wilson was authorized to write a text passing along the program. Instead, Wilson fashioned the Big Book and Twelve Steps, patterned largely on the Oxford Group principles taught him by Rev. Sam Shoemaker. The book had Akron's support, but Dr. Bob continued with his own Bible-oriented approach. Respectfully, Richard G. Burns, J.D. http://www.dickb.com/index.shtml

With all due respect and all my passion for history, an enyclopedic article on AA should first and foremost provide information on AA as it is today, an international organization which has evolved significantly since its clearly Christian roots. Furthermore those early (1940-s) reported success rates are pretty much AA legend, no? Do you have any evidence for recovery rates between 75% and 93%, other than stated by those early AA members themselves? What exactly do you mean by 'documented'? Tribute2jimmyk 19:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding A.A., Religion and the Law, extensive references can be found here:

Tribute2jimmyk 15:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have difficulty swallowing that the information on this page is NPOV. Walk into any bookstore today and you'll find a pile of books by psychologists stating how ineffective these 12-step programs are with scientific evidence to back it up. Several sources (including the AA program itself) state the true success rate of AA to be less than 5%. --Thoric 23:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

"Nevertheless, it is true that some members owe their recovery to the fact they were ordered to go to A.A. by a judge or doctor."

Without evidence, this isn't NPOV. If the sole evidence is anecdotal, there is no way of knowing that they wouldn't have sobered up without AA. Vorpalbla 1/27/05

What is the pope's opinion on AA, higher powers, and governmental interference (or lack thereof)? 65.125.131.110 01:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Controversy NPOV Dispute

"There has also been some criticism that A.A. is a type of cult. This criticism is unconvincing, since individual A.A. members cannot be compelled to do or believe anything. Members are free to join or leave A.A. at anytime as they see fit. There are no A.A. regulations or rules, no membership lists with identifying details, and no form of A.A. punishment or discipline."

To judge that the criticism is "unconvincing" is really a matter of opinion. For example, I can declare that the criticism has convinced me. The entire stanza strikes me as straw man in fact. The author appears to describing his own understanding of the criticism in an effort to discredit that representation.

Further, the discussion on the definition of a cult is not as simple as the author suggests.

I have added a NPOV dispute tag because of the line "This criticism is unconvincing..." Unconvincing to who? To whoever wrote this, certainly. But not to everyone. Perhaps the groups the author of this section has only encountered AA groups that lack any cult-like characterisics. It is not, however, accurate for all groups. Earlier in the Controversy section, the author also states that AA acknowledges that it is not a "one true way", but rather that it works for some people and not for others. Again, this may be true of the groups the author has interacted with. It is not true of all AA groups. Because of these passages, this section is not neutral. It is from an unabashedly pro-AA point of view, not a neutral one that openly and honestly presents both pro-AA views and anti-AA views. Icarus
I wrote the para and I stand by it. I have a lot of experience of A.A. (20 years) and know thousands of A.A. members personally. I found the assertion that A.A. was a "cult" nonsense to start with, but let it stand. But if you want to start labelling organisations as "cults", where is the line drawn? To suggest A.A. is a cult is misleading and deceptive (to put it mildly). How can any group that has no control over its members, no punishments, no way of forcing people to do anything, be a cult? It is an absurd proposition, sorry. Marcus.
Ok, you have the right to believe that. But regardless of which side of the controversy you find convincing, the paragraph itself is not neutral. A neutral point of view would present arguments for it being a cult, and also arguments against it being a cult. A neutral point of view would not actively support either side. As a side note, if you are interested in trying to understand why some people do think AA is a cult, there are links at the bottom of the article that explain them. You needn't be convinced to at least attempt to understand and respect another side of the issue. Icarus
Thank you for your comments. Yes, I have read the external links. Clearly there are people who are disgruntled with A.A. With more than 2 millions members worldwide, that is hardly surprising. The A.A. program could not possibly please everyone. However, I am still surprised at the suggestion that A.A. might in any fair and reasonable assessment be thought of as a cult (with all the negative associations attached to that term.) If the term cult is defined vaguely and loosely, than what might be deemed a cult or cult-like? Is catholicism a cult? Is pilates a cult? Is the boy scouts a cult? Are soccer fans a cult? And so on. No doubt one could argue these groups/activities have cultish qualities. Should that be noted on their wikipedia entries? I feel wikipedia articles should not include fringe or crank arguments, simply because they have been proposed. Where do we stop if we start including every outlier concept and critique available to us? Nevertheless, I am re-wording the last para ... please tell me what you think. I am trying to be as NPOV as possible. Thanks.

Here is the proposed para - if you think it is better, perhaps you will remove the disputed notice ... thanks.

"There has also been some criticism that A.A. is a type of cult, wherein members feel controlled or guilty (see the external links below). While some members and ex-members may have felt this way, most would reject this criticism as ill-informed. It is well-established that A.A. has no control over its members, since there are no rules or regulations, there is no form of punishment or discipline, and there are no identifying membership records. Members join or leave A.A. at anytime as they see fit, and many do so offering nothing but their first name and no other information about themselves."

Your proposed revision is still POV. The gist of it remains "There are critics who call it a cult, but they're wrong and here's why..." You provide evidence against the accusations, but none of the reasons why such accusations are made in the first place. A NPOV paragraph would have to include both of those. I am working on my own re-write for this section. When I'm done with it, I'll post it and perhaps we can collaborate to create a final version we can both agree on. Icarus
To Icarus: go for it. I will be happy to contribute but as you no doubt suspect, I will be difficult to satisfy ;-) Marcus.
Just a quick update because it's been a while. I'm working on my proposed re-write and am close to being done. Right now I'm working on making it balanced by writing about the pro-AA side of the controversy. It's already a bit long, but it wouldn't be right (or NPOV) to write only about the criticisms of AA. Also: it doesn't look like I offended you, but just in case I did, allow me to explain. I'm not writing my own version because I don't trust you to do it right, but rather am writing my own version because when I was making a list of suggestions I realized that it wouldn't be fair to make suggestions as specific as I was coming up with and then expect someone else to do the actual work! Icarus

These are ways in which A.A. is a cult: indoctrination of the member with a fixed set of terms, slogans and concepts, which then form the entire foundation of the member's understanding of him/herself and interaction with others; requirement of unquestioning belief and obedience ("willingness" and "taking direction"); sole reliance on and reference to internal literature which lacks objectivity and whose purpose is promotion of the cult (the "Big Book" and "Twelve by Twelve"); proof by assertion or self-reference (e.g. "it works" because it says so in the "Big Book"); repudiation of any outside point of view (anything which is "not A.A." is wrong); requirement of specific religious practices (requirement of set prayers, such as the 3rd and 7th Step prayers; belief in a specific concept of God (a "personal loving God"); encouraging the newcomer to "come to believe", "act as if" and "fake it till you make it"); open hostility to questioning ("intellectualizing" or "being too smart for the program"); pseudo-deification of marginal figures whose only significance is as cult founders (the glorification of Bill W. and Dr. Bob); assertion of infallibility (A.A. is the "only way" despite a 95% failure rate; documented harrasment of alternative programs by A.A. members); blaming the victim (if A.A. doesn't work for anyone, it's their fault); use of Orwellian "doublethink" ("A.A. is not a cult", "A.A. does not require a specific religious belief"); social isolation of its members (encouraging members to place association with other members and A.A. obligations ahead of everything else); control of its members' actions, associations and thoughts via continual indoctrination, social isolation, and continual required ("suggested") acitivities (daily meetings, "stepwork", etc.); indoctrination with the belief that the member's greatest fulfillment is in promoting the cult ("carrying the message"); requirement of permanent, life-long reliance on the cult; the existence of a large professional and profiteering class (doctors and counselors who, as A.A. members, unethically promote A.A. as a legitimate medical treatment to their unsuspecting and vulnerable patients; treatment centers receiving goverment funding whose primary purpose is to promote a cult; owners of "sober-living houses" and similar facilities). This is by no means an exhaustive list. If it looks, acts and smells like a cult, it is a cult. A.A. is no different from Scientology or any other such organization. Common sense and self-evident fact are not "fringe or crank arguments". C. J. Smith

To C.J. Smith --- wow, that's some list of resentments you've got there :-) I gather you are directly experienced. Yes, in my 20 years in A.A. I have seen some instances of the types of behaviour that you mention. Of course it goes on. Individuals in A.A. are indeed free to sprout their own little philosophical twists and queer takes on A.A, and sometimes it's not all pretty. But this Wikipedia article is supposed to be about A.A. as a whole - and not about the errant activities of errant individuals. Calling A.A. a "cult" is a silly exaggeration and probably a heavily POVed position. Of any organisation I have experienced in my life, A.A. is the outstanding example of that with the very least control over what its members say, do and think. It is supremely ironic that A.A. should be thought of by some people as a cult that attempts to control its members. Nothing could be further from the truth! Marcus.

"The A.A. program does contain religious and spiritual ideas, but it does not promote any particular religion over others, and it has worked for adherents of many faiths, including Buddhists, Jews and Muslims. "

AA contains NO religious ideas. Unfortunately, this little piece of misinformation continues to plague AA. There is no allusion whatsoever to any particual religion.

Also, one of the comments on the talk page stated that AA "REQUIRES" the adoption of a belief in a higher power by its members. This is factually incorrect. See the Third Tradition.

"AA contains NO religious ideas. " This is woefully innacurate, and unfortunately is a common misconception advanced most by people who buy into the AA philosophy and don't see it. Just because it doesn't advance a particular religion or world view does not mean the doctrine does NOT contain "religious ideas." It most definitely encourages a belief in a "higher power", and while people who are embroiled in such a philosophy don't think that that counts as a "religous idea," and are shocked that everyone does not believe the same thing they do, the %15 of the American population who do not believe in a "higher power", i.e. athiests, can clearly see that AA coerces it's participants to believe in a "higher power." I do have experience with this, I've attended many AA meetings, and I have not attended one that doesn't make an athiest feel alienated. Of course for all those that believe in a "higher power" AA seems to lack any religous stance, as it's inconceivable to them that somebody might not believe in a "higher power", probably do to the fact that they shut anyone out who does not or immediatley pass them off as "unenlightend" and stop listening as soon as they find out. Anyone who is going to argue that AA does not atleast encourage a belief in a "higher power" is not paying very close attention to AA literature nor what goes on in meetings. And the fact that they always say "higher power" instead of "higher powers" indicates that not only are they encouraging members to adopt a theistic world view, they are furthur encouraging members to adopt a monotheistic world view. It's in the 12 steps for christs sakes! The "relgious ideas" are posted on the wall at every AA meetings, and are part of the steps that give it it's nick-namke, given that fact it baffles me that there are people trying to claim AA "contains NO religous ideas".

And as a side issue, but related to the monothiestic slant, AA literature is profoundly influenced by Christian doctrine, this is to be expected since it's founders were Christian, and only later was a weak attempt made to be more inclusive to "other religions", but never was there an attempt to include people who on philisophical grounds don't believe in anything resembling a "higher power". --Brentt 08:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


AA as concieved by Bill Wilson was clearly not a cult, however individual AA meeting groups have taken on cultish characteristics as described above. This has happened with many religious-spiritual doctrines. Many current characteristics of AA were not in Wilson's original vision of AA, and some (the emphasis on avoiding sexual relationships during the first six months of sobriety) were not a part of AA as recently as the 1970s. Unfortunately, the emphasis on unquestioned belief,distrust of "intellectualizing", and glorification of blindacceptance create conditions for cult-like practices to creep in. Some local AA groups are more cult-like than others - while some are quite tolerant (and are criticized by some members for being "social fashion shows" and "pickup joints"), there are others that maintain a fundamentalist-like approach to the program complete with a degree of persecution paranoia, such as Los Angeles' Pacific Group (known as the "Taliban of AA")

As for the Second Step, those who do not believe in monotheistic religions and/or are atheist/agnostic have adapted this step to their own needs, often with themselves as the higher power or with something other than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. AA has been adapted by believers in other religions (there was even a Satanic AA group in California at one point) and by nonbelievers. However, some members disparage these interpretations of the program, and emphasize Christian doctrine (this seems especially common at largely African-American meetings, and meetings that tend to draw mostly poor people of whatever ethnic background).

