Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Recent Activity by Anon Editor

You removed an article from Harper's from the Criticism section with no justification. The fact that the article is from the 60's has no bearing. I believe that Harpers is s reliable source for an author's opinion on a topic.

You made substantial changes to the section describing what happens in AA meetings. You mention that you have been to lots of meetings and therefore you are changing the description as you see fit. Please do not do this. Your opinion, as accurate as it may be, is of no concern to this article. If you have reliable sources for your additions, please put these in. As far as I know, we have only a single reliable source for the meeting section from a sign language interpreter who went to meetings, took notes, and wrote a journal article to help hearing-impared folks maneuver through AA meetings. Some additional text has been added periodically, but most has been non-judgemental. You added a statement about the "therapeutic value" of some meeting components and claimed that people were not expected to hold hands or pray at the end of meetings. I will remove those statments. I may prune this section back to what can be gleened from our one source. Other reliable sources about what goes on in an AA meeting would be welcome--just not your personal experiences. Desoto10 (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've gone in and made a few reversions and additions to the Meetings section. In the process I screwed up the ref22 and now there are two of the same refs. In any case, I think that as it sits now, the meeting description makes no conclusions about whether the various practices are good or bad, just that is how the meetings tend to go.Desoto10 (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1st Paragraph

Somebody added a conclusion at the end of the lead paragraph that is not consistent with the reference given. I removed it for two reasons: (1) the lead should summarize. (2) the Timkin paper compares AA attendance as the primary outcome for two groups of alcoholics, one group gets intensive referral to AA and the other gets the "standard" treatment. Not surprizingly, the group that was intensively pushed towards AA went to AA more often than the other group. A secondary finding was that those who went to AA more had better outcomes. This is not the definitive, holy grail study that answers the question "how well does AA work?" because, as usual there was no random assignment to attending AA or not. The authors do conclude that the positive outcome effect of intensive AA referral was due to more AA attendance. I thought that we already quoted this article further on down, but maybe not. It should definitely be in the Effectiveness of AA article.Desoto10 (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Alcoholism as Disease

This is obviously OR, but I wonder if anybody knows of any published commentary on the odd way that AA treats the alcoholism-as-disease issue? I mean, are there any other "diseases" where the proposed "treatment" involves the supernatural?Desoto10 (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be odd if to treat alcoholism differently than the majority of professional societies that have an interest in the topic. Personally I don't care either way,

You're thinking of AA like it's a product of academia, it's not. When you're a bunch of people putting your heads together trying to figure out ways to stay sober, you don't have to worry about how popular your opinions will make you among people in your field of research or in your department. You sink or swim by how well your ideas work. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that "dis-ease" is also a Biblical term for anxiety, the opposite of "ease". In AA, it's never realy clear which "dis-ease" is being discussed since so many drink to ease their anxiety. Back of Beyond (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Gregory Bateson did some extensive research with AA and published his work in Psychiartry vol. 34 called "The Cybernetics of 'Self': A Theory of Alcoholism." He is one of the first advocates of systems theory in human interaction, doing work with the double bind family situation present in nerotic families. his reasearch dives into the philosophy of AA. he argues that AA philosophy changes the alcoholics Epistomology away from a dualism that the alcoholic suffers into a "more correct" epistemology. The article is reprinted in "steps to an ecology of mind" by Bateson.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Counter-Enlightenment

"AA's program is an inheritor of Counter-Enlightenment philosophy" This looks a lot like original research to me. Is there any support for keeping this paragraph? Back of Beyond (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You will find that there is a footnote at the end of the paragraph you are referencing, currently number 13. that footnote contains a reference to a peer-reviewed journal article. That article contains the following:

The general themes that will tie our discussion of these domains together are as follows. In broad terms, AA can be located in the history of ideas as being the inheritor of counter-Enlightenment influences (e.g., Pre-Nicean Creed Christianity and Continental Existentialism, see Kurtz, 1982; Kurtz & Ketcham, 1982; Mowrer, 1966). The essential tenets of this stream of thought are that the individual self is inherently limited and that acceptance of human imperfection is critical to finding one’s right relation to other human beings and God. These ideas are sometimes called “Counter-Enlightenment” because they reject the Enlightenment ideal that individual human beings have the rationality and the power to make their lives and their society into a heaven on earth.

Feel free finish reading sentences and paragraphs in the future then to examine footnotes following them anytime you are concerned about original research. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Original Research to try and tie AA to the vague Counter-Enlightenment philosophy. You can do it if you like, but AA can also be tied to Enlightenment thinking since it's a practical tool based on empirical field results. It's a bit of an OR stretch to try to pin it on Counter-Enlightenment philosophy, and doesn't really add anything except confusion to the article. I vote to delete it. Back of Beyond (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I think you really need to check out Wikipedia origional research policy. You will note that the claims to counter enlightenment have been published in a peer reviewed article that is consistant with Wikipedia's reliable source policies, while you are the one forwarding the position for AA to be tied to enlightenment without any source. one of these things is origional research...and you are it, check the policy. P.s. we don't care if you agree with it or not, it is all about sourcing.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Other Notable Criticisms

So... the first two "other criticisms" seem legit. The last two are totally lame though. The criticism that it uses slogans too much is possibly true but it's referenced by an article in Harpers that is almost 50 years old. Kill that. Also, criticizing AA cause it has no confidentiality clause is the same as criticizing my local Applebee's, Jiffy Lube or Strip Club for not having a confidentiality clause. I.e. Who cares?

Finally, in noting that AA is not more effective than other forms of treatment, has any one pointed out that the "other form of treatment" noted in many of those articles is inpatient treatment and that this costs many thousands of dollars per month whereas AA costs.... nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.162.214 (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that you don't like those criticisms (although in argumentation theory you have employed what are called "falicies" in your refutations of them). However these criticisms come from peer reviewed reliable sources that adressed a significant audiance. please familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:OR, the first to better understand what is expected in a source, and the second to understand why we use sources rather than our own opinions. if you would like to refute those claims could you please come up with a reliable source. I understand calling from your own experience works just fine in real life but in wikipedia we require sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify...two sources mentioned (AP and NYTimes) were NOT criticisms of AA. Read them. That AA does not have a confidentiality clause SHOULD be included, but elsewhere in the body- not in criticisms. (I can't speak for the Journal Article- I didn't wanna pay for it.)

Harper's is not a peer reviewed journal, it's a culture and literature review. The article is almost 50 years old. That's thin broth.

As to my other point that AA costs nothing, whereas other forms of treatment often cost thousands of dollars. Well... it's true. I thought I might throw that out there for anyone who wanted to put it in the article. Note that I didn't put it in myself. Money is relevant since not everyone can pay for inpatient treatment. Though other forms of treatment are likely more effective, AA is open to a large segment of the population who cannot be helped by forms of therapy due to cost. It's a point that I felt others might find helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.162.214 (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, I removed the one who's referance was a AA primary source and not a criticism at all. You are correct that the two articles are not criticisms, however the referance that they support, (Coleman, Phyllis (December 2005). "Privilege and Confidentiality in 12-Step Self-Help Programs: Believing The Promises Could Be Hazardous to an Addict's Freedom". The Journal of Legal Medicine 26 (4): 435–474) is a peer reviewed criticism of the case that the other articles referance. Harpers is not peer reviewed, but it is a reliable source. so I guess the question is, do we as a community believe that the source is good enough.

your statement on AA costing nothing would be a fine addition if you have a source for it.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the bit you took out wasn't a criticism at all; it described a feature, if anything. The cost of AA is mentioned up in the meetings section. However, we can't talk about the relative costs of treatments unless the source comparing the treatments compares costs itself: to do so would be synthesis. We can't quote "2" from one source and "2" from another and derive "4" ourselves. PhGustaf (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source on AA being free, though I see this issue was adressed by PhGustaf. http://www.aa.org/lang/en/subpage.cfm?page=1 . I still have a tough time wrapping my mind around the idea that AA's lack of confidentialiy clause is a legitimate criticism, since I can't see how it's within their purview to guarantee people those rights and they never explicitly say that confidentiality is guaranteed. If however, you can show that the culture of AA meetings strongly implies, however unexplicitly, guaranteed privacy, then game-on. Perhaps what needs to be done is a clarification of the confidentiality statement in the wiki article. Perhaps the comment simply needs to be elaborated, something to the effect that the culture of AA can indirectly give people a false sense of security on these things. I imagine that that is what the peer reviewed article goes over, though I haven't seen it.

Would people be OK with someone posting explicitly that the fact that AA is without cost is a significant advantage over other treatment programs? If we're gonna reference articles that criticize AA for possibly not working as well as inpatient programs, we might as well compare apples to apples and state that those treatment programs are expensive, and possibly inaccessible to many people- almost 4000 dollars on average according to the DHHS - and they aren't continuous. http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/samhsa_dasis_adss.pdf

As for the Harpers article... upon reading it again, keep it, but let's change the context in which it is presented. I just don't like the whole "other notable criticisms" section at all. It seems like a loosely arrainged series of 3 pot-shots at AA, and in doing so, it avoids a more robust discussion of problems with AA. Discussions of 13th stepping could go in the body of the criticism section, the confidentiality part could be dealt with as mentioned above. The content of the Harper's article could go in a new section that mentions the dogmatism, and possibly add something about how AA focuses a lot on the spiritual side of things and neglects discussing the empirical (neuro)science of addiction. (sorry, this last critique might be a tough one to reference.) If a reference that is not so dated can be found, that would be great. The culture of AA has certainly gone through many adjustments since 1963. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.162.214 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep mentioning "inpatient programs". Remember that in the US inpatient programs are almost all devoted to preparing patients for AA. There's nothing to compare there. The therapies as good as AA are nonspiritual groups, psychotherapy, various drug tricks, and (according to Vaillant) no treatment at all. PhGustaf (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets be clear. Vaillant DOES NOT state that AA's effectiveness is comparable to no treatment at all, that's just what is written on orange-papers.org. See green-papers.org for discussion of this. Mr Miles (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Vaillant seems to have been a massive supporter of AA and believed fully in its process. Are you referring to the fact that 50% of alcoholics go into remission sans AA? Cause guess what... 90% of pneumonia cases go into remission sans antibiotics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.180.103 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't making any comment on the natural remission rate of disease. Just pointing out that (and it's blindingly obvious to anyone who has actually read Vaillant), Orange Papers mis-stated Vaillant's findings. It's depressing how often this lie has been repeated, even in places where the reporting should be responsible. The Pen and Teller episode for example, or in a recent article in the British newspaper The Guardian. Lazy journalism, depressing. Mr Miles (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.162.214 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see now! Disinformation! Perfect. Point taken back. Besides, many people in AA never go through inpatient programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.180.103 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Spreading the criticism around is an excellent idea. Criticism sections in general are out of favor these days; they just serve as dumping grounds.

I wouldn't worry about the age of that reference. Has AA changed much since? PhGustaf (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no evidence. I'm uncomfortable personally, but if others honestly don't feel that's the case, then I'm reassured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.162.214 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To complete the conversation about confidentiality, a man confessed to a random murder in an AA meeting and was turned in and convicted. his defence was that the AA meeting had the same privilages as confession because of the principle of anononymaty. the courts ruled differently. this brings up concerns especially with things like the Fifth step (conffession of shortcommings). I believe that most of this is covered in the scholarly articleCoffeepusher (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Coffeepusher and PhGustaf. The point of the section on confidentiality is to emphasize that there are no laws enforcing the Twelfth Tradition or the often heard closing "Who you see here, what you hear here, when you leave here, let it stay here." Personally, I think that is a good thing, and either way is not necessarily a "criticism." But it is worth mentioning in this article. Encyclopedias are about educating people, if anyone thinks confidentiality is legally assured in AA (or twelve-steps in general) then we can clarify this for them. The point should be made that confidentiality is not guaranteed in the same capacity as it is in say, attorney-client or doctor-patient or priest-parishioner relationships. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. People should certainly know that AA has no confidentiality clause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.162.214 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cost Comparisons

NOTE: I moved this section up a notch so that the newer discussions could be at the bottom of the page.

"We also found that participation in continuing outpatient care, and especially in 12-Step self-help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA),was associated with better outcomes. Moreover, compared to patients who had been in CBT, patients who had been in TSF were morelikely to participate in self-help groups and less likely to need additional in-patient or out-patient care. Thus, their subsequent health care costs were about 50% lower than those of patients who had been in CBT [14]."

14. Humphreys K., Moos R. Can encouraging substance abuse patients to participate in self-help groups reduce the demand for continuing outpatient care? A quasiexperimental study. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2001; 25: 711–16.

Humphreys and Moos at the Palo Alto (Stanford) VA have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to reduce costs to the VA for treating substance abuse GIs. Ref. 14, from an interview with Moos presents some of their results. Basically, you get a lot of bang for the buck by farming out patients to community self-help groups such as AA over keeping them in the hospital. One has to keep in mind that this does not argue for the absolute success rates for AA over other therapies, just that a free therapy is more cost effective than the professional therapies.Desoto10 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Good find. AA is bound to be cheaper than inpatient, presciption drugs or psychotherapy, all of which cost money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.162.214 (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Confidentiality

I moved the confidentiality bit from Criticisms to near Meetings, as this issue could be considered a criticism only if attendees were told that everything at the meeting was covered by some kind of legal confidentiality agreement. People often confuse anonymity with confidentiality. I am not sure that there are any official edicts about confidentiality from AA.Desoto10 (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Spiritual Thing

I just moved the beginning of discussion from above to here so that it is easier to deal with.

I can see another criticism - the spiritual thing. What help can AA offer to an atheist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.76.66 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, along these lines, a Christian who feels AA's 'Higher Power' is not inclusive of Christ's divinity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.171.37 (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

well, do you guy's have a Reliable source to back up your observations? unfortunatly this isn't a discussion board about AA, but rather a discussion board about an AA article, and while we do discuss sources to add to the article, we do not discuss our personal observations about the topicCoffeepusher (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind people proffering ideas for consideration. I believe both points were valid, if a little lazy for not finding a source. Both points contribute to possible later edits. I intend to continue doing so ad infinitum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.13.91 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a section titled Spirituality or something would be a useful addition. There is quite a bit of information in peer-reviewed journals out there on this subject as well as in the popular press. There are court cases also available which address the religious nature of AA. I can predict that we will end up in an argument about the difference between spirituality and religiousness.Desoto10 (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

CS Lewis

ok so this section in the criticism section has been added three times today (two different IP addresses, and one named account) and I don't believe it belongs for the following reasons.

1. CS Lewis has nothing to do with addiction, addiction counseling, nor does he play any major role in AA.
2. CS Lewis is a fiction writer who dabbled in Christianity within his writings. he is not known as a major theological scholar, and founded no major theological school of thought. I admit his writings were influential, but they didn't engage in any major theological criticism.
3. unlike the other criticisms noted in this section, CS Lewis's didn't have a major impact upon AA, and didn't produce any notable secondary literature referencing this criticism.
4. this criticism falls into the "well duh" category. "OMG you mean that a devout Anglican is critical of mysticism!!" without ever seeing this quote I assure everyone that the Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Southern Baptists, Other Baptists, Penicostals, Every Church That Calls Itself A Bible Believing Church, Calvinists, Etc. all have the same criticism of Bill Wilson engaging in mysticism (plus half the people who saw the Exorcist). this criticism doesn't generate any knowledge or aid in understanding.
5. Criticism sections are discouraged in Wikipedia because they become dumping grounds for any quote that would fit and seem to create POV forks. this is a prime example of that.

those are my thoughts.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

this criticism is also Bill Wilson specific, rather than being a criticism on AA. I think that this would be much better placed on the Bill Wilson page, and here it is kinda just trivia.Coffeepusher (talk)

I agree with Coffeepusher: the CS Lewis bit should go in Bill Wilson's article if it goes anywhere. Do we have any confirming evidence about CS Lewis' views? 66.120.181.218 (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation support in the Effectiveness section

I'm curious about Effectiveness section, particularly the cited studies that "concluded that AA attendance can lead to poorer outcomes than other therapies". Looking at abstracts for the publicly available ones, yields the following:

40. Abstract indicates that AA is associated with better outcomes and is at worst the same as other treatment methods.

44. Not available to me.

45. There is no mention of AA or the 12 steps at all in this paper.

46. The abstract (I didn't want to pay $50 for the article) mentions "a twelve-step-influenced (TSI) program" rather than AA itself.

47. The abstract talks about "adherence" (presumably meaning attendance) to AA, not the effectiveness of AA. This paper does find that adherence to AA is lower than other programs studied, however, particpation after one year is somewhat different, though related, to the effectiveness of the program itself.