"AA as concieved by Bill Wilson was clearly not a cult, however individual AA meeting groups have taken on cultish characteristics as described above." Well, then the article should say that, but make it clear that this applies to a small minority of groups that, if they are exhibiting cult-like characteristics, would in fact be way out of step with mainstream A.A. and no doubt operating in violation of several A.A. Traditions. Marcus.
Point taken, yet I know of only one example of an A.A. meeting group which has been disavowed by the Central Office: one particular meeting group in Hollywood, California which was taken over by Scientologists, and which was used as a forum to promote Scientology. This shows that only the most extreme examples of groups departing from mainstream A.A. are looked down upon. In addition, why did the notion of avoiding sexual relationships during the first six months of sobriety become so widespread? It was unknown in A.A. as recently as 30 years ago, but seems to have been accepted by the overwhelming majority of groups. This is possible because of A.A.'s anti-intellectualism, its belief in not questioning anything, and its acceptance of shibboleths without any sort of checks and balances, given that debate is at odds with the general emphasis on "surrendering".

A.A. seems to lend itself to the creation of cult-like conditions. PrairieDog

It is extrememly annoying that anyone who is making and attempt to make this a NPOV article has been accused of holding extra-logical "resentments". It is a ad hominen to do as such and such criticisms has made it apparent that a few people on this thread hold a strong POV about AA and are determined to make this article be in line with their POV. If in any article criticism of the organization in question were to be shrugged off as "silly", it would be a clear violation of POV, yet someone was actually trying to defend a paragraph that did exactly that. The fact that AA in some respects resembles a cult (which I'm not in favor of calling it in the article BTW) is attested to by some of the discussion that has gone on here, where people are religiously and dogmatically trying to keep any hint that their might be credible criticism of AA's methods out of this article. It is not suprising that those same people are claiming to have attended many AA meetings, or as they say "have experience with". The fact that everyone trying to quell talk of criticism are all apparently faithful followers of AA doctrine ("20 years experience") should be evidence that having so much "experience" with AA does not make for an objective writer, and since this article has been contributed to mostly by such people it is highly suspect that it is not NPOV.

I have a different reason for believing that AA is not a cult -- a simpler and more easily proven reason. It is that AA is not consistent from one group to another, or from one area of the U.S. or the world to another. This is not a defect and it is not a criticism. As AA literature states, "each group is autonomous." Individual groups decide for themselves how they will run meetings, what things are allowed, and so forth. There is no official doctrine or dogma, and the 12 Steps themselves are presented as "suggestions" in the Big Book. I submit that you can't have a cult if you allow virtually unlimited variety. Another closely related point is that AA literature discourages any local cult of personality. The principle of anonymity encourages AA members to "put principles before personalities." AA further insists that leaders "are but trusted servants," and the principle of rotation in service positions is ecouraged, partly to avoid "boss-ism." Local autonomy, lack of centralized leadership, lack of individual authority and lack of dogma all combine to make AA very un-cultlike. Ned 09:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets get down to what a cult is or is not. Most experts agree that cults must have several charictoristics. first is centeralized leadership upon an individual (AA has no such leadership). next is a method of deception in recrutement (AA's are encoriged to tell their full experience to anyone) third is a desepteve account of what is expected of a member (AA's literature is avalible to all, and there are no "levels" that one must achieve in order to gain "secret" information) finaly there must be a emphasis on monitary gain or controll over an individuals finantual life(AA actually has a goal of orgonizational poverty, any donations over $5 in the basket will be odd at best) this information comes from "Cults in our Mists" a sociological review of cults. also the no relationship thing is just a good sujestion. if your life is changing drasticly, some people look for distraction in another individual. "I feel bad, sex feels good, why should I fix myself?" thus some people sujest no relationships to newcomers, but this is not found in the litrature and should not be claimed as AA recomondation.Coffeepusher 04:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Even calling it controversy

The controversy area of the AA topic on Wikipedia is way beyond what it merits. There is actually little controversy about A.A. compared to other organizations of its size and influence. It is certainly valid to mention detractors, but giving so much space to the issue is wrong.

I agree very strongly. It is important to retain proportionality, if Wikipedia is to continue to be useful and respected. That means that the amount of space given to a subtopic should relate, at least in a very broad way, to its RELATIVE importance IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LARGER SUBJECT. This is not about limiting criticism but about not letting the tail wag the dog. Ned 09:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article to talk page

The following was posted on the main article page. I am moving it here for the following reason: The author of this section is saying what he thinks should be changed about the article, instead of actually changing them. Discussion about what should be changed belongs on the discussion page, actual changes belong in the actual article. Note that I have taken the liberty of changing the spellings of the names to what Dick says is correct. --Icarus

The foregoing material contains four major errors which should be corrected in the minds of the readers: (1) Rowland Hazard's name is thus spelled - not "Roland." (2) Edwin Throckmorton Thacher (Ebby) is thus spelled - not "Thatcher." (3) The article completely overlooks the roots, developement and program of the original A.A. program in Akron which seems to have derived primarily from the principles and practices of United Christian Endeavor Society - the group in which Dr. Bob was very active as a youngster. The Christian Endeavor ideas of confession of Christ, conversion meetings, Bible study meetings, prayer meetings, Quiet Hour, reading of religious literature, support of church, love and service are a dead ringer for the early Akron meetings. Those meetings were called a Christian Fellowship. They took the program ideas from the Bible. And they stressed the reading of the Book of James, Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, and 1 Corinthians 13. Contrary to suggestions in the main article, the Akron program was not an "Oxford Group" program. The participants in the weekly meeting were half Oxford Group people and half drunks and their families. They were so distant from OG practices that T. Henry Williams called them a "clandestine lodge of the Oxford Group." The program itself is well described in When Early AAs Were Cured and Why and The James Club (http://www.dickb.com/index.shtml). (4) The fourth error is that the article fails to mention that Bill Wilson took almost all the ideas set forth in the Big Book as well as the language of the 12 Steps from the teachings of Rev. Samuel M. Shoemaker. So much so that Bill actually first asked Shoemaker to write the 12 Steps (Shoemaker declined), then said the Steps came directly from the teachings of Sam, and nowhere else, and finally dubbed Shoemaker a "co-founder" of A.A. As a result, Shoemaker was asked to, and did, address International Conventions of A. A. in 1955 and 1960 and wrote several articles for the AA Grapevine explaining how he (Shoemaker) understood the Steps. In fairness, Wilson took some ideas from Carl Jung, William James, Dr. William Silkworth, Richard Peabody, New Thought and New Age writings, but primarily from the Oxford Group's life-changing program as defined by Sam Shoemaker during his long friendship and contacts with Wilson. Much of the foregoing can be found in the A.A. Conference Approved DR. BOB and the Good Oldtimers, as well as in Bill's own historical comments in The Language of the Heart, A.A. Comes of Age, and Pass It On. dickb@dickb.com

Dick --- this is a web page that anyone can edit and clearly you are well-informed on A.A.'s early history --- why not make the changes yourself? It would be a welcome contribution. Marcus.

Proposed "Controversy" Re-Write

The following section on this page is my proposed re-write of the criticisms section. It is very long, but believe it or not this is the edited-down version! If posted as-is, it would become over a third of the entire article. Because this would be such a major change, and I know it wouldn't last long on the main page if people had major objections to it, I want to run it by people on the talk page before posting it. It is also a bit short on the pro-AA points, so I'd like some help with those! I thought about holding off until I had more, but it's been quite a while since I said I'd write it so I thought I'd better submit it and see what other people think. Strengthening the pro-AA side could, of course, be done after it's posted on the article page. So let me know if it looks acceptable enough in it's current form to be posted. (Note: if no one replies within a reasonable amount of time, say, 2 weeks, with a reason why it's not good enough to be posted, I'll assume that's because everyone who's read it thinks it's okay the way it is. So speak up if you have any major criticism that you think needs to be addressed before it goes on the article page!) Icarus

ICARUS' PROPOSED RE-WRITE OF THE "CONTROVERSIAL SYSTEM" SECTION:

AA's supporters and detractors all want to find the best way to help those struggling with alcohol addictions. Both sides also harbor fears that the other is causing real harm to the very people they seek to assist. Because of the sincerity on both sides, and the potentially grave threat posed by either denying effective treatment or causing more harm through ineffective methods, it is of the utmost importance to thoroughly investigate both the alleged benefits of and the alleged damages caused by AA.

(Note: in this section, BB refers to The Big Book, aka Alcoholics Anonymous, 3rd Edition, by William G. Wilson, and 12x12 refers to Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, by William G. Wilson)

On one hand, supporters claim that AA is an indispensable support group for people seeking to free themselves of an addiction to alcohol. Some things they cite include:

  • AA's claim that "It works -- it really does." (BB, pg. 88)
  • A large amount of anecdotal evidence in which people assert that joining AA saved their lives [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
  • The acknowledgement by some members and groups that AA isn't the right program for everyone, and there are effective alternatives
  • The 12 steps being suggestions rather than requirements (though "they are 'suggested' in the same way that, if you jump out of an airplane with a parachute, it is 'suggested' that you pull the ripcord" (Daily Reflections; A Book of Reflections by A.A. members for A.A. members, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., pg. 344))
  • The lack of official membership records, allowing members to come and go as they choose (see above for the exception to this, which AA itself does not sanction)
  • Despite Bill W.'s claim that members are "impersonally and severely disciplined from without" in a letter to Dr. Harry Tiebout (quoted in Not-God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous, Ernest Kurtz, page 129, a book put out by the same publisher as other AA literature including The Big Book and Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions), AA lacks any sort of formal disciplinary measures against members who fail to adhere strictly to the program
  • The claim that AA is spiritual, not religious, and that the requisite Higher Power can be anything including God (as the individual understands Him, according to the 3rd Step), the group itself (one slogan: "G.O.D.=Group Of Drunks), or even an inanimate object like a doorknob or a rock

On the other hand, critics maintain that AA is capable of doing more harm than good.[11]. Some go as far as calling it a cult. Specific criticisms include (but are not limited to):

  • Evidence that AA's efficacy may be "no better than the natural history of the disease" in keeping people alive and sober (The Natural History of Alcoholism: Causes, Patterns, and Paths to Recovery, George E. Vaillant, pgs. 283-286.)
  • AA claims that AA is "the only remedy" to alcohol abuse (BB, pg. 259; 12x12, pg. 174. Emphasis added.), though some research shows that high percentages of alcohol abusers recover without it. (Treatment of Drug Abuse and Addiction -- Part III, The Harvard Mental Health Letter, Volume 12, Number 4, October 1995, page 3.)
  • The claim that people for whom the program doesn't work are "constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves" (BB, pg. 58.)
  • The encouragement of dishonesty through exhortations to "Fake It Until You Make It" and "Act As If" (AA slogans [12] [13])
  • The lack of checks and balances designed to keep sponsors from abusing their position
  • The dependency on the group fostered by fear-inducing claims that an alcohol abuser who doesn't decide to "live on a spiritual basis" is "doomed to an alcoholic death" (BB, pg. 44) and "Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant." (12x12, pg. 174)
  • The statement that "Sometimes they hurt us, seemingly without provocation, but we invariably find that at some point in the past we have made decisions based on self which later placed us in a position to be hurt." (BB, pg. 62. Emphasis added.) leaving no room for instances where the victim was blameless, such as childhood sexual abuse
  • The claim that "If we were to live, we had to be free of anger." (BB, pg. 66) when psychologists say that while anger must be managed, it is not possible or healthy to do away with it entirely.
  • The deceptiveness of the "To Wives" chapter of the Big Book being written as advice from one wife of an alcoholic to another, when it was in fact written by Bill W. himself despite his wife Lois's desire to write it (Getting Better: Inside Alcoholics Anonymous, Nan Robertson, page 70-71) This untruth is repeated in Big Book Unplugged; A Young Person's Guide to Alcoholics Anonymous by John R., a book put out by the same publisher as other AA literature including The Big Book and Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions
  • Bill W.'s frequent use of first-person plural giving the implication that all alcohol abusers have the same "defects of character" (6th Step) and past experiences as himself (examples: "...something had to be done about our vengeful resentments, self-pity, and unwarranted pride." 12x12, pg. 47. and "We never thought of making honesty, tolerance, and true love of man and God the daily basis of living." 12x12, pg. 72. Emphasis added.)
  • The contradiction between Bill W.'s claim that "We will seldom be interested in liquor. [...] We will see that our new attitude toward liquor has been given to us without any thought or effort on our part. It just comes! That is the miracle of it." (BB, pgs. 84-85) and his own admission that even co-founder Dr. Bob "was bothered very badly by the temptation to drink. [...] He told me that he had that urge for six or seven years and that it was constant." (Bill W.'s speech at the

memorial service for Dr. Bob on 15 November 1952)

  • What critics see as evidence that AA is more about creating religious converts than helping people to stop drinking:
    • The 12 Steps' conspicuous lack of any reference to refraining from drinking, but numerous references to God
    • Most of the steps being re-packaged religious tenants (Note to Icarus: you want the word "tenets" here, not "tenants" - Mike) that "came straight from Dr. Bob's and (Bill W.'s) own earlier association with the Oxford Groups" (The Language of the Heart, William G. Wilson, pg. 298), a religious movement with which they'd been involved and which places a large emphasis on confession of sins to God and to another person.
    • Because "most alcoholics just wanted to find sobriety, nothing else", "The Oxford Groups' absolute concepts ... had to be fed with teaspoons rather than by buckets." (Alcoholics Anonymous Comes Of Age, William G. Wilson, pgs. 74-75.) Critics see this as evidence that Bill W.'s primary goal was to convert alcoholics, and saw recovery as either a means to that end or as a secondary goal.
    • The statement that "At the moment we are trying to put our lives in order. But this is not an end in itself. Our real purpose is to fit ourselves to be of maximum service to God." (BB, pg. 77)
    • The undeniable religiosity of the sixth step, being ready to have God remove one's defects of character, "or, if you wish, our sins" (12x12, pg. 48), and the eleventh step, "praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out"
    • The derision of those who become sober but don't accept the religious elements of AA as "two-steppers" (12x12, pgs. 112-113) or "one-steppers"
  • AA's heavy reliance on numerous slogans [14] [15], including ones used to mock critics such as "Take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth!"

The non-centralized structure of AA means that some groups may exhibit many warning signs, and other groups may exhibit few or none. The non-centralized structure also makes it difficult or impossible to know if the first type of groups are the norm and the second type of groups the exception, or if it's the other way around. Members who have only encountered one of these types of groups may claim that the other kind is rare and non-representative of AA as a whole. Alternatively, they may be incredulous about (or outright deny) the very existence of the other type of group.

Thanks Icarus - I will study this and add my comments soon. Marcus.

OK Icarus - I have read this thru and obviously it is a well-researched critique --- I will post an edited version here, but I wanted to just make a few preliminary remarks:

1. Firstly, outsiders and observers of A.A. need to understand that A.A. is a very unusual organisation. It is unusual because it does not require that its members believe anything in particular or subscribe to any special doctrine, creed or belief. This is really true - in A.A. you can believe whatever you like. The practical result of this is that A.A. is made up of 2 million individuals who each have their OWN opinion of what alcoholism is and how best to recover from it. Therefore newcomers learn quickly that when they hear someone declare that to get sober you have to eat three carrots a day and wear a black hat, they are hearing an INDIVIDUAL opinion. In A.A. we have a saying "Take what you like and leave the rest". Meaning that if some suggestion or idea you hear in A.A. strikes you are objectionable or foolish, you need not do it. Nothing in A.A. is holy law. "There are no musts in A.A." is another very common A.A. saying.

2. The point made in 1. above is very important. In A.A., as in any organisation, there are always some fanatics and nuts. Such A.A. members may take rather extreme positions and say rather extreme things. To the outsider or causal observer, it might seem that such people are speaking for A.A. itself, but of course they are not. Most people who have been in A.A. longer than ten minutes realise that every member has an opinion in A.A. and that all are entitled to share our opinions with each other at A.A. meetings - even the person who has come to their very first meeting can often speak to the group. But whether the person speaking at A.A. has been sober for 1 day or for 30 years, we view their contributions as mere opinions, not as facts, requirements or infallible dogma.

3. Some of what Icarus posted above is out of context. I will seek to post details of context that will explain.

But overall, good job Icarus - this stuff whould be aired and explained. I will post again soon. Marcus.

Thanks for your input, Marcus! I accidentally took this off my watchlist, so I didn't see when you make your comments. I'm glad I checked here just in case I'd missed it!
Thanks for reminding me of the "Take what you can use, leave the rest" slogan. I've added:
  • The slogan that says to "Take what you can use and leave the rest."
to the 'pro-aa' side. (Not on this page, but on the copy I have saved on my computer.)
As for your second point, I'm going by websites created by people who do have personal experience with AA so it's not a case of an outsider not understanding what it's like to actually be in AA. Rather, it looks like a case of what I wrote at the end of my re-write: some groups, the good ones, are exactly as you say; some groups are not. Most of my research has been of the criticisms of AA, so I'm glad you'll be able to help flesh out the pro-AA side.
As for quotes from AA literature being out of context, I must admit that I did not look up every quote. Please do post the in-context use of any you think are mis-used. Icarus

To my way of thinking a dominant personality is central to a cult. AA states that principles are to be placed before personalities. Additionally, I know many groups where reading is extended way beyond the literature of the AA. Both comments to my mind form part of an argument against the AA as a cult idea. Loyola

Another excellent point! I knew I'd get help with the pro-aa side here :-) I've added the following to the copy on my hard-drive (though not to the version I posted above, to avoid confusion):
  • The lack of a guru-like figure rising to fill the late Bill Wilson's shoes, lending credibility to the slogan that says "principles before personalities"
The wording isn't perfect, but I wanted to at least get it down on paper, so to speak. Icarus

I must post a structured comment on this sometime, but here is another comment. The 12 Steps' conspicuous lack of any reference to refraining from drinking, but numerous references to God. The 12 steps are not the only element or even guide of AA. There are the 12 traditions, the promises and the preamble which states we are to steer clear of alcohol and any form of narcotics. If I recall correctly the preamble states that it is the only means of which we are aware of stopping drinking. This then does not preclude other ways and demonstrates that AA does not claim to be the only way. I have personal anecdotal evidence from the meetings that I have been too that no one is condemned for not believing in God or even a higher power.

Thanks for the further input. Allow me to illuminate what I was going for with my re-write: It's my understanding that Wikipedia is not the place to try to get to the bottom of which side of the controversy is correct, but rather to present what the controversy in fact is. For example, you are correct in saying that it's a fact that the steps are only one part of the program, though an important central part of it. I'm sure that could be added to the side in support of AA. The criticism side must also be a statment of facts, like the fact that the 12 steps' references to God but not sobriety is one common criticism of AA. Like I said, this isn't the place to debate whether the supporters or critics are right, but merely to present both sides.
As for AA not claiming to be the only way: the preamble may technically allow for other possible ways, but other passages in AA writings appear to say, either directly or implicitly, that it is the only way (see the references in the re-write). Critics take issue with this, thus the inclusion in the criticism section. As you can see, the section in support of AA already says that supporters point out that not all members or all groups believe that AA is the only way.
Icarus
It's been over a month since I posted my proposed re-write here, so unless anyone has some major objections that have to be resolved first, I'm going to edit the actual article soon.
Icarus 00:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (I became a registered user a while ago, so I've gone back and changed my sigs for continuity's sake)

I liked Icarus's rewrite, but there were four places where I had to make changes. The first two were Icarus's attributing to the Hazelden Foundation the publication of the Big Book and AA's 12 & 12. The other were the comments on two quite easily-misunderstood quotations from the Big Book. Cherns

I was going to by the information at amazon.com, which says the Big Book and 12&12 were indeed published by Hazelden. Do you have evidence that this is incorrect? Icarus 15:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The evidence is my copies of the Big Book and the 12&12, which are clearly stated to be published by AA World Services Inc. Hazelden may have and probably does have a distribution licence, but it is certainly NOT the publisher. The Big Book and the 12 & 12 are official AA literature. Hazelden's publications are not. I may say that I don't think of Amazon.com as being an authority about anything, but that's another issue! 2 August 2005 Cherns

I made another change to correct two factual errors. The first was the statement (under AA Critics) that a page after 164 was part of the "main text". Clearly it isn't. The second was the reference to page 174 of the 12 & 12 which refers to : "Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant." That isn't proof that AA suggests that every alcoholic signs his/her death warrant; only that every A.A. member signs his/her death warrant. Big difference, because any alcoholic can choose not to be a member of AA. The quote merely suggests that if you're going to continue to be a member of AA, you'd better do the steps. Cherns

Too long?

Here's what's been mulling around in my mind about the Controversy section. It's long. Incredibly long. Some time ago, it was a few short paragraphs. The problem was that the gist of them was "AA has some critics, but they're wrong." Because it took a side like that, it was POV. The list of points on both sides was intended to remedy that by giving (hopefully objective, though clearly it's undergone a lot of work to bring it closer to that goal) specifics on both sides instead of vauge generalizations that could be disputed ad nauseum. Now the section is huge. I've been concerned about that from the beginning, not just since it was expanded to remedy some POV issues. And, of course, being long but balanced is far preferable to being short but POV. No question about it. What I'm now wondering is whether or not it might be possible to bring it back down to a few paragraphs without making it POV like it was when it was short before (or POV in the other direction). Readers who want a more in-depth exploration of one or both sides can then go to the "External Links" section. Of course, if people don't think the length is a problem, or think trying to condense it into a few paragraphs with fewer specifics would likely generate a big NPOV dispute that would be more of a headache than it would be worth, or don't think it's possible to be thorough enough at a shorter length, then it's probably best to leave it long. What are other people's thoughts on this? --Icarus 04:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is best to make it short or even remove it. To give it so much space gives the impression that A.A. is controversial on the order of Scientology or such. In fact, it is not. No one can seriously dispute that A.A. is by far the most successful treatment program for alcoholism ever devised.

Also, if you look at the criticisms there, they are quite picayune and stoop to the point of criticising individual sentences in opinion pieces (the stories in the Big Book). Anyone objectively looking at the supporters and detractors section should be able to see this, even were they to have a POV.

The reason specific parts of the book were included, and not more general criciticms of the program itself, is because the latter is based on members' and former members' anecdotes, and thus cannot be supported with external evidence to the degree that AA supporters have every right to demand (even though several of the supporters' statements aren't supported with citations). Direct quotes from the books are in print and can be looked up by anyone, so they can't be so easily dismissed as anecdotal evidence of rare, non-representative personal experiences. Different interpretations, positive and negative, can be and are presented for ones that are often interpreted in different ways. Ones that come from the stories in the back of the Big Book, and not from the "core" text, should of course be marked as such.
A tiny bit of history on this section: Originally it was much shorter and basically said "There are some critics, but they're mistaken." That's clearly POV. This version was created to fix that, and to use specific examples instead of just a futile "Is too! Is not! Is too! Is not!" format.