Given this lack of support, I would like to update the language. But given the controversial nature of the topic, I thought I’d discuss first. My proposal for the whole sentence would be something like:

“Many studies have suggested an association between AA attendance and increased abstinence or other positive outcomes, though other studies may show similar or lower effectiveness.”

I know that this seems weighted favorably towards AA being positive, but this based on the number of studies cited. If additional studies can be found that show AA is equal to or less effective than other methods, it would make sense to even the language out.

Blindrhino (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You might want to go back into the archives and dig around for why the section ended up as it did. It ain't pretty, but it stopped a lot of useless fighting.Desoto10 (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

well some of these can be removed at least. Number 46 provided this summery which doesn't say worst...in fact the only one that could possibly have said "worst" outcomes is the book #44

"One program, a brief skills-training program (BSTP) with interactive lectures and discussions (n=178), was derived from the University of Washington's Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students. The second program, a 12-step influenced program (TSI), provided lectures by therapists trained in the 12-step approach (n=172). Study authors also created a control group of students (n=206). All participants completed a baseline assessment, as well as follow-up questionnaires one, two and three years following the baseline year.

Findings indicate that all three groups significantly reduced their Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores from baseline assessment to the two-year follow-up questionnaire."Coffeepusher (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, if we are going to go through this again, read the entire article, not just the abstract. Also, please read all of the articles that are supposedly on the positive side as well (unless, of course, you are only concerned about the supposedly negative ones). Also go check out the Effectiveness of AA article and make sure that whatever is done here is expanded upon there and that the two articles are consistent. In the end, we will likely arrive right back here with a statement that "some say AA works, some say it does not, there is some good and some bad research on both sides, and, because of the difficulty of doing the correct study, the truth is ambiguous".Desoto10 (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe my edit of the offending sentence will help. Now it reads something like "while some studies suggest that AA gives better outcomes, some do not." Thus, a study that shows that AA or TSI does no better than controls can be included. The way that it was worded earlier suggested that all of the "AA does not work" quoted studies showed that AA or TSI showed a poorer outcome than controls which is a whole nuther can-o-worms.Desoto10 (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Loran Archer, Membership Size and Continuation Rates

As a courtesy, allow me to compliment the fine article, which as a recovering alcoholic I find personally useful, well-informed, and apparently free of bias. Now to the point. Loran Archer's research and criticism of other research relied upon in the article is absent from this article, as well as from all of Wikipedia - at least as I can best reckon from search attempts. Since it challenges data on which the article relies and, furthermore, reports data that is unacknowledged and worth consideration as well as inclusion. His credentials, which are cited in the links I've included, are impressive and recommend his findings as quite possibly consequential.

First, how many may be AA members from Archer's The 95% First Year Dropout Myth The Triennial also has poor membership counts: The most recent "A.A. Fact File" that I received from GSO shows the estimated A. A. membership in the U.S. as 1,168,990 members. This is a significant undercount of members. Using a national representative survey of the U.S., in the NIAAA 1991-1992 National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (NLAES), I found that in 1991-1992, 2.4 million individuals reported attending an A.A. meeting during the last year.

Archer's alluded to NIAAA study of his implies that the Triennial survey has erred significantly, and Archer implies that a 1st year continuation rate of 26% is too low (ratio of 19% of survey respondees being in their 1st month of attendance compared to the 5% who are in their 12th month of AA membership). Though Archer does not have a 1st year only figure, his 1-4 year average of of 36% may indicate that the 1st year figure could be above 40%, if the presumption that 2-4 year atttendance would decline marginally more than the 1st year is entertained. Also, the surveys, as Archer points out, were not meant to measure retention.

Excerpted from Archer's study:

Rate of continued AA attendance was associated

with years since first AA meeting

• 1-4 years since first AA meeting - 36% remained
• 5-9 years since first AA meeting - 30% remained
• 10-19 years since first AA meeting - 29% remained
• 20 years or more since first AA meeting - 32% remained

To be candid, besides hoping for a discussion of Archer's work, I'm am also soliciting for a capable editor to include what may result from the discussion in the article, as I'm sure the above indicates, my modest editorial abilities encourage deference on my part.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately while the research is persuasive, it is self published on a website. Wikipedia does not allow self published materials under reliable source guidelines.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pity, but since he has published very little, despite his impressive credentials, that will have to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Loran Archer has published quite a bit in peer-reviewed journals, but as you might expect, in these he shies away from making conclusions as reported on his website. The estimates you placed above on retention are, of course, gross overestimates, especially the 32% retention after 20 years or more. Do you have any idea how large a room you would need for a meeting is that were the case?! In any case, I will look around in his peer-reviewed work to see if anything that can be included in the article is in there. Thanks for bringing this guy up.Desoto10 (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the follow up. My reading of reliable source guidelines allows for self-published if the author is "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It does not state that "the work cited", but refers to the author's how the author is generally regarded by peers (Maybe somebody should ask Archer why he did not in this case submit his conclusions to peer review?). It seems possible that his findings could again be considered for inclusion.

As for Archer's "gross overestimates", it may not be so. The Triennial studies, for all their faults, and Archer's conlusions would both have to regarded as way off, since the both put retention after the first meeting above 25%. My experience is that very few people :are in the rooms for their very first time - the exact group the studies tried to measure. Many are, in fact, retreads, on spin cycles and such. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that such quantitative analyses as Archer's retention estimatesa are admissible unless they have undergone some kind of peer review. Maybe a statement on the order of "These retention numbers (as are currently in the article) have been contested by Archer", but even then, I don't think we could cite his blogsite for that. I think that, given no peer-reviewed information, we are stuck with AAs own numbers.Desoto10 (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Don McIntire's analysis is very good, if anyone wants to give it a second look. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish to respectfully note that the number of "members" (just over a million) and the number of people reporting having "attended [an AA meeting] in the last year" do not prove an under count of member, but actually confirms the huge and perhaps not so "mythical" drop out rate and rate of people attending under coercion, who would not consider themselves members by any means, contrasted with "members" who reflect a slow accretion of people over 73+ years of the organization's existence. And I ask, when you have over a million people according to your own GSO, what's the big deal? What does being the biggest prove and is efficacy measured by popularity or sheer media presence? Henrysteinberger (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the Meetings section

The major source cited for the section is Kayla E.J. Kirkpatrick, Interpreting AA draws false conclusions or is too broad in eneralizations regarding meeting structure and policies. It is also not certain whether or not the author is an undergrad.

First: Kirpatrick claims that AA attendees introduce themselves saying "My name is ________, and I am an alcoholic" bacause "All people are expected to introduce themselves in this same manner." needs correction. While most introduce themselves in this manner, many will not without reprecussions. Some will say, "I'm______ and I am grateful to be here." And others will say "I'm_____ and I am powerless over alcohol." These are just two expamples among many others Saying they are "expected to do so" is an unfortunate choice of wording, since "expected" suggests that a member has been commanded or is required to do so. A better descriptive would be to say that a member will "often observe the informal tradition of saying..." Because there is no suggested method of introduction in the first 164 pages of the Big Book, "informal" fits well. But since this would misrepresent the citation, an edit would require another source to cite.

Second: "Crosstalk" (the source and dictionaries spell it as "cross-talk", though the editor omitted the hypen) is incompletely and poorly explained by Kirpatrick which describes it as "talking while another is talking or asking direct, expansion questions" A better definition of cross-talk would be at group level the directing of comments or criticism, interrupting them, directing questions at, or giving advice to another member at group level towards another member. Cross-talk is also having a side conversation while others speak. Kirpatrick makes it seem that all groups are the same by saying "the group" when generalizing, and that all have the same no cross-talk policy when she claims that "cross-talk...is not allowed by the group." In my experience of attending 1000s of meetings, most groups have taken a "group conscience" and have group policies against crosstalk. Other meetings have no such policy and some may actually encourage it.

Frankly, Kirpatrick is a dubious source. Her erroneous conclusions make it apparent that she little actual knowledge of the AA Traditions. She interviewed six members of AA for her study. She is not an expert in the field, but apparently a lay person - it's hard to find any informantion on her via Google. Furthermore, the only apparent publication of her article is on free hosting site set up by Damon Timm, who describes himself as "currently a ASL-English Interpreting student at Northeastern University in my last year of the Interpreting program (though not my last year with the University)" Under the heading "Quality Control, he cautions visitors to "please remember that this is not a web page maintained by a board or a group of people with a specific mission--it is just me. Unless otherwise noted, you can assume that the work posted here is by students." The "contact" navbar button to send an email to Timm is not working.