Repaired 68.38.123.88's vandalism to the "Critical Links" section.--Midnite Critic 22:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Bias in 6.2-6.3

The material in sections 6.2-6.3 does not conform to Wikipedia NPOV. I attempted to balance it once and was wrongly accused of vandalism. I do not wish to get into a long edit war over this, but this is going to become a major dispute unless NPOV can be established in those sections of this article. Apart from the highly biased language and tone, sections 6.2-6.3 are much, much longer than 6.1. Icarus has committed a major POV error here. We need to pout a NPOV advisement over that material. August11 01:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that "vandalism" was far too strong a word. I shouldn't have used that word, but I was really bugged that an edit that was so incredibly POV was marked as being NPOV. I'm sorry I used the word "vandalism" when it wasn't warrented, but I stand behind having reverted the article.
The Controversy section is divided into two parts: Support, and Criticism. The edits I reverted essentially turned the Criticism section into "Criticisms and why they're wrong". Information that counters the Criticism section belongs in Support, and vice versa. For instance, the additions about AA members being able to choose their own definition of "Higher Power" is already covered in the Support section. Preventing edit wars over which POV is right is the very reason for having two sections, one to cover each POV. This way, each side can be factually presented without being undermined by "but this is wrong because..." or something similar after nearly every point in both sections, and the reader can be allowed to come to his or her own conclusions after reading both sections.
The criticism section is indeed longer than the support section. That is not intentional. Like any Wikipedia article, this one is a work in progress. When I did the major overhaul of the Controversy section, it was my sincere hope that other editors would be able to help expand the Support section. In fact, that's part of why I left it on the Talk page for so long before putting it in the actual article. I hope it can become more even in the future, but I do not see how the disparate lengths in and of themselves constitute a POV problem.
Please, let me know what you think is POV about the controversy section. I did my very best to make it as NPOV as I could, because a) it's intellectual dishonesty to do otherwise and b) I knew that other editors would not let a POV version stand for long. If you think there are major POV problems, please let me know so we can create a mutually satisfactory version. I'm especially curious as to what you think is POV in section 6.3 (Analysis). Did you perhaps mean secton 6.2.1 and not section 6.3?
I'm glad you want to avoid an edit war, as I too would hate for it to come to that. --Icarus 02:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello Icarus. Thank you for your quick response. You are correct that the support evidence more properly belongs under Support, though you did include much support material yourself under the criticism section, which was why I felt comfortable about doing the same. Now that we've agreed on this, I'd like to try my hand at adding material to the Support section to even out these sections of the article.
I read section 6.3 as being highly biased and personal. I do not believe that it is our place, as Wikipedians, to provide analysis, within an article, of the contents of that article. Everyone who reads an article is free to analyze it in his or her own way. We don't need 10,000 people coming to this article and posting analysis. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Apart from that, your analysis is highly POV because of the use of the phrase "warning signs." For all of these reasons, I think the Analysis section should be dropped.
You might be unaware that your use of certain phrases has lead to biased writing. Here are some examples:
"Specific criticisms include (but are not limited to)"--You used this phrase for the criticisms, but not for the support arguments, thus giving the impression that supportive arguments are limited and that criticisms are unlimited.
"fear-inducing claims"--This is not only highly biased in tone, but is a generalization and therefore illogical.
"God"--Your take on this word is biased in its narrowness, and does not reflect the myriad ways in which it is interpreted and used in real-world AA practice.
"undeniable religiosity"--This is one of the most biased phrases in the section. It betrays either a lack of understanding of what religion is, how the Sixth Step functions in AA, or both. The "religiosity" of the Sixth Step--along with the "religiosity" of anything else somebody wants to point out about AA--is quite deniable.
"derision"--Again, this is a generalization. One of the most egregriously biased aspects of what you have written is that you take random, narrow examples and then try to paint all of AA with them. That is a sign of high prejudice. If you had done such a thing in an article on African-Americans or Jews, you would quite rightly be described as a racist or a bigot. It is intellectually unworthy to defame an entire group because of the actions of a few. Such behavior is not worthy of Wikipedia.
In addition, your edits make no quality-of-life distinctions between being sober in AA and not drinking on one's own. This is an important ommission that needs to be remedied in the support section, and is just one example of the black-and-white thinking behind much of what you have written here--God or no God, levels of effective or non-effectiveness, etc. In real-world practice, these are not the black-and-white terms that you present them as.
Finally, the entire criticism section is biased and misleading because it gives the impression that it constitutes a coherent and self-contained real-world critique of AA, whereas all that has happened here is that one person (you) has gone cherry-picking for critiques and assembled them here in a highly selective, highly biased manner. This artificial construction, no matter how well footnoted, does not report on a coherent real-world criticism of AA, does not represent "one side" of a "controversy," but is nothing more than a personal assemblage of your own, and therefore highly personal and highly biased. What you have written is not encyclopedia material, but a biased personal essay. 4.246.120.48 04:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
There are a few things that other people have added, though not the much you said. These edits were for specific criticisms and cannot, as far as I can tell, be worded in a way that would fit in the Support section. Your edits, however, were for almost every criticism and are not so narrow as to be difficult to re-word for inclusion in the support section. Sponsees ability to "fire" sponsors, for example, belongs in the Support section. Some already are there, like members defining "Higher Power" for themselves, and would be redundant as well as misplaced in the Criticism section.
Other of your edits lack outside support. The claim that dishonesty within the program causes no harm, for example. Also that there is tremendous similarity among alcoholics' core character traits. Without supporting evidence, these do not belong in the article. The "quality of life" argument would also need some sort of supporting evidence showing that there is indeed a difference.
"Analysis" is probably the wrong word. I chose it only for lack of a better one. If you can think of a better one, go ahead and change it. That section is, in my opinion, very important. It reminds the reader that it is not black-and-white. Neither side is 100% right, and neither is 100% wrong. AA's specific shade of gray varies widely by group. Certainly the Criticism section is heavy on criticism and light on support, but that's the point of it. Just as the point of the Support section is to be heavy on support and light on criticism. Section 6.3 exists to show that both of those are extreme points of view, and that the truth is somewhere in between. How does this demonstrate the type of black-and-white thinking of which you've accuse me? It's intended to be quite the opposite.
Yes, I can think of a better word than "Analysis"--here's a more appropriate section title: "Icarus' Personal Beliefs." Who are you to decide what is extreme and what is not? Who are you to decide that both "extremes," which are concoctions of your own imagination, are "wrong"? Who are you to determine that the "truth" lies exactly halfway between the "extremes"? These are nothing more or less than your personal beliefs, and they do not belong in an encyclopedia. I can hardly believe that you would seriously ask how any of this is an example of black-and-white thinking, since that is exactly what it is. You are the one inventing extremes and then demanding that people reject both extremes that you have invented. You are the one demanding that they then plot themselves right in the middle of the spectrum that you have invented. What gives you the right? You are not the Chief Wikipedia Analyst. There is no such person, and we don't need one. You should keep your personal opinions to yourself and drop the "Analysis" section. I'm very close to scrapping it myself. The most anyone can say by way of "analysis" is "Different people think, feel, and believe different things." Period. And duh. It's one thing to present opposing views; it's quite another to analyze them and decide their validity, which you freely admit is what you have done. It is not appropriate. August11 07:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
In your recent addition to "Support", you yourself said that with as many groups as there are, it's difficult to make generalizations. That's what that section says. What is your objection to that?
The points I set forth were gathered from a variety of sources. The sources did not include my imagination. The sources included the Big Book, 12 Steps and 12 Traditions, supportive websites, critical websites, and the comments of people on this very page.
I never said the truth lay exactly half-way between the two endpoints (since you don't like the word "extremes"). I said it lies somewhere in the middle, and the exact point varies by group. That means that some are much closer to one side, some are much closer to the other, and some are closer to the center. Please read what I write before getting angry, and stop putting words into my mouth. --Icarus 08:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I have made several changes to fix some of the things you've pointed out as being POV. I disagree, however, with your assessment that the entire section is badly POV. If hope you see that I have not attempted to "take random, narrow examples and then try to paint all of AA with them". As I clearly stated in section 6.3, not all AA groups fit all of the supporting arguments or all of the critical arguments. Never once did I "defame an entire group because of the actions of a few"; rather, I presented arguments from both extremes and then reminded the reader that the truth is somewhere in the middle (the exact point varying by group). --Icarus
That makes no sense whatsoever. There are over 100,000 AA groups and you do not possess the data to back up your assertions. You are injecting your personal, unverifiable opinion about the characteristics of groups, including your view that all AA groups have group characteristics, which is a generalization that you have not proven and cannot prove. Groups are made up of individuals who themselves have various characteristics. You are incorrectly denying, because of your own bias, that a spectrum can exist within an AA group. Don't you see how you are betraying all of your personal prejudices with what you have written? Who are you to say that all AA groups have an individual group set of characteristics? Or even that most (50%+1) of AA groups have one set of characteristics over another set? You haven't done the research, and in fact such research does not exist. Your claims about AA groups are unsupported and unsupportable. They merely represent your own untested beliefs and biases. August11 07:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
That there can be a varying dynamic even within one group is another good point that should be added to section 6.3. --Icarus 08:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Please also remember that I did not intend for my original version to be the end-all definitive text on the controversy surrounding AA! Your accusation that I wrote a "biased personal essay" is baseless. It always has been and still is a collaboration, formed from the input of many people including myself. If I wanted otherwise, I'd stay far away from the collaborative masterpiece that is Wikipedia! Your claim of highly selective cherry-picking is also baseless. I was indeed highly selective, but not in a way biased toward criticisms: I refused to include any of the large quantities of anecdotal evidence I found about overly controlling sponsors, "13th Stepping", and many other things that could not be backed up with any sort of real evidence.--Icarus
You say, "Your claim of highly selective cherry-picking is also baseless. I was indeed highly selective, but not in a way biased toward criticisms." Your statement here is completely false. All you have to do is count the number of supporting points you chose to include and compare them to the number of critical points you chose to include. Of course your admittedly highly selective process was highly biased toward criticism--all we have to do is get out our rulers and measure the column inches of both sections. You are a highly biased contributor who is trying to masquerade as someone who has a NPOV. You proved that when you deleted my collaborative additions because you wanted to censor a POV that was attempting to lend some semblance of balance to yours. The fact that you consider opinions other than your own to be "vandalism" tells us everything we need to know about your false claims of NPOV. Now I am going to start adding material to the Support section, in order to try to balance out the pro and con sections that you invented, and I don't want you to start erasing that material because of your clear, evident, and demonstrated bias. August11 07:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The size of each section does not prove any bias. I did not put as much effort into the Support section because I knew there would be plenty of people willing to help expand it. Not because I had any bias against it. It's Wikipedia policy to give people the benefit of the doubt, so please stop jumping to conclusions about me being biased. My use of the word "vandalism" was a mistake, as I have admitted. It was about POV material being labeled NPOV, though, not about the material itself. I think balance is great. I want the article to be as balanced as possible. But the edit that essentially said "But this is wrong because..." after all but four criticisms wasn't balanced, it was POV. --Icarus
You are in error, and in direct violation of official Wikipedia policy on UNDUE WEIGHT as found here: [UNDUE WEIGHT] This is the relavent section:
"Undue Weight
"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."
Your original contributions were guilty of undue weight, and therefore were biased, given the fact that you included so much more anti-AA evidence than pro-AA. Also, since you cherry-picked the anti-AA criticisms, you gave a false representation as to the shape of the "dispute." There is in fact no such over-arching dispute as described by you. There are a number of very small, minority-fueled disputes out there, from which you have collected disconnected examples, giving the impression that together they constitute "one side" of a huge dispute against AA, one in which the anti-AA side appears larger than the pro-AA side because of the imbalance in the numbers of materials you selected for each side. I grant that this might have been unintentional on your part, but the result was a highly unbalanced and biased representation of a large-scale dispute that does not in fact exist.
You should be advised that the overwhelming weight of expert opinion, including that of the American Medical Association supports the disease model of alcoholism that was developed by AA seventy years ago.
Regardless of where the majority opinion lies in the misshapen "dispute" that you have invented, we now have 18 points pro and 18 points con in the article. The pro-AA points that I have added reflect the variety and flexibility within AA, and thus are a more accurate reflection of the fellowship than the mish-mash of pot-shots that you assembled from the websites of individuals. I still am not satisfied that we have met the official Wikipedia policy against Undue Weight, as the article now falsely suggests that the individal pot-shots that you assembled represent views that are held by as many people as the more-inclusive material that I supplied. I do not have time tonight to do a canvass of leading expert opinion in this area, but I would not be surprised if the pro-AA section would have to be many times larger than the anti-AA section in order to reflect accurately the full range of opinion out there and thus satisfy official Wikipedia NPOV standards. August11 10:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me of the "Undue Weight" policy. I now understand your objections better, and remain as willing to work together now as I have always been. I'd expected people to jump in to help beef up the Support side much sooner than now, which is why I originally didn't think the undue weight mattered much: because I thought it would only be that way for a day or two before other editors added to the Support section. If I'd known it would take so long, I'd have done much more work on the Support section myself. But better late than never! Thank you for all the input you've given!
You're giving me far too much credit in having invented anything. I just compiled points from a few critical sources, nothing more and nothing less. Like yourself, I'm not aware of any big organized group of critics, but I don't think the critics who do exist are as rare and fringe as you're saying. I also don't think 'mish-mash of pot-shots' is an accurate representation of the criticisms. A 'mish-mash of pot-shots' would have been if I'd included the one solitary guy who's diagnosed Bill W. with narcissism (despite that guy's lack of psychoanalytic background, not to mention not having analyzed Bill W. in person) and the one solitary guy who's therapist dismissed his non-AA-attending sober uncle as a "dry drunk" (without having analyzed the uncle in person). That would have been throwing together a mish-mash from seperate individuals' websites and then erroneously claiming that they were representative.
What I did instead was to compile a huge list of criticisms, discard the ones that obviously couldn't be supported with anything but hearsay (including the above mentioned ones, and accusations of rampant 13th stepping. Without statistics, how do we know it's rampant and not a rare anomaly?), and then discard many weaker and redundant ones so I was left with a list that covered many of the bases, but didn't belabor one point over and over again. Not wanting to intentionally give undue weight was the very reason I kept whittling it down more and more. I'd have done so even more if I'd thought some of the ones left were expendable. As you can see, almost all of them are quotes from official AA literature, and almost all of the rest are from non-official AA literature or common AA slogans. If quotes from the Big Book and 12 Steps and 12 Traditons themselves are not admissible in this article, I can't imagine what would be!
If you think there's too much undue weight, how's this for a compromise? We'll keep much of the Support side, I could re-write the Criticism section to be a few short paragraphs that don't go much into detail, and then move the specific points to a new article entitled "Criticisms of Alcoholics Anonymous". That way, the Alcoholics Anonymous article itself wouldn't make it look like the Supporter:Critic ratio was 50:50, but those seeking more information on the criticisms would still be able to find it. --Icarus 23:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The issue is not what you or I think is appropriate but what the Wikipedia NPOV official policies are. The "Undue Weight" link I directed you to further states: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia." This means that I am now going to go through the criticism section you wrote and eliminate everything that is demonstrably the view of only one person, "an extremely small minority," or "a vastly limited minority." For these same reasons, your proposed "Criticisms of AA" article would be against official Wikipedia NPOV Undue Weight policies. If you create such an article, I will have it "speedy-deleted" with reference to the official policy.
There is an equally large problem with much of what you presented in the criticism section. Yes, you quote from AA materials, but you take the quotes out of context and without presenting an explanation to the reader of what meaning certain words and phrases have within AA. I do not believe you did this intentionally to deceive, but the fact remains that you have misrepresented many elements. On your talk page, you boast of enjoying making contributions to articles you know nothing about, and list this article specifically. I'm afraid that you are 100% correct there, and that your lack of knowledge has led to a highly biased and misleading section of this article. I think it's highly weird to want to contribute to subjects you don't know anything about, but that is a different issue. In any case, I'm now going to have to go through the problem sections and make all relevant Wikipedia official NPOV policy corrections. August11 03:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
We need a definition of "extremely small" and "vastly limited", then. If we were talking about, say, one quack doctor somewhere who says that alcoholism is caused by a tumor in one's hypothalamus that's receiving radio transmissions from Jupiter's 5th moon, that would obviously not be an idea that's held by a large enough number of people to include in Wikipedia. But while the number of critics might not be as large as the number of supporters, it's not negligible.
If you don't want a large list of criticisms in the main article, a separate article seems the best solution to me. Trying to agree on how this main AA article should address them is certainly getting us nowhere. An article on the "Jupiteranean radio-receiving tumors theory of Alcoholism" would obviously belong on the fast track to deletion, but claiming that only a tiny fringe criticises AA is not accurate.
And once again... Stop putting words into my mouth. My userpage doesn't say I edit articles I know nothing about. It says I edit articles about things that do not directly affect my own life. I don't edit things I've done no research on (unless it's to revert obvious vandalisms, like randomly inserted obscenities). You've been treading close to ad hominem arguments from the beginning, but this clearly steps over the line.
I don't have time for anything major on this (or any) article right now. I'm going away for a week soon, so I'm just going to change a handful of wildly POV changes you've made. We'll have to save coming to a final conclusion for after I return. --Icarus 04:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
There are many more examples of how my selective process was not biased against AA. I didn't include any information from a bunch of essays I found that attempted to psychoanalyze Bill W. and brand him a narcissist. I didn't include anything about people who recover outside of AA being automatically dismissed as "dry drunks", because the article I read that in gave no way of knowing if that's commonplace or a rare anomaly. If I had an anti-AA bias, I'd have included all of the things I discarded for not having any support.
Some of my wordings that sound biased may be because I found information for the criticisms on websites that were venomously anti-AA. Like I said earlier, I discarded most of what I found there as having no support. What I kept, I re-worded to make less vicious. I clearly didn't succeed in removing all of the unnecessarily inflammatory tones of voice (so to speak), but it wasn't intentional. Again, please stop jumping to conclusions.--Icarus 08:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if a few poor choices in wordings made you think I had any intention other than helping to write a Controversy section that would be truly NPOV. Let me reassure you that that is indeed my sole intention, and I am grateful to any others who share that goal. I knew that other Wikipedia users would be able to take my original version and improve it far beyond what I'd be capable of doing myself, and I look forward to seeing that process as much now as ever. --Icarus 06:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm also going to point out this biased phrase: "it is of the utmost importance to thoroughly investigate both the alleged benefits of and the alleged damages caused by AA." It is not up to you, Icarus, to decide what is important or not important. You're presenting nothing more here than your personal opinion. Neither is it the function of an encyclopedia article to get anybody sober, get anybody drunk, or turn anybody into a pizza pie. Also, you are generalizing when you state, erroneously, that all of AA's detractors are interested in helping alcoholics. You have no way of knowing such a thing. August11 04:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I did choose a poor wording that implied that all of AA's supporters and all of AA's detractors want to help alcoholics. I have corrected that to show what I really meant: that people on both sides have that goal. But "all" cannot be proved for either side.
As for the "utmost importance" line. Again, my wording is imperfect. Like I told the person above, if I thought my writing was perfect I wouldn't be posting it at a collaborative website like Wikipedia! It seems like a statement of fact, not a personal decision of what's important, that those who seek to help alcoholics recover need to examine whatever methods they use to ensure that those methods really do help alcoholics recover. I've changed that part, but it's still imperfect. So if you can think of a better way to write it, go right ahead. That's what Wikipedia's all about! --Icarus 06:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm not very invested in this topic, and you folks seem to be handling it so well, I would just like to suggest that some material from the website rational.org be incorporated into the criticisms section - that site makes quite a few critiques that are not included here, and seem to be quite valid (or at least logical). I would add 'em in myself, but I don't want to interfere with your collaboration. Keep up the good work - I may take a crack at it after y'all finish up. ZacharyS 02:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There are parts of this section that are factually incorrect. One example is the claim that the beginning of chapter 5 of AA's book (pg. 58) "implies that, by definition, the AA program itself is incapable of failure, provided that the alcoholic is properly motivated. This seems to deny the existence of honest, motivated individuals for whom the program doesn't work." Please note that the very first words in chapter 5 of AA's book (pg. 58) say "Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoughly followed our path." This implies that, by definition, that it is not perfect. But it never claimed to be. --Greg 18:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

History and Development

the history and development is leaning towards the view of the organization. It seems like something taken from their site or something. Does anyone else have a problem with the pov?Blueaster 02:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it is very POV. --Icarus 02:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Everything in the History and Development section is factual. What I find biased is your opposition to what is factual, along with the biased language that you use as you express that opposition. AA is not an "organization" and does not have a "view" that has been reproduced in the History and Development section. 4.246.120.48 04:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Third paragraph

Hello, I am new to wikipedia editing, but I had a suggestion about the third paragraph of this article.

Rather than saying: "There is some controversy over the A.A. approach of abstinence as a goal as opposed to other programs which aim for moderation. [1] It should be noted that A.A. suggests abstinence for the alcoholic only, considers alcoholism to be a diagnosis which can only be made by oneself, and has no opinion on abstinence for others."

It would seem to me more informative to say something like: "In addition to AA and 12 step programs, a number of alternatives to the problem of alcohol abuse exist. These include abstinence based programs such as SMART Recovery, Rational Recovery, Women For Sobriety, and Seculars On Sobriety as well as harm reduction based programs such as Moderation Management." Pork Chop Tze 17 August 2005

I disagree. I think the third paragraph is fine as it is. This is an article about AA, not about the other recovery systems you mention. If articles about those systems don't already exist, then somebody should start them. As it stands, the third paragraph presents the AA approach to the issues under discussion--that is important information for the article to contain, and therefore should not be removed. August11 10:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you both make very valid points. Similar organizations should be mentioned, but the place for any information on them other than a brief mention by name would be in their own articles (and not in this article, which is specifically about AA).
Three possibilities:
One: Who says it needs to be only one paragraph? Add Pork Chop Tze's after the one that's already there.
Two: Keep the paragraph the same, but add a single sentence to the end that says, very briefly, "Other organizations that may take somewhat different approaches include SMART Recovery, Rational Recovery, Women For Sobriety, Seculars On Sobriety, and Moderation Management."
Three: Don't change the paragraph, but create a "See Also" section at the bottom of the article with a subsection labled "Alternatives to AA", which includes links to the other organizations' articles (some or all of which may be red links for the time being). --Icarus 23:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
What is problemmatic is the phrase "the A.A. approach of abstinence as a goal as opposed to other programs which aim for moderation." This is misleading to the general public, as the implicature is that only the AA program promotes abstinence, and all other programs promote moderation--which is not the case. --Pork Chop Tze 17 August 2005
  • The proposed material is mostly irrelevant (and perhaps wholly irrelevant) and thus does not belong here. Most (and possibly all) of the other systems you are talking about are not designed for alcoholics, therefore do not constitute an "alternative" to AA, which is designed specifically for alcoholics only.
Another problem with including these other systems here (as opposed to starting individual articles about them) is that this article is already so biased against AA that it would constitute further bias not to present criticisms of the "alternative" systems you're talking about. You can't list criticisms of AA and then introduce other systems without listing criticisms of them as well. The woman who founded Moderation Maintenance, for instance, got drunk, went into a black-out, got into her car and killed two people. At her sentencing, she sobbed that the moderation system just doesn't work. Duh. If you want to include Moderation Maintenance in this article, then you have to include that story as well. However, since you had no intention of including that material, but were simply intending to include Moderation Maintenance as though it is a legitimate alternative that has no criticisms, this is further evidence of inherent bias.
Yet another problem with your proposal is that while you are eager to list these other systems as "alternatives" to AA, you have no stated intention of listing AA as an alternative to those systems. Were you going to go to the articles for those systems, list criticisms of those systems, and then list AA as an alternative? Of course you weren't. Your proposal is merely to throw those "alternatives" into THIS article as further criticism of AA, without letting the reader know that some or all of those systems do not cater to alcoholics, and that some or all of those systems have been heavily criticized themselves. All of this is further evidence of the bias behind the proposed additions to this article. August11 03:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Like you said, this article isn't about them. It's about AA. The proper place for criticisms of them would be in their own articles, not in this article. Neither is this article the place for any supporting arguments for those other programs. Just a brief, statement of fact that there are other programs, with a few examples given by name but with no other information. Right now, I think the most neutral presentation would just be in a "See also" section at the bottom. If there's a subsection, it could be neutrally labeled "Other programs" or "Other sobriety methods" or something like that (though MM would need a note saying it's not about sobriety, for accuracy's sake). --Icarus 06:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