Better studies to cite for the Meeting section would likely include "Alcoholics Anonymous as a mutual-help movement: a study in eight societies By Klaus Mäkelä, Alcoholics Anonymous" from World Health Organization's Regional Office for Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT -- Scarpy (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to wait to see if anyone else has something to say - such as other sources worth consideration. You of course are also welcome to weigh in with more helpful comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:DICK -- Scarpy (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You're too kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

.247, please take all of this in the spirit in which it's intended. Wikipedia develops iteratively, if no one makes a change, it doesn't get made. Inviting a discussion, as you have, is generally a good thing. But if you have a good source, and Klaus Mäkelä's work is very good, there's no reason to stall. Research is easy, it's the writing that's hard. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:DICK for how others view "the spirit in which it's intended." If no one protests, I'm going to remove the above edits from SOFIXIT on down to Scarpy's Talk page. It's starting to get silly. BTW, I'm working on an edit of the Meetings section and it will be presented for review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Others" should see my previous comment if they want know the intention behind my original comments, because that's where I explained it. I apologize if any of my comments offended you, as it was actually the opposite of what I intended and if you have a look at the edit summary I was agreeing with you. While I also agree that this is getting pretty silly, there are guidelines for removing talk page comments, and this discussion does not belong on my talk page. More so, when future editors read this page they will probably want to see who supported and who opposed (if any do) then changes you suggested. This way there can be no mistaking that I was very much in favor of them, and even encouraging you to make them. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed my point entirely, but oh well. Time to forge ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who put in the meetings section to begin with and found the one source, I applaud anyone who can add to it. Please make sure that personal information that you or those that you may know does not creep into the section. Anybody who has been to more than one AA meeting knows that there are no hard and fast "rules" and that the context and location of the meeting is important. The article by the enabler of deaf AA attendees I thought was just about as unbiased as you could get. This person clearly had no agenda and was just reporting what was seen so that deaf people could figure out what was going on.Desoto10 (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good intentions, to be sure, were in play when Kirpatrick's wrote her misguided, factually incorrect, grossly over-generalized and poorly researched paper for what seems to be undergraduate work. WP:Sources states that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There is no way Kirpatrick should remain a source, since she is so clearly a questionable source who had no evident benefit of "editorial oversight". AA has published suggested guidelines for meetings [1], and Klaus Mäkelä and Danny M. Wilcox have published easy-to-find scholarly work on meetings , with Mäkelä adding the unfortunately missing international perspective. These are sources that the meetings section would do better to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.130.60 (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Just write something up and put it in there. Keep in mind, this section is not an analysis of why AA meetings go on the way they do, but a description of what happens in one. AA's guidelines have no place in this section, unless it is substantiated that the guidelines are actually followed.Desoto10 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Looking over your main complaints about how an attendee introduces himself and the cross-talk issue, these could easily be fixed by a few word changes. Your rewording above is far less clear than what is already in the article. But it doesn't look like you are going to actually write anything anyway.Desoto10 (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the directive to describe AA meetings while not attempting to explain them. While the my comments above indicate no such tendency, I will nonetheless regard the advice as helpful and try to keep it in mind. The word "whatever" is usually unfortunate, since it's usually dismissive and, in this case, completely avoids the issue of how poor a source Kirpatrick is purported to be. It also suggests a reluctant acquiescence - but too vaguely so for determining what consensus, if any, may have developed. The AA guidelines suggested above are varified by Mäkelä and Wilcox, as norms. (As for why "AA's guidelines have no place in this section", while inexplicably, an AA guide to beginners meetings is currently cited arouses curiosity.) Replacing a poorly sourced meetings section that is US-centric without accounting for what is an international and multicultural society, may not lend to prompt correction. When I will be able to submit a suggested section that may be an improvement, I am not sure, but I hope that I will benefit from a supposition of good faith until and after then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.90.15 (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

looking for help

i'm familiar w/ AA to a degree. i have a different type of problem. i used to drink a pretty fair amount along w/ drug use. i seperated from my wife aproximately five yrs ago. at that point i put my drinking and drug abuse behind me because i didn't want to look back and say the decisions i made were fogged by drugs and alcohol. my problem is my anger. i read an excerpt from a book called 'addicted to anger' by newton hightower. he states that anger is addictive. i figure who better to deal with addictiveness than AA. i've seen therapists and have been given meds. none of which seem to help. i want very much to get rid of this problem. like an alcoholic wants to free him/her self of their problem. if AA can help, i'd love to join. if not is there a program you can refer me to. i live in pittsburgh, pa. mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.58.154 (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Though this page is for discussion about the article, and not a referral source, compassion should permit an exception. You're best off consulting a health care professional. You would qualify for AA if you have a desire to stop drinking. You may also try looking into Al Anon. Try Googling for 12 step groups in the Pittsburgh PA area. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.90.15 (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

there seems to be a misconception about this page. we edit the AA page, we are not collectively members of AA (some of us violently oppose such membership). If you are looking for AA, you can find them in Pittsburgh on the WWW or in the phone book, and you will be welcome to attend open AA meetings to figure out if it is something that can help you, I am sure they have an 12 step program for Anger as well somewhere.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Request

how do i stop drinking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.39.156 (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

See the thread above. Nobody here can to give you advice beyond "see a health care professional" or "AA is in the phone book", call if it sounds good to you". Good luck, PhGustaf (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Further problems with citations used for the Meetings Section

The two sources cited for the first paragraph Alcoholics_Anonymous:Meetings section are mute on many assertions made. Since the paragraph is a well-written, brief and accurate description of AA meetings, this is all the more unfortunate. The first pamphlet AA at a Glance, actually a two sided flyer referred to as a "pamphlet" in citation, does no more than distinguish between an open and closed meeting. The second source, Suggestions for Leading Beginners Meetings pamphlet, besides having a title that signals clearly that it is not describing A.A. meetings in general, says nothing about the varieties of A.A. meetings there are, but the first paragraph uses no similar restraint. Desoto10, has emphatically stated above that "AA's guidelines have no place in this section" unless corroborated by better sources. I am working on a rewrite of the section, using scholarly sources listed above, and hope to have it available soon, in the meantime it should be clear to all that the current section is sub par. - Mr Anon

Here is crude draft of a suggested first paragraph for the Meetings section. Suggestions are encouraged.

A.A. meetings are "quasi-ritualized therapuetic sessions run by and for any alcoholics." They are usually informal and often feature discussions. Local A.A. directories list a variety of weekly meetings. Those listed as "closed" are for alcoholics exlusively with only "those with a desire to stop drinking" participating, while "open" meetings welcome anyone, but are mostly attended by alcoholics. Speaker meetings have one or two members tell their stories, while discussion meetings allocate the most time for general discussion. Some meetings are devoted to studying and discussing the Big Book, the 12 Steps, and other A.A. texts. Besides men's and women's meetings, other meetings focus specific populations such as beginners, gays, and Lesbians while not excluded other alcoholics. While A.A. has pamphlets suggesting how meetings can be run , A.A. groups have the autonomy to hold and conduct meetings as they wish, as long as they "do not affect A.A. as a whole." Though different cultures do affect ritual aspects of meetings, throughout the world "many particularities of the AA meeting format can be observed at at almost any A.A. gathering." Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.109.45 (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your changes to the article seem an improvement to me. My system choked on one of the pdf's, so I couldn't see whether it mentioned "foreign"-language groups. Around here they're in Spanish and occasionally Vietnamese; I assume in other places they can be in English, which was why I used the "minority" label last try. If they're sourced, these should be mentioned, and maybe you can come up with something better than "minority". PhGustaf (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the suggestion, and If I could find a scholarly source for mentioning meetings in languages other than the dominant language, I would have included it. Hopefully another editor will be more resourceful than myself. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.18.216 (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes on intro paragraph edits

Prior to redoing the paragraph, there were irrelevant citations, a misquote, as well a citation of the complete Big Book that made no sense. Also removed were descriptions of NA and Al-anon which were beyond the scope of this article. Added were scholarly, peer reviewed descriptions of AA as a program and a social phenomena as well as part of greater social phenomenon. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.150.205 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 00:26, 26 November 2009