I have added my edits. A very short fourth paragraph mentioning the existence of alternatives to gether with some links under the external links section. I have kept it as unobtrusive as possible. BTW MM founder Audrey Kishline had resigned from MM and was attending AA meetings at the time she killed two people driving drunk. --Pork Chop Tze 3 September 2005
LOL. Uh, excuse me, but neither drinking nor drunk-driving are part of the AA program. Also, any alcoholic who blames his drinking on AA is not following the self-responsibility that is taught in the AA program. Finally, Audrey herself does not blame AA for what happened--she blames herself and the program she founded, Moderation Maintenance, which is an ineffective program for alcoholics and, indeed, is not even geared toward the problems of alcoholics, but only those of "problem" drinkers. The real problem with what you've done here, Pork Chop, is that we now have far more alternative and critical links than we have pro links. Thus, all that you have accomplished is to make the link section highly POV. I'm sure that you haven't been going around wikipedia, or anywhere else on the Internet, posting criticisms of any of the "alternatives," or mentioning on those webpages that AA is an alternative to them. You are highly biased. You should be proud of yourself. August11 18:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been back from my week away for a while now, but sticking to less controversial articles due to time constraints imposed by my offline life. I have some more things to add to the discussion about the "Controversy" section, but nothing that can't wait until I have more time.
How's this for a solution to this dispute: create a new article to list all programs that are designed to help people who abuse alcohol (and a short bit comparing and contrasting them so it's not just a list, but keeping it brief as all in-depth info belongs in the articles for the specific groups). Then, instead of having seperate links to all of the other programs' articles, all of the programs listed can have a link to the new article. That way, none of them will be overloaded with individual links to other programs.
And please review the No_personal_attacks article. Sarcastic comments like "You should be proud of yourself" just make people defensive and don't do anything productive. --Icarus 21:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello Icarus. Please review the meaning of sarcasm. Sarcasm is dependent on vocal intonation, and therefore does not exist in written language. What you probably mean is irony, which is a logical and acceptable rhetorical tool.August11 03:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
The American Heritage Dictionary doesn't mention vocal intonation, and the article you pointed me to even includes a section on the difficulties of written sarcasm, showing that it can be difficult to get across, but isn't impossible. But nitpicking over sarcasm vs. irony isn't the important issue. As wonderful a tool as irony is in certain contexts, in discussions like this such comments only serve to ignite tempers and put a damper on progress. And I know that that's the last thing you or I or anyone else here wants. --Icarus 04:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
There is no program called "Moderation Maintenance." There is a program called "Moderation Management."
Statements made in court by Kishline's attorney are not statements made by Kishline.
Please at least bother to do some minimal research before flaming. I withdraw from the flame war (but not the edit) and am unwilling to respond to any further flames posted here. My only intent was to correct some extremely misleading statements in this article--to wit that AA is the only program which advocates abstinence and that all others advocate controlled drinking.
This is simply not true. Pork Chop Tze 4 September 2005
Her lawyer speaks for her. The fact remains that she killed two people and that neither MM nor the AA-bashing article you propose will bring them back. August11 03:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Icarus, I think the idea of having a single article to discuss alternatives to AA is an excellent one. I plan to write it soon--and replace my list of links wth a single link. Thank you. --Pork Chop Tze 4 September 2005
You're welcome! But please allow me to clarify what I meant. An article entitled "Alternatives to AA" or similar would be a very big POV risk (it wouldn't be definite, but it would be very likely). What I'm suggesting is an article that lists, compares, and contrasts all programs, including AA. For instance, one section that says which promote abstinence and which promote moderation. Another section could say which are spiritual and/or religious, and which are secular and/or decidedly nonspiritual/nonreligious. Making it about "alternatives to AA" gives the impression that the other groups are, well, alternatives for people who find that AA isn't a good match for them. The more accurate and NPOV way of putting it is that any of the programs can be used as an alternative for people who find that one (or more) of them isn't (aren't) a good match. --Icarus 06:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
You would be highly irresponsible not to mention that THE major alternative is to die the long and painful death of alcoholism. We should include some written descriptions and photographs. You know, just to be as encyclopedic as possible. August11 03:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
One "alternative" (if it can even be called that, horrific as it is) to seeking and finding effective treatment is, sadly, death. But just as it would be horribly POV to present AA as one program and every other program as an alternative to AA, it would be horribly POV to present death as "THE major alternative" to AA in particular. The NPOV way of putting it would be a rewording of my first sentence in this post: something along the lines of "People who fail to find some form of effective treatment may, sadly, die from causes related to their excessive drinking." --Icarus 04:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree strongly that in an article *about* AA it does not make sense to insist that alternative or opposing ideas or movements get equal coverage. If this were an article about Franklin Roosevelt, for example, we would not expect detailed information about each of the four men who ran against him in his four successful presidential elections. An article about FDR might include some of the criticisms leveled at certain programs by his contemporaries, but it would not try to "balance" the story to the extent that it became as much about Roosevelt's enemies and detractors as about his life and accomplishments. An article about AA should focus on AA. Why should Wikipedia allow it to be otherwise? Ned 09:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ad Hominem Attacks/Hypocrisy

Clearly, it is highly disingenous for Icarus and others to respond to critiques of their arguments with charges of "ad hominem," deriding "personal attacks" at the same time that they are doing everything possible, through addition of links, edits to the article, and proposals for new articles, to conduct a long series of ad hominem attacks against members of AA. This is the sheerest hypocrisy. If you people want to add link after link after link that contain anti-AA ad hominem attacks, you have lost all credibility when you then turn around and accuse someone else of an ad hominem attack simply for pointing out your obvious bias. If you really deplore ad hominem as much as you claim, I'd like to know how you justify all of the name-calling that occurs in the links you've added to the article. If you believe those links should remain, then you need to explain why you think "ad hominem" should never be allowed on an article's talk page, but is just fine on the article page itself. Your "reasoning" is completely twisted here. August11 16:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

As an example, did anyone actually read the "Rational" Recovery pages before placing the link in this article? On the RR pages, AA members are called "stupid," "forlorn," "little corks," and on and on and on. Is this the kind of name-calling you approve of, Icarus? If so, you are obviously in love with ad hominem. Also, you might want to explain to the rest of us what is so "rational" about Rational Recovery when it so much enjoys wallowing in the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Adding that link to this article was the intellectual and moral equivalent of adding a KKK or skinhead link to an article about African Americans. And, of course, if somebody points these inconsistencies out to you, you then claim to be the victim of "ad hominem." You are incredible. August11 17:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

If those websites were wikis, I would try to remove the nasty and unproductive insults on them. They are not wikis, though, so I cannot. I do not approve of insults, no matter which side is using them. If someone here started insulting you, I'd tell them to cool it. I'm not telling you to stop offering critiques of arguments that you believe have flaws. I'm just saying that little insults stuck in them unproductive, and as I try to assume good faith, I'm sure that you do not want to intentionally be unproductive. You're free, welcome even, to provide critiques. Just be civil. It would be wrong for me or anyone else to attempt to silence you just because we disagree, just as it would be wrong for you to attempt to silence someone just because you disagreed with them. --Icarus 17:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


AA and Religion edit

I took the liberty of changing a sentence which was clearly, and I hope uncontroversially, a sentence with a strong POV.

"Many alcoholics arrive at A.A. with a strong disbelief or resentment towards spiritual ideas. For some this may change over time."

The main problem I have is with the word "resentment", clearly a athiest or agnoststic would not describe themselves as holding a "resentment" against spirituality, only someone writing from a religous standpoint would project "resentment" as a source of an athiests or agnostic's disbelief, as it deny's that their disbelief comes from reflection, which it does just as much as religous beliefs do. You would not say "Bob converted to Catholicism because he holds a resentment towards reason" and claim it to be NPOV. This is precisely the language used by the Alcoholics Anonymous book and was obviously written by somebody who adheres to the party line.

I kept the information not having to do with the POV in, and put a little information about the feeling of athiests and agnostics, and why they find A.A. attitudes towards them offensive. Someone with a strong AA POV may automatically judge the following as POV, but I urge them to look close and notice I did not phrase it in such a way to suggest any particular view, I merely am poining out a view that is widespread amongst athiests and agnostics who have attended A.A., and nothing I say abou the "attitudes" is untrue, and can be found in the We Agnostics chapter of the A.A. book. Nowhere did I even suggest that it is the correct interpretation of the A.A. book, just that it is a view held by many athiests and agnostics and that it is the source of much discontent with A.A. whether right or wrong. I tried hard to get across this important aspect of the controversey in a NPOV way, and I am confident I did, please don't get rid of this line just because you don't agree with the athiests and agnostics mentioned. This article's purpose is to present information about AA, including controversies, in a NPOV way, not to dismiss the controversey because you think that the contentious people are wrong. --Brentt 05:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Brentt: I am not going to revert this, against my better judgement, but I would like to explain, since I wrote it, and it comes out of long experience with alcoholics, both active and recovering. The main thing, I think, to understand is that people coming into AA with such attitudes are, in general, not hard-core, intellectually convinced atheists or agnostics; rather, they tend be folks whose attitudes have been shaped by several factors, including their abuse of alcohol and often, bad experiences with religion and religious people, particularly those religious folks who use their beliefs as a moral club against people with whose values, beliefs, and behaviors they disagree. And, because of the tendency that active alcoholics have for blaming anything and everything for their problems, besides themselves and their drinking, their attitude tends to be, "Well, if God exists, he/she/it sure as hell doesn't give a shit about me." This, in fact, seems to be a special case, given the unproveability of the existence of God, of attitude that extends to anyone and everything in the active alcoholic's life, to a greater or lesser extent, especially anything that stands in the way of his or her continued drinking. In A.A. literature, the word for such an attitude is "resentment," and the uncovering of such resentments is a major component of the Fourth Step. --Midnite Critic 15:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


I do not drink, but I am an athiest. I have arrived at my beliefs through years of contemplation. I recently developed a dependence on pain medication. As part of the treatment given to me by my insurance company I was required to attend a 12-step program based on the AA model. I was hounded about not believing in a "higher power", and was driven away because they kept telling me what you are saying, "your belief is just 'resentment'" Do you know how irritating that is? Not least of all because I know I've probably put in much more time thinking about God than they have, and here they are telling me my belief is extra-logical, i.e. just because of my "resentment (which I am positive I don't have, as religion was never pushed on me and my life has not been so bad to make me resentful of anything). Fortunately I was able to get sober myself, but I can imagine how it must be for the thousands of athiests who are athiests and are driven away from treatment programs because those treatment programs are inherently dismissive of their beliefs. Every time I've ever heard anyone who is an adherent of AA try to defend this practice it just goes to show how deep their prejudice is, as you have shown above. Now to be sure prejudicial judgments are sometimes, perhaps even a majority of the time, true, but that does not mean it is always true, and since AA is often the only place for Alcoholics to go, in smaller cities for example, it should try and be respectul of the people who are exceptions to the rules' beliefs, and I think it's insistence that you *have* to believe in a "higher power" for such groups to work is nonesense.