Great Job!!Desoto10 (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall the changes have been good. But working towards getting this article to GA or FA status, the effort would be better spent getting it to meet the WP:LEAD criteria. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The complementary words of encouragement are appreciated, and also appreciated is the cleanup done after my admittedly sometimes sloppy edits. As to the matter of what the lead should hold, it might be better to take cues from the lead and develop them in the article. The suggestion of having the lead be shaped by the article would presume that the article outside of the lead is worthy of a GA or FA article. I would argue the opposite, and think the tail should not wag the dog, and thereby rule what the lead should contain. The body the article is too US-centric and underdeveloped in certain aspects. For example. the Disease section is particularly weak, and in need of a redo, since AA hasn't promoted or promulgated the disease concept, but the belief that it has is perhaps the most common misconception of AA as typified by Penn and Teller. The medical community in many cases seems uninterested it regarding it as a disease and instead will often refer instead to alcoholism as a substance use disorder (SUD). My point is that the better the article is, the better is will be regarded. The lead had, before recent changes, misquotes and misstatements, for instance, presenting AA's 12 Steps as a "treatment" when it is emphatically not. The way to better ranking is by a better article. Maybe what is needed is consensus on what changes and improvements are needed. A roadmap, if you will. Without that, hoped for improvements may come in haphazardly. - Me Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.150.205 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 30 November 2009

The points that you're bringing up a are mostly a question of balance. Whatever opinions we, as Wikipedia editors, have about the prevalence of misconceptions or descriptions of AA a treatment or otherwise really don't matter. What the article should represent is the prevalence of these views in among reliable sources on the topic. There is no shortage of papers that describe AA as a treatment, even if a notable AA historian disagrees that POV it does not invalidate the work of other researches. Both sides should be presented in accordance to their prominence in the literature.

The way to a better ranking is actually very clear, and one of the criteria is that the lead represents a summary of the rest of the article. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was, it seems, arguing that there was a lack of balance, and I used the disease section - which outside of the heading, says nothing about "disease" at all - as a case in point, as well as the US-centric focus that the lead now addresses. I would also say that the article could hardly be considered further from better regard now that the lead has been redone. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.105.215 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 2 December 2009

To make an argument regarding the balance of the article you need evidence, in this case reliable sources representing one POV, to compare with reliable sources representing alternative POVs. -- Scarpy (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I will try to keep that sound approach in mind as I attempt a much needed redo of the disease section. I will also like to first post it here for comments and suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.105.215 (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"in group" language

I remember Desoto and I discussed at some point a section on AA-speak, a kind of glossary, but were mostly at a loss for sources. This is one to consider: Recovery A to Z: A Dictionary of Twelve-Step Key Terms and Phrases -- Scarpy (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks good from the free preview. Since the slogans (in-group language) are not controversial I don't see why anyone would object to this source. Somebody is going to have to buy the book if we want to put in anything past words that begin with 'E' :)Desoto10 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I might pick up a copy or order it through my library. We'd have to decide what ones were worth including. Going over the article today I felt like I saw a lot of instances of "working the steps" and "service work" along with some other easy to miss AA-Speak. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Shortened Footnotes

I rearranged the references in the article where a specific page was mentioned in a book in the shorted footnotes form. I've wanted to do this for awhile as it allows for better granularity when citing sources books in the article (e.g. using the specific page number(s) where information comes from). I also made some changes to content along the way when something stuck out to me. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Removal or Correction of Religiosity Section

The only source (Atkins, of which Scarpy has separately addressed below) for the Religiosity section is a study that includes 12 Step and non-12 step groups, secular or otherwise, such as NA, SMART recovery, etc... Since this study is too broad to be applied to an AA article, and is best used for more general recovery articles, without objection or suitable correction of the section, I'll remove it in the next few days. - Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.18.216 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Atkins 2007

My feeling is that the results in Atkins 2007 aren't really relevant here (in the AA article) for two reasons. Atkins 2007 doesn't research AA directly, as it groups all addicts/alcoholics in twelve-step groups in to one category. Meaning, it's results reflect more on twelve-step addiction recovery groups as a whole and not specifically on AA. Building on the first point, it's implications are more related to correlations between member's primary group, their amount of participation in recovery groups, and their personal beliefs. Atkins 2007 is a great bit of research, but it certainly does not represent a criticism of AA, and its results are much more relevant to the addiction recovery groups article than they are here. Considering, especially how lean the addiction recovery groups article is, I'd say material based on it should go there. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref #58 on the Recovery Outcome Rates

Is there consensus on useability of the following essay?

^ Arthur S; Tom E., Glenn C (11 October 2008). Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Recovery Outcome Rates: Contemporary Myth and Misinterpretation. Archived from the original on 2009-12-19. http://www.webcitation.org/5mA3r6hSn. Retrieved 2009-12-19.

The authors last names are not listed. There is no publication listed. I assume that there was no formal peer review. Given that the authors list themselves in "AA format" I don't think that anyone could argue that the article starts from a neutral position. Thanks.Desoto10 (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My feeling was the it was "okay" considered that results weren't cited from it. Just that some AAs has made an attempt at producing additional commentaries (along the lines of those produced previously by the WSO) and at clarifying the 1990 report. But, yeah, like it says, it's self-published with no formal review that I'm aware of. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems With Deduction of Fig C1 from Triennial Surveys

I noticed that the averaged simple frequency distribution has 19% of the newcomers in their first month. But the replacement of the "Attrition" sub-section titled Result From Triennial Surveys, which appeared without forewarning, and with an overabundance of data, quoted below, says something different:

Figure C-1 in this report shows that approximately 19% of people who "come to AA" remain active after thirty days...implying the other 81% are alcoholics who cannot be assisted by AA and drop out or cease to attend meetings.

This good faith misinterpretation of the data seems oblivious to what a univariate frequency distribution actually is. The "81% "who cannot be assisted by AA" do not exist in two senses. First, and to the contrary, they have not disappeared or dropped out, but have been attending meetings for 2-12 months and, in fact, are being "assisted by AA". Secondly, if all the averages of the 5 studies are added, you get a total of 102%, and the 81% would correctly deduced as 83%. An explanation of why the cumulative of averages in this case is 102%, and is understandably not 100%, is beyond the scope of an AA article and is better placed in a statistics entry.

The dismissed "Attrition" sub-section, which had the virtue of clearly and accurately relating the data of Fig. C1 without much that is extraneous, should be restored. This proposal is offered as a courtesy in order to solicit commentary and hopefully forge consensus. I also suggest that the Triennial Surveys are worthy of a separate Wikipedia entry where expansion of this interest is appropriate and warranted. In such a separate entry, it might be worthwhile to address the apparent contradiction of the studies which goes against AA's policy of not engaging in research. I'm sure that must have generated a good amount of discussion, and possibly a secondary source for citation is available. Mr Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.74.44 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 21 December 2009

Wikipedia encourages editing with out forewarning. The additions to, and renaming of the section, is intended to clarify the presentation of the results in the 1990 commentary which contradicted those in the others.

I'm not following your mathematical criticisms. The 81% refers to those who are no longer participating after thirty days, and is obtained from subtracting 19 from 100. This is because the figure shows only an average of 19% participating after thirty days. You are correct that it is an average from five scores, but that is irrelevant to disconnect between the interpretation in the 1990 commentary and the previous ones. I agree a discussion of the loss of precision from what seems to be the author's rounding of figures is not relevant.

I also agree that the Triennial Surveys are probably worth discussing in more detail in something like the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous article. -- Scarpy (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To repeat, there is gross misunderstanding of what a simple frequency distribution is. Furthermore, my math is sound and, unlike the new section, neither arbitrary or inventive. For those reasons alone, caution is urged, and submitting new sections for other to look at would appear prudent.

The cited Comments on the studies made the helpful effort to be explicit thusly:

"To be more explicit: if all the members who they have been in the fellowship for less than a month were stll present , then the number who report being in A.A.between one and two months should equal the number that report beng in less than one month..."

To extrapolate:. If there was no drop off in attendance, then each month of C1 would report 8% (rounded down from 8.333...) for cumulative of 98 percentage points. Following your faulty logic, with Agent Orange as your fellow traveler, 95% have dropped off in the 12th month, though Loran Archer, as would any careful reading of Appendix C, has disposed of this fallacy.

The 19% and the other months added do accumulate to 102 percentage points making the 81% impossible, and only slightly more ridiculous than 83%. Not grasping this is a critical and fundamental error. You cannot substract 19% from a 100 points that do not exist and, to be more blunt than I would usually like to be, has been misguidedly and ignorantly manufactured.

I never said they weren't sound, I just said I wasn't following them. McIntire (the source cited) puts it this way (notes in []'s are mine):

Using the data of Figure C-1 (see Appendix A) and taking the 90-day percentage value of 10% as a base, the effectiveness or retention rate now shows 100% at end of the Introductory Interval,[10% at three months in figure C-1] 70% at 3 months [7% at six months in figure C-1], 60% at 6 months [6% at nine months], 55% at one year [5% at 12 months?] and 50% at five years ...