Although notice that I did not put my slant in the paragraph, I merely mentioned that this is something that many athiests and agnostics experience. And I know it's not just me because this issue is brought up anytime there is controversey about AA. --Brentt 05:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to suggest that only atheists/agnostic reject AA's plan for spiritual conversion. This is simply not true. Many religionists (theists, believers, etc) reject AA's spiritualism (theology) and some find the wholesale idolatry in AA offensive. Idolatry in many religions is a sin. Many see the "higher power" as a bait and switch scheme where the new comer (aka "pigeon") is baited with a higher power only to be switched to the true God at a later date. Anyhow, I am not complaining per say and I'll try to contribute to the article as time permits. Mr Christopher 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sentence Three

Sentence three:

"A.A. is thought to be the most successful treatment for alcoholism ever devised."

is framed in the passive voice, which any trained linguist can tell you tends to be misleading, as the subject is unspecified. Unspecified subjects carry the implicature of unversal quantification, which is clearly not the case as there remains controversy concerning the effectiveness of AA vis a vis other approaches.

Hence, I am making an edit to sentence three and am citing references. Pork Chop Tze 04:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

victim/blame section

The following is my own experience and certainly POV and contains rampant hearsay and much personal experience which has no quantifiable or verifiable citation other than my own commitment to veracity:

As for me, and just to establish my source of knowledge: I have been sober for 4 years and about 7 months as of this writing. My first few months...really my first two years I was comfortably wrapped in the blanket of AA. I entered a treatment center which is fully devoted to the twelve steps as a means of recovery from alcoholism and other addictions, and was given some significant help over a long period of time to reconstruct an otherwise horrible fractured life. So I make no claims to being "objective."

Having said that, I think that there are some warranted points to be made for the standpoint that AA is a religion, or a cult - as an old-timer once told me in a discussion about this: "People talk about AA and it being a cult and how they brain wash people. Well, I saw my brain when I got here, and it needed a good washing." (paraphrased from a personal recollection). My personal experience meshes well with this point of view - the objective of AA is to change the sum of one's life from the destructive behavioral tendencies of the chronic alcoholic to being an honest and productive person capable of forming real partnerships with other human beings. Are there sick sponsors and bitter f*&ks in AA who would pervert this process for their own power, pleasure, and sick satisfaction? Sure. As there are in any true sample of the human panorama (or certainly any group of ... how many members in AA now? 2 million?). But the overall goal of AA, as an organization, is one of benvolent messenger to the people to whom (who?) we, as members, reach out: if you are a sick and suffering alcoholic, like we were, we can help. There is hope. As cults are apt to succeed with the hopeless, these messages are somewhat necessarily similar (someone who is as damaged as the people who walk into AA for the first time crying for help is surely as damaged as someone who could listen to Jim Jones and think that he made sense).

I guess what I am trying to say (and isn't it always the things which I most want to communicate for which the words come hardest) is that the debate of rationality and logic of method was not so important in my first few months/couple years of recovery as the fact of not drinking and drugging. If it took a cult like atomosphere to accomplish that, Vive La Cult. At this point, I feel free to continue in AA by choice, because I have met fine people and made fine friends, and, in fact, have fun in AA.

But I digress.

In the criticisms section: the point about the statement "Sometimes they [other people] hurt us, seemingly without provocation, but we invariably find that at some point in the past we have made decisions based on self which later placed us in a position to be hurt." (BB, pg. 62.).

The argument raised is that this statement could be interpreted to somehow blame the victim of crimes "such as childhood sexual abuse or [other] form[s] of mistreatment of either children or innocent adults unable to protect themselves. "

While I am certainly not "Mr. Steps," or "Mr. AA", or "Mr. You-Can't-Criticize-AA," I would offer a sincere and heartfelt repudiation of this argument. While I did not personally suffer from childhood sexual abuse, I have dealt with many issues from my own past in the process of my recovery, and have watched many people deal with issues ranging from the tragic to the laughable through the implementation of the philosophy of which this statement is only a part. Personal accountability and responsibility would in no way cause me to interpret this statement to mean that a victim of child abuse was reponsible for the behavior of his/her abuser. I would not presume to speak for the attendant feelings to such an act, but I can tell you that I have heard a much higher percentage of people in AA speak of these issues, both in meetings and out, and never have I heard someone suggest that the doctrine of personal accountability made them accountable for having been abused as a child. It might, as is pointed out in the next few sentences, be used to make someone aware of patterns of blaming present destrutive behaviors and/or attitudes on horrific experiences in the past; I think this is accurate. i.e. "Many AA members interpret this to mean that blameless victims are at fault for continuing to be hurt by a past event, and not at fault for the past event itself. " I would suggest, were I asked for my opinion, that a wholly destructive present response to a surely horrific memory of past abuse is a problem, and that the only thing that can be corrected about that problem is one's behavior: the past is not going to go away, but it can be the past.

"This interpretation is incompatible with the text, since it clearly refers to the actual acts of others, not the victims' attitudes towards those acts, and suggests the problems of victims are that they have made "decisions based on self", that, later place them in a position to be hurt, not that they have chosen to remain affected by earlier hurts. An unofficial slogan sometimes heard in AA is "There are no victims, only volunteers." This clearly indicates the belief that nobody is ever victimised in any way that they could not have avoided."

I have never, once, heard anyone voice this opinion. I agree that the semantics of the text are possible to interpret in this way, but you have to be looking for it in order to do so. If there is a school of thought out there that does so, I am unaware of it and would need to see it credibly attributed to someone not on an anti-AA tear in order to think that its inclusion here was anything but spurious.

It is, in my enormously biased opinion, only with an enormously biased reading of the text that one would interpret this phrasing to mean what is ascribed to it here. As someone else pointed out on the beginning of the talk page, the BB was not written with a primary concern of logical consistency in the fashion of a textbook or philosophical treatise; some latitude is warranted, I believe, in the interpretation.

I am sure that there exist personal accounts of people who have been subjected to cruelty on the basis of this point in and out of AA meetings by some personal accountability nazi lacking a compassion device. Please be aware that this, IN NO WAY, would be consistent with my understanding of AA. I cannot presume to speak "for AA," although I have never been so sorely tempted to do so as I am now.

The inclusion of this section seems to imply that AA would be an unwelcoming or unsafe atomosphere in which to deal with issues of this ilk. Again, I have only my personal experience to offer, but my personal experience is the complete and total polar opposite of this implication.

I think that this section should be removed.

To anyone who is offended by my breaking my anonymity, sorry. UncleCheese 03:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No Offense to Uncle Cheese but why in the world are we dedicating space on the Talk page so AA members can share? The article is long and AA memebers personal confessions are getting longer. I am going to re-read this "victim/blame" section (yet again) and see if any of it has anything to do with the article. Unless someone objects I plan to delete the personal unrelated commentary.
AA members please note, this is not a forum for you to share your personal feelings about alcoholism or AA nor is it an "AA as you understand it" event. This is a page where we discuss how to improve the article. Please save the personal disclosure for an actual AA meeting. Mr Christopher 14:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Christopher -

I don't watch this page or anything, so please excuse my tardiness in responding.

I would note a few things:

(a) I was responding to a specific charge made in the article that AA's literature, philosophy, or practice "...clearly indicates the belief that nobody is ever victimised in any way that they could not have avoided." My response to this charge was heartfelt and based on personal experience and completely biased, which was why I put on the talk page. If someone accused your baseball team, church league, chess club, or Habitat for Humanity chapter of supporting bestiality, I would expect you to respond to it; this is what I was doing. Unfortunately the "ammunition" I had at hand was personal, and therefore more appropriate for the "talk" page, rather than the general article, as nothing I wrote on the talk page would be appropriate for an article, other than maybe as a small cite of personal testimony.

(b) If you look a little bit at the edit history, you will notice that there has been a lot of "anti" AA material removed from this article. I would, in general, agree with you that much of the material is probably "pro" - this is the natural swing of things, as I understand them. Adjustment, compensation, action, reaction.

(c) I am not sure if you are aware how patronizing your tone was in making the comments I am responding to. My experience in AA is personal, and positive; I have communicated this, and I am honest and forthright about it. This does not make what I contribute to this talk page a "share" at a "meeting." I was responding to a specific allegation about AA that I found offensive, biased, ill-informed, and wrong. I do not take well to having my commentary dismissed because I am a member of the group being (IMHO) slandered, and because my commentary is from hard-won personal experience. Having said that, I also know that I can be somewhat overly strident myself. So I'll try and tone it down on my end a bit.

UncleCheese 18:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

anonymity

The AA article says, "One factor that complicates research into AA effectiveness is the difficulty of gathering statistical information on groups that protect the anonymity of members."

It may be that the groups protect the anonymity of members. But this certainly is not what the "anonymous" in the "alcoholics anonymous" meant to the founders of AA.

If you actually read the "Big Book", you'll find that the clear intention of the word "anonymous" is that public figures who want to tell others about the program should not make theirs a "celebrity endorsement". Rather, each should ask that the audience regard him or her as just another drunk, just another "anonymous alcoholic".

This, of course, has nothing to do with the silliness of those in a tiny AA group in a small village avoiding using one another's last names to maintain "anonymity". And what it actually does proscribe is exactly that which has become all the rage in recent decades.

Is it surprising that those who claim to be the staunchest advocates of some religion may actually misrepresent its basic tenets? No. But it can be a real disservice to those who trust these “leaders”.

68.34.12.242 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear - the anonymity issue I was referring to at the end of my post was consistent with the quotes you offer - lest anyone think that I was trying to speak for AA by identifying myself as a member and then offering my views.

That was not my intention, but some people are more sensitive to the whole issue than I am, and I am not unmindful of that.

On the other hand, maybe your quotes have nothing to do with my post.

?

UncleCheese 22:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than comment on each section I would like to make a general statement that I have skimmed this entire forum and must read it more in depth. Looks like some interesting points are being made. There appears to be some misinformation due to urban myth and other sources. I'll have to return at a later date....Mitchell K.

Secular Saint--Bill Wilson

I am not very familiar with this format. Bill's so-called failures or defects of character have been addressed ad nauseum. There are several books and articles outlining his drug taking, affairs with women, and many other areas. Virtually all areas of Bill's life have been exposed, discussed and continue to be discussed. If you wish iconoclastic references, I would invite you to visit orange-papers on the net where you will find a multitude of articles, documents, opinions, theories and facts not only about Bill but AA in general. Orange-Papers is an anti-AA site which I totally recommend anyone interested in AA history to read. It is well done and despite the fact that I am an old-time AA person, many materials I have made public appear on that site. Mitchell K.

In this iconoclastic age, public figures--both living and dead--are subjected to the most intense scrutiny, often to the point of the absurd. However, there is one secular saint whose life and work one analyzes at one's peril: Bill Wilson: his misogyny; his possible, though (as yet) unproven financial improprieties; his sexual harassment of young female recruits; his drug-taking (LSD); and the purported vision of God, probably induced by prescribed hallucinogenic drugs! Is it not time that we began to look at his failures as well as his achievements in the light of historical and textual analysis? Cosmocrator

"AA-Speak" is usually a term used by AA bashers. The practice of some AA members telling people on psychotropic (or other) medications that they are not sober has significantly diminished over the past several years. This practice was not limited to so-called old-timers (people with long-term continuous sobriety). There are a few 12-Step fellowships out there such as Double Trouble in Recovery (DTR) and Dual Recovery Anonymous (DRA) which address the taking of medications and psychiatric diagnoses and are used by people who may feel safer there than at a mainstream meeting. I have noticed however, as people who exhibit co-occurring psychiatric and addictive disorders become more and more the norm rather than the exception, tolerance for medication taking grows. Unfortunately, it still happens that a newcomer is told not to take medications but not as often as in the past. MitchellK.