I was reading it the same way he appeared to be.

But, taking a closer look, what you're saying appears to be correct. The figure does represent a frequency distribution. -- Scarpy (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's good to have agreement. (FYI, I'm not a math wiz by any stretch, and it myself took some time to get what a frequency distribution is. And, given that the two of us did not immediately grasp it, this explains how opportunists such as Penn & Teller and Agent Orange can hustle the 95% drop out meme). Regardless, Editing Without Forewarning is not an explicit Be Bold policy, and completely replacing a section without notification has not received sanction. Using the recent edit as a case in point, such a tactic should be discouraged in order to preserve comity. BTW reverting is encouraged by Be Bold, but I'd rather avoid that since edit wars are disheartening and usually do more damage than good  :-{)> -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.74.44 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 21 December 2009

It doesn't need "sanction," it wasn't a huge mistake, and it was only on the page for a short while. In fact, this is more or less how the cycle works. Good editing is about audacity, bad editing is about aggression.

I would also not call the 95% attrition rate an opportunist interpretation. The 1990 commentary doesn't recognize the introductory period concept. If people had just read the 1990 commentary and not the other Triennial Survey comments (which are very hard to find), they wouldn't know. Keep in mind, it actually is saying of the newcomers surveyed only 5% were in their 12th month of participation. While that's is not exactly an attrition rate, the author was using this method to try and estimate the decline in participation. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe good writing has qualities besides audacity, such as being concise and clear. A revert, though, would certainly qualify under a criterium of audacity that has priority above all others. That, logically, is the apparent argument. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.123 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 December 2009

The 'Results from Triennial Surveys' section is too long in relation to the rest of the article. Would suggest removing it to a new article and leaving a summary. Mr Miles (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Having a look at it in relation to the rest of the article, I agree with you. I moved the full version to the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous article, and left a summary in this article. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Passive voice

Passive voice is perfectly acceptable as long as it's not used to conceal weasel words. -- Scarpy (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Question of taste and opinion, while keeping a regard for readability before all else. - Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.74.44 (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Since guidelines exist on the topic, it is actually not a matter of subjective opinions. -- Scarpy (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As Orwell has said so much better, and what common sense would dictate: the preferred goal of good writing is always an option. Let me add that it is never in the way of what Wikipedia stand for. And reading the Wikipedia guidelines speaking to passive voice (sorry for the pun), they recognize it as a mark of bad writing, expect when it serves purposes accepted as exceptions. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.74.44 (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You must reading different guidelines. -- Scarpy (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is misplaced, and you are generating a streak of less than close readings: "...although the passive voice is syntactically correct, Strunk and White, in The Elements of Style (1918), recommend that it be used sparingly, calling it "less direct, less bold, and less concise" than the active voice." Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.74.44 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they point out that a 91 year old style suggestion supports your point. I agree that we risk offending the delicate sensibilities of nonagenarians with passive voice. But, to complete the quote mining that section continues: "On the other hand, AP Stylebook and the Chicago Manual of Style contradict Strunk & White on this point." -- Scarpy (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that Wikipedia does not always find the passive voice as a mark of good writing. (Just what the Chicago Manual of Style says on passive voice is unexplained, so a passing reference to it is essentially unenlightening, and I'm suspicious of how much contradiction there truly is.) Arguments of a chronological nature, as well as baseless ageist, which are also superior in conceit, are illegitimate and have no bearing. Preferring, without explanation the Chicago thinking is arbitrary. The unfortunate, unprovoked and unwelcome tone of sarcasm is a definite bar to civil dialog. Moreover, I believe I've lost track of what edit we are talking about. Is there an actual edit where the a valid use of passive voice would be an improvement? Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.123 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll find the diff of your edit linked at the very top of this thread. I'm not really concerned with that particular edit, if it really bothered by the much I would have reverted it. The point I was trying to make here is that Wikipedia's guidelines only discourage passive voice if it's used to conceal weasel words. You can use search engines like Google to find answers to questions like what the Chicago Manual of Style recommends regarding passive voice, in concise FAQ form.

As far as the rest of your comments our concerned, I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings. You're correct that sarcasm can be counterproductive, it can also be funny and good way to make a point. I am trying to keep in mind that you're probably a newcomer and maybe don't understand the advantages of things like signing posts. It's also not clear to me when you imply that signing posts your posts has something to do with the the Patriot Act, if you're being serious or trying to make a WP:POINT. Maybe that explains part of the why you always edit from new IP addresses? I don't know.

One of the things having an account is good for is to help people get to know you. When I'm editing with other people, if they have a user page I'll give it a look and that way I can adjust to my "audience." You're a hard person to read, not only because of the evasive IP changes, but because sometimes you'll be very wordy, academic, and sensitive; other times you'll use words like "mofo" and "trippin'."

The bottom line here is--unless I die on the highway tonight--you're going to be stuck with me editing this article, and I'm guessing I'm going to be stuck with you. How about lifting the veil a little bit? Maybe taking the time to put ~~~~'s at the end of your posts? -- Scarpy (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is more perfunctory, half-hearted or virtually meaningless and presumptive than the phrase "I'm sorry if I hurt you're feelings." It addresses nothing and avoids everything, especially responsibility for errors. Also, defending sarcasm is a little bizarre. Now, if my feelings are no longer held in overly delicate regard, I'm still waiting for an answer as to if there is there a bit of text that passive voice would improve? Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.198.113 (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If I could, I would reach right through your monitor and give you a big hug. -- Scarpy (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you being patronizing or random? I have no idea what the make of that, while my question so far has gone unanswered twice. Mr Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.198.113 (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It will probably remain that way, but I do admire your tenacity. In all seriousness, I would give you a big hug. If there's one thing this talk page is missing, it's oxytocin. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Aint that an oblique and damn-near-random-shame. So cry me an estrogen river, or get a sex change, if you really want to do something about it. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.195.188 (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits of History Section

Mentioning Silkworth and Wilson's submission to God without explaining why these facts are important makes them meaningless. Silkworth is important as an early supporter of AA, and not as another failed medical professional who didn't get him sober, and submission to God is a concept throughout the 12 Steps, but that wasn't said. Only those familiar with AA history would understand why these facts were included, and that is why I took them out, though both could be included with relevant contexts. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.195.188 (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bike sheds

The wording changes (especially with out edit summaries) are a complete distraction from doing actual work on the article. I find there's often several edits to the article in my watchlist (those of us cooperative enough to create and use accounts should know what that is), and most diffs are trivial changes to content and few of them have edit summaries. This is a popular article and several people watch it, please stop wasting our time. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an unfortunate tone, and usually results in the opposite of the professed desired end, just as if telling Scarpy to take a chill pill would actually calm him down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.74.61 (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Providing an edit summary is a guideline WP:FIES. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As is signing comments, BTW. WP:SIGN -- Scarpy (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Program

Does one or other of the cited references actually say that most AA folks claim that it is "spiritual" rather than "religious"? AA literature certainly says this, but I wonder about the other claim as it would seem to be impossible to determine without some kind of random survey. The sentence is currently:

AA's literature and most of its members claim that AA is a spiritual program and not a religious one, but because a minority of members view the program as religious, while others hold irreligious views, an ambiguity results

Desoto10 (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not find out for yourself and not rely my word, since I did add that info. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.195.188 (talk • contribs) 9 January 2010 09:04

Thanks for your contributions. I don't have a copy of the Klaus Mäkelä et al piece and so I looked through the googlebooks version. I could not find where the various statements in the sentence above were made. I will delete. Feel free to add it back, but please add specific page numbers or something so that one can verify. It appears as though at least half of the statements made in Makela, et al are anectdotal. Thanks Desoto10 (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

At a loss as to how the Literature Review by Mäkelä was missed, it is very much on P. 10. - Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.195.188 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 January 2010

Again, thank you for your contributions, Mr. Anon. I looked through Makela, et al p10 and found mostly non-referenced statements by them. They seem to be referencing Rudy and Greil (1989). The Rudy and Greil paper is an "essay" (according to the authors) and represents their largely anectdotal observations of AA groups in the midwestern US. They also do not cite references for claims of "most members" or "some members" do this and that. If you could point out where Makela comments on the 3rd Tradition in this context that would be great. Thanks. Desoto10 (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

For anyone following along at home, here is a link to page 10. The citation for Rudy & Greil 1989 is referring to "Is Alcoholics Anonymous a Religious Organization?: Mediations on Marginality." -- Scarpy (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit is nearly indecipherable and will need more edits to make it readable. For instance the 1st paragraph tells nothing of the paragraphs thrust, but only about the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.74.61 (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. :-P -- Scarpy (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The persist

It seems offense has been taken, as apparent by the childish and very besides the point response, especially since emotions have seemingly precluded any answer to the specific criticism of the 1st sentence. Also why are literature reviews not valid secondary references? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.74.61 (talk • contribs) 19:37 1 February 2010

Yeah. I'm not in to these fights the two of us get in to. It always seems to degenerate in to a complaint about the "tone" of the response or discussing the appropriateness of sarcasm. I'm trying very hard to collaborate with you, but I'm running out of ideas. Have a good day, Mr. Anony. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, extremely non-responsive, and stopping the sarcasm would be a good step towards civility. I'm likely to think my points have been agreed to in silence. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.74.61 (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "points" you were looking for me or other people to respond to. You said that, presumably, the last edit I made was "nearly indecipherable," which is an opinion and not a point. The example you gave, "the 1st paragraph tells nothing of the paragraphs thrust, but only about the reference" is difficult to respond to without the correction you made in your next comment "the specific criticism of the 1st sentence" which I guess you meant instead of the "1st paragraph." I do agree, though, that the first paragraph of this article is nearly indecipherable and will need more edits to make it readable, if that is actually what you meant.

If you're talking about the first sentence of the paragraph summarizing Rudy & Greil 1989, I have to say that particular piece of information is very important if you want to understand their conclusions. Making a very declarative statement about AA like saying something is "essential to AA ideology" without giving any information as to how the conclusion is arrived at, or why it is essential to AA ideology is not providing enough background for it to be useful information. It's important to recognize that Rudy & Greil didn't conduct some kind of reproducible scientific experiment come to this conclusion. They read some AA literature and did some naturalistic observation for a finite period of time on a sample of AA members that may or may not be representative of AA's entire population, and may or may not be representative of it now or in the past. So, we can't present a statement like "X is essential to AA's ideology" based on that kind of research; they aren't deriving "Laws of AA" they're attempting to use a particular framework to help make sense of it.

We can, however, say "based on this reasoning and this evidence these two sociologists came to this conclusion." We should also do it with out weasel words like "some" and "most." For instance, you could say something like "Rudy & Greil 1989 cited examples of AA members participating in their research who believed AA is spiritual but not religious, and others that worried AA was becoming a religion." They don't actually give any percentages of who does and who doesn't for their sample. It could be that most AA members do view AA as a religion, it's just that nobody has ever studied it. For this reason, we can't use words like "some" or "most" without giving them context, even is Klaus made this mistake.

As far as your opinions about "indecipherability" go, you're dead wrong. It's an excellent summary of the the point as it is made in the paper. I'm great writer and extremely good at summarizing research. In between reading, and then re-reading the actual article (yes, the ACTUAL ARTICLE, not re-summarizing a summary from a literature review) and then writing, re-writing, and then re-writing again, and then tweaking the summary, I spent about four hours to produce that paragraph (you're welcome). Is it absolutely perfect? I will admit on this point is it only very close to absolute perfection. I'm sure improvements could be made. I should point out, that four hours doesn't include the hour or more I've been working on this response to your "points." I was hoping nearly perfect summary would put this lame edit war to bed, but it looks like I have grossly underestimated this edit war's lameness.

Life is too short to waste on Wikipedia Talk Pages. If you want me to respond to anymore of your "points," I will need to charge you by the hour for my services. Otherwise, I'm done, at least for now. -- Scarpy (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Still unrepentantly sarcastic, I see. Oh well. Mr Anon.

Erroneous statement re AA's founding white middle class members

Ebby Thacher was an African-American man, not Caucasian! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.214.2 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it from the famous picture with Bill W., but, hey, if you have a source, bring it on.Desoto10 (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms and legal issues

One glaring omission from this article, probably in the "Criticism" section, is that in the US and some other jurisdictions, courts have made AA attendance mandatory, and that these requirements have in some cases been successfully challenged as violations of intellectual freedom, especially freedom of religion (e.g., in the US, under the First Amendment to the US Constitution). One consequence of this (again, in the U.S., but I would not be surprised of other cases, given the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is that many legal systems have been forced to change such requirements to be more generic (i.e., the defendant may be required to attend AA or some other alterative group meetings or one-on-one substance abuse counseling, for example).

is covered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Court_rulings Mr Miles (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In general, I find the criticisms section to be far too small. It looks to me like this article has been whitewashed to the extent possible by AA members. The list of alternative-to-AA and AA-critical literature is actually quite large. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives to AA literature has no place in an article on AA - start a new article if you want to. AA critical literature is required by Wiki to be from reliable sources, most are personal grudge blogs which don't count and so are not here. Making such a subjective and unsubstantiated statement as that the article has been 'whitewashed' by AA members is not going to win you any friends among the Wikipedia editors who have worked hard on this article to make it as accurate as possible, rather you are labeling yourself a conspiracy theorist. Mr Miles (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Attrition

The two attrition statements: 'by the end of the third month, over half (52.6%) have left' and 'approximately two-fifths of people who participate in AA drop out within the first three months' don't tally (because they're from different sources?), do the editors deem this to be a problem? Mr Miles (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The 2/5 is from McIntire, and the 52.6% is from the Triennial Studies, with the later being explicitly cited, and readily available. The McIntire article is gonna cost somebody money, and only those with access could explain the apparent discrepancy. Thereafter, a consensus might be approached. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.10.222 (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

suggest change from "the manual of the movement is known as the Big Book" to "The movement was named after the book "Alcoholics Anonymous", first published in 1939, which describes its program of recovery and is informally referred to as the Big Book"

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia and, as a member of Alcoholics Anonymous, I should declare a conflict of interest so I'm suggesting the edit rather than making it. The citation would be "Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age - A Brief History of AA" published by AA World Services Inc.

Getting bolder, I wonder if the introduction might quote the AA Preamble, which concisely sets out its purpose?

I note the phrase "Big Book" links to another page which reads rather oddly, probably because it is a translation, and also IMO is a poor description of the book. There is nothing on the discussion page there so perhaps editors reading this could have a quick look. I might try rewriting it if no-one objects (I realise I should probably discuss it on its own page)Corvida (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia! I do not see why, as a member of the AA, you could not make the edit yourself. As long as what you write can be verified. You may have a Neutral Point Of View even on subjects that specifically matter for you. You prove it by the edit suggestion you make. Concerning the quote, if it is a fair use of a copyrighted material and best describes the purpose of AA, why not? Don't worry anyway, there will be many people who will check your edits and revert them if they are not NPOV. I suggest you to read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Gul-o-Khar (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Only Way Claims

I have heard in the past, including from some AA members, that AA claims to be the only way to overcome alcoholism. Does anyone know if this is true? That would run contrary to what I have heard about the science of treating addictions.Bostoner (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This page is for improving the article and not for fishing expeditions. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.10.222 (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AA does not make this claim. Rather it speaks in the Big Book of 'alcoholics of our type' implying there are other kinds of alcoholics. It claims success for 'alcoholics of our type' but does not claim that this is the only way for all alcoholics who may not be 'of our type'. In fact, AA is remarkably tolerant of any other method of overcoming alcoholism but takes no official position on any of them.AmatorDei (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC) AmatorDei

You might to discuss this on somebody's talk page, since as stated pretty clearly above: ":This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.10.222 (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Disease

The following is in the Alcoholism as disease section:

"This explains why a spiritual experience (as opposed to a specific medical treatment, such as the use of antihistamines to combat an actual allergic reaction) is advocated in AA for achieving and maintaining sobriety. "When the spiritual malady is overcome, we straighten out mentally and physically." [34]"

If AA is the only source for this, then I suggest it be softened somewhat so that it is clear that it is only claimed to be true by AA and is not a fact. Desoto10 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this part of the first line:

"the disease concept of alcoholism characterized by relapses"

Can an editor explain it to me? Thanks Mr Miles (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Since "disease" implies relapse well enough, it was removed. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.245 (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Early History Rewrite

The current section, though it seems historically correct, omits the central and seminal influence of the Oxford Group, especially the tradition of its sober alcoholic members of recruiting other alcoholics. Here is a suggested rewrite. which uses primarily Kutz's "Not God" as its primary reference For the moment, I'm minimally listing references.