Psychotropic medication ("mood-changing drugs" in AA-speak) is often prescribed by reputable psychiatrists for members of AA suffering from depression, anxiety, psychosis etc. Any person with half a brain will distinguish between this and the abuse of such drugs--often in conjunction with alcohol. However, many "old-timers" make no distinction between the taking of prescription medication and the abuse of "mood-changing drugs." Sponsors often tell newcomers to avoid all "mood-changers" and rely on "the program"--AA-speak for the 12 steps). I, who am an alcoholic, have seen this lead to newcomers relapsing into depression, anxiety etc., often leading to another drink or drug-binge. In one case, it led to a newcomer taking his own life. Will someone please tell these "old-timers" that they are not doctors, much less psychiatrists, and that perhaps they would like to stop playing God!

Two points: first, as Bill W. himself wrote: "We ARE NOT SAINTS. The point is, that we are willing to grow along spiritual lines....We claim spiritual progress rather than spiritual perfection." (BB, 4th ed. pg. 60) (Emphasis added) This, of course, has given risen to one of A.A.'s slogans, "Progress not perfection," which is a welcome antidote for a group of people who often tend to think, "If I can't do something perfectly, I'm not gonna do it at all." With that attitude, many of us found that the only thing we could do perfectly was to get drunk on a regular basis. Second, as someone who has been in, out, around and now back in A.A. since 1989, and that in three different geographical locations, I have never once heard anyone in A.A. deride necessary psychotropic medication, nor have I encountered anything like this in A.A. literature. I have heard many critiques of things like "marijuana maintenance," expressed as "this absolutely did not work for me," but none - not one- with regard to prescribed psychiatric medication. Indeed, I myself have been on one or another antidepressants for most of my adult life, going back twenty years. --Just Another Drunk 13:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Heard at a meeting from someone with many years' sobriety, relative to the Second Step: "Working the program of Alcoholics Anonymous has relieved me of the insanity of alcoholism, especially the insanity of taking the first drink. However, I am still a schizophrenic, and if I don't take my medication every day, soon the Klan will be bugging my house." --Just Another Drunk 09:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is way too long

Would someone, preferably the main author, tell me why this is so long? BrianGCrawfordMA 00:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

i hate to give a half-sarcastic answer, but it's the truth: getting an infinite number of AAs and nonAAs and formerAAs to agree on this much text is absurd. N.e.w. 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an AA article not an AA brochure

Some time needs to be spent removing or rewording parts of this article that read like an AA brochure. This article is about A.A. but not meant to promote the A.A. or their ideology. Mr Christopher 14:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll elaborate - the Big Book is written from a "we" perspective and as if "we" is an expert on alcoholism, there is some of that echoed in this article. In fact some of this article could easily be confused with the Big Book or 12 and 12. The article should avoid that since this is not an AA brochure. The article should avoid portraying A.A. belief as an authority on alcoholism itself. The article (possibly every paragraph) is filled with examples where A.A. ideology is being echoed here as truths about alcoholism or alcoholics. We want to avoid things like "Alcoholics are blah blah blah" and instead more accuratly state in terms like "According to AA...blah blah blah" so that the article does not read like an A.A. pamphlet on alcoholism. I recgnize many A.A. members are contributing to the article and that is a good thing but we want to write the article as objective as possible. We're not writing a pamphlet for alcoholics, we're not wring an article about alcoholism, were writng an encyclopedia article about Alcoholics Anonymous, their history, beliefs, practices, controversies, influence, etc. Mr Christopher 18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Claims in this article like "it works" is an example of what I am talking about avoiding (and removing). A Wiki article should not make such original research claims. Mr Christopher 18:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AA STUFF I find all discussions about AA to be interesting in the sense that those most interested in its perception are those who usually have had some experience with the program itself on a personal level. It then becomes difficult to be objective about its history, purpose and message once that person has experienced their alcoholism within the context of AA. What is drawn out of that experience must influence their perception of AA. We then get hidden motives attributed to the organization, paranoid ramblings, skewered conclusions drawn more as a result of an individual's difficulty in making the program work for them, than what might actually be there to be deduced by less emotionally involved individuals. But I think it also has to be said that active AA members do have something to contribute to an explanation of what AA purports to be and how its goals are effected, especially if the person talking has had success with the program as they understand it. The original purpose of AA was to provide a method for drunks to get sober. No claim was ever made that it is the only way for all drunks to get sober. Should credence be given to those who did not get sober? Whose failure is it? Obviously those who could not get sober using AA cannot get sober using AA. And if this is so, why is there so much being contributed that seems to focus on aspects of the program that would seem to justify an individual's failure to attain sobriety? It seems to be vendetta driven. The "cult" argument is so old and so disengenious. What would be the ultimate purpose in assembling cadres of googly-eyed ex-alcoholics? Who would really want to be holding the strings on a bunch like that? Individuals approach AA out of a need. What is the message that they are presented? How do they internalize that message? That is the definition of AA. Jhn C

This article is an advertisement for AA, not an article about it. It has an almost disgusting amount of bias in the opening section, referencing that it may be the greatest recovery system of all time. The entire piece needs to be rewritten by someone who doesn't work for AA. - Luke

Luke, i STRONGLY agree. The quotes I've taken below from the opening sections of the article are prime examples. Who has ever seen an encyclopedia that reads like this? As an unbiased reader, the clear 'pro AA' tone of the majority of the article is disturbing. This truly does read like an AA brochure, and for that reason I'm adding the NPOV tag.
"Another vital aspect of Alcoholics Anonymous is that it is exclusively run by and peopled by other alcoholics. It is difficult for some non-alcoholics to understand the loneliness of an alcoholic or the despair he feels as he continues to ruin his life, seemingly of his own will, and an all-alcoholic group provides solace for some recovering from alcohol addiction.
Many have claimed A.A. to be the most successful treatment for alcoholism ever devised. Though some take issue with this claim - and A.A. itself makes no such formal claim - the opinion is widely accepted because no other program has attained the same level of prominence. Dissenters have argued that there are no controlled double blind scientific studies to back the claims and that reputable scientific research casts doubts on the effectiveness of such programs[1]. One factor that complicates research into AA effectiveness is the difficulty of gathering statistical information on a membership that stresses anonymity as an essential characteristic of the fellowship."

--Alex 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag was much needed. This thing needs a major rewrite. How does such an effort usualy get started? I have no idea how to initiate such an effort and I do not have the Wiki experience to coordinate it. But at some point we need to take it one bite (section) at a time and try and come up with something worthy of an encyclopedia article. Mr Christopher 04:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm essentially in the same position you are, but i definitely think we can do this. I'll start going through the article when i have time and posting proposed changes in this section so people can approve the changes before they get made to the actual article. Of course anyone should feel free to do the same, unless anyone objects to making any changes... --Alex 15:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I am a newish editor here but I have seen "To do list" boxes on some other talk pages. I don't know how to create one (yet) nor do I know under what circumstances they are used but something like that might help us organize a clean up effort. Mr Christopher 16:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm definitely 'newish' as well, but i've seen the same thing, good call! i'll see if i can figure out how to get one of those tags up...--Alex 17:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I added the 'wikify' tag which i think is how the page is identified and listed in the 'to do' section, and i removed the pov check tag as I think having both tags was a bit redundant. I'll continue to see what i can do myself, but hopefully that brings others with a bit more experience in to help out.--Alex 17:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Proposed Changes

I would like to alter the introductory section as follows. I ended up taking out a lot because much of it was either blatant POV, could not be verified, or simply was not true. I'm fairly new to this, so please compare this with what's currently on the actual article and provide some feedback. If there's somewhat of a consensus, I will alter the article accordingly.

Alcoholics Anonymous is an international group of alcoholics whose primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics do the same. A.A. formed the original twelve-step program and has been the source and model for all subsequent recovery groups such as Gamblers Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Sexaholics Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, and Al-Anon/Alateen, among others.

Until the mid-1930s, alcoholics who did not have the financial means to hire a psychiatrist or admit themselves to a private sanitarium could find help only at state hospitals, in jails, or through street ministries[1]. The founding of Alcoholics Anonymous marked the first approach to supporting the sustained recovery of the alcoholic, regardless of their financial standing.

One revolutionary aspect of Alcoholics Anonymous is their definition of alcoholism. They define it as a progressive disease from which the alcoholic is suffering. A.A. prescribes that alcoholism, as a disease, can not be cured and as such the recovering alcoholic has no option but to completely abstain from alcohol[2]

Another vital aspect of Alcoholics Anonymous is that it is exclusively run by and peopled by other alcoholics (aside from 7 out of 21 members of the A.A. Board of trustees who are listed as “nonalcoholic friends of the fellowship”[3]). A.A. believes that the relative success of their program is owed to their opinion that a recovered alcoholic has a special ability to bond and provide insight into the necessity of sobriety to the alcoholic[4]

A.A. literature describes a difference between an "alcoholic" and a "problem drinker", claiming that unlike a ‘problem drinker’ who may drink alcohol but retains the ability to stop or moderate his or her drinking, an alcoholic has an incurable disease rendering them unable to moderate their consumption of alcohol. A.A. states that only the individual themselves can determine weather or not they are in fact an alcoholic[5].


References

  1. ^ Encarta Encyclopedia
  2. ^ The A.A. Fact File, 'The Recovery Program'
  3. ^ The A.A. Fact File, 'The Structure of A.A.'
  4. ^ The A.A. Fact Files, 'The Recovery Program'
  5. ^ The A.A. Fact Files, 'The Recovery Program'

--Alex 00:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

made the change--Alex 22:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

AA is not that controversial

The section on controversy in this article is far too long. It implies that AA is highly controversial and fringe. I would call AA mildly controversial at worst and nearly mainstream nowadays. I think a small group of highly opinionated detractors is probably responsible for the lack of balance in this article.

Any group involving religion and spirituality is going to generate controversy, especially if it has a high profile as AA does.

Although there is no actual "controversy" section, as far as word density goes, about 10% of this article addresses critical commentary of A.A. The rest reads more like an conferance approved A.A. brochure. What specifically do you think should be removed from the article, or makes AA appear "fringe"? Mr Christopher 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire discussion on the merits of AA (to be absolutely proper and correct for you, re: "section on controversy"...btw, it's spelled "conference") is far too long. More than 10 percent. A few short paragraphs on either side would suffice. The section on AA and the law is also too long. As for the rest of it, any description of AA in its own words (which should be clearly noted as such) would indeed be conference approved.

AA is extremely controversial and is becoming more so all the time. Do a google search for "AA Cult" and see how many hits you get as well as extremely rational and well thought out discussions on the topic. There was also an episode of the Penn & Teller show, Bullshit! which seeks to debunk controversial topics. If you aren't aware of the controversy that doesn't not mean it does not exist. Vaginsh 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Horror Stories

I find this article to be biased in that I see no mention of the horror stories related to AA even though this is a major criticism of the program. There are links to some sites who describe them in the bottom of the page, but I feel horror stories should also be mentioned in the main body of the text. And probably a link and a page devoted to horror stories associated with AA should be made in order to make the coverage of AA less biased. The horror story I read was from the 'More revealed' link. Eincrat 21:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous/Archive_1&oldid=443715054"