Notes on Updates. The influence of the Group is profound and lasting. Added more to account for that. Also, as noted in the box at the top of the article, the first parapgraph should reflect the article. To further that exhortation, mention will be made of the late arrival of Catholics to a fellowship that had been more by accident than design, exclusively Protestant.

AA is an offshoot of the non-denominational Oxford Group which was modeled on first century Christianity. Group members (known as "Groupers") were not primarily focused on sobriety, but counted alcoholic members. Grouper Ebby Thacher recruited former drinking buddy Bill Wilson, announcing that he was sober because, he said, "I've got religion", and suggested that Wilson could do likewise. To account for Wilson's alienation from religion, Thacher, relying on an Oxford Group practice, suggested that Wilson fashion a personal version of what Thacher alternately called "God", "another power, or "higher power".

What was most striking to Wilson was that Thacher was a "hopeless" alcoholic like himself who shared with Wilson, he wrote, a "shared a kinship of common suffering". Within days Wilson ceased drinking and at Thacher's urgings, handed himself over to the care of God. Joining the Oxford Group, Wilson sought out other alcoholics, but none of them stayed sober until the first exception. Wilson met Dr Bob Smith was a Grouper unable to stay sober as such in Akron Ohio on May 11th 1934. Continuing to meet with Wilson, Smith eventually got sober and became convinced along with Wilson that working with other alcoholics is what made the difference in their sobriety. The day of Smith's last drink June 10th, 1934 is marked by AA for its anniversaries.

Many of the mostly non-alcoholic Groupers were impatient and unsympathetic towards the plight of alcoholics resistant to authoritarian "guidance" and often spurned the group's proscribed religious "Absolutes". A typical protest declared "Absolutes, Hell. I just want to stay sober today!". An associate pastor sermonized against them as a "secret, ashamed sub-group" engaged in "divergent works". By 1937 Wilson and his fellow alcoholics fully separated from the Oxford Group to form what became Alcoholics Anonymous. AA historian Ernest Kurtz explained the split in his AA history "Not God".

"...more and more, Bill discovered that new adherents could get sober by believing in each other and in the strength of this group. Men [the first women member had not yet appeared] who had proven over and over again, by extremely painful experience, that they could not get sober on their own had somehow become more powerful when two or three of them worked on their common problem. This, then, whatever it was that occurred among them, was what they could accept as as power greater than themselves. They did not need the Oxford Group."

According to Wilson: "The Oxford Groupers had clearly shown us what to do. And just as importantly, we learned from them what not to do" Among the Oxford Group practices AA maintained were informal gatherings, a "changed-life" developed through "stages" and working with other for no material gain. The respective AA analogs for these would be meetings, the steps, and sponsorship. But AA's tradition of anonymity was its own creation as they strictly avoided "the objectionable type of publicity indulged in by the Oxford Group." According to Wilson, AA was "afraid of developing erratic public characters who through broken anonymity might get drunk and destroy confidence in us."

69.108.234.245 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AA history runs from 1935 to 2010. The current edit has 450 words on the first five years and omits most of the events except where they relate to the Oxford Group, and less than 200 words on the 70 years since. Very unbalanced, the edit from the end of March was much better, I suggest a revert. Mr Miles (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You have a point and headings were edited to account for it. The unintentionally misleading "History" heading was changed to the current edits. AA is a movement formed by history, and it's hard to separate historical and biogrphical takes on it from much of the article: this is very evident in many sections. More information about the later history could certainly be added, though many sections do contain such material. As it stands, the section now titled "Formation and development of AA" (which is virtually untouched by me) could use a good deal of editing, particularly regarding the historical development of the 12 Traditions. For instance, The Washingtonians indirect influence is central, but not yet mentioned.

I would not suggest a revert that omits mention any mention of the Oxford Group (as was the case in late March), along with it's profound influence. Without the Group, AA would probably not exist, and at the very least, would not resemble what its present form. The late March article gave no indication as to why anonymity was so important to AA, and why it might be half of the Big Books title and the organization's name. The article also did not report how AA became so tolerant of agnostics and atheists who use the group as a "higher power" (a term directly taken from the Group).The Kurtz block quote does this very nicely. Mr Anon—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.245 (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Religion and Spirituality in AA

• ... AA's ideology denies AA is religious in nature

I'm unaware of such a denial. On what do the sociologists base this assertion?

On the other hand the Twelfth Step says:

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

I wonder what part of "had a spiritual awakening" is considered not to be religious in nature; and who's doing the considering.

Or is this a quibble of the words "religious" and "spiritual"? I've heard many people say that they are not religious, in the sense of not being devoted to any particular church or teaching, and yet fervent in their enthusiasm for various practices and ideas that (to me at least) seem to be theologically related.

What's going on here?

Not to mention, "Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God ..." (sure looks religious in nature to me)

Gotta run to church, but the last thing I googled indicates that this is a political issue. A court has ruled that AA is not "religious", which I guess has implications for zoning [2] while a New York court has ruled that AA is religious, which means that

• state-funded programs may not compel AA attendance. [3]

I'll try to flesh this out later ... Higher Power calls. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is not a space for arguing about AA in general. Please check references before issuing challenges. If you have reputable sources that state the contrary or add nuance, they are very much of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend to start an argument. I'll look around for contrary or nuanced sources and get back to you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

To avoid rehashing well-discussed matters, have a look at the archived AA Talk pages links above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 04:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

interchurch center

no mention of the interchurch center's involvement in the history of AA with specific regard to religion and spirituality? the following could be discussed within the context of "Religion and Spirituality"

this also proves without a doubt that there is at least a connection to a religious organisation if not outright proof (as Interchurch Center work with organisations that are religious)

here is a list of agencies within interchurch

http://www.interchurch-center.org/?q=tenantagencies

here is the address of AA's Headquarters:

OUR LOCATION: A.A. World Services, Inc., 11th Floor 475 Riverside Drive at West 120th St. New York, NY 10115 (212) 870-3400

from http://www.aa.org/lang/en/subpage.cfm?page=26

here is interchurch center's address:

The Interchurch Center 475 Riverside Drive New York, NY 10115

from http://www.interchurch-center.org/location.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.178.101 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

its a building, and they also have an affiliation to weight watchers which I believe is as secular as it gets.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The argument by whomever used the IP address 70.68.178.101 is a very uninformed and specious attempt to color AA by an association that is, in fact, not an affiliation. Regardless of baseless insinuations, no relationship beyond landlord tenant has been established, and none is likely to be found. How the Interchurch Center may view AA has no effect on AA, since AA is obliged by its 12 Traditions to reject the influence of other institutions and could only regard itself a signer of a lease; AA would have found another address otherwise. Weight Watchers's holding of 17 meetings a week at the Center is not the best comparison - though it is amusing to note. Mentioning of other tenants who have leases to better illustrate that AA is not the only lessee that is not a religion would include the Korean American National Coordinating Council, Merger Watch and the Lebanese American University. So yes, the "Interchurch Center work(sic) with organisations(sic) that are religious" but not exclusively as the editor at 70.68.178.101 seems to think. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to drive home the point that 70.68.178.101 has been shooting wildly, here is a partial list of other secular tenants at the Interchurch Center: Academy of Political Science, American Guild of Organists, Americans for Middle East Understanding, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Columbia University - Center for Computational Learning Systems, Columbia University Office of Alumni and Development, Columbia University, Office of Research Compliance & Training, Cooke Center For Learning and Development, Every Person Influences Children, Flik International Corporation, Fund for Community Leadership Development, Inc. Uth Turn, Global Education Associates, the Havens Relief Fund Society, International Baccalaureate, International Education and Resource Network, Morality in Media...etc.

Note to 70.68.178.101: You're undoubtedly new to Wikipedia, and, if you stick around, you'll find that you're taken seriously when you actually are familiar with, and understand, your references. Mr Anon

reference issue

item 49 in the references (a pamphlet discussing statistics including success rate of AA) should be viewed with caution and could be highly unreliable, seemingly released by the article's subject, and is directly related to the organisation's own legitimacy (in a circular fashion) which is disputed based on the very little information available to the public.

recommend to remove entire section as it is purely based on this one publication as long as there is a possibility of conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.178.101 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.195.123 (talk)

The data are clearly listed as from AA. Unless you have real grounds to call the study "a suspicious publication" it should stay. Also, please reference and cite Wikipedia policies on sources before making more careless recommendations. Mr Anon

Changed the sub heading to "AA's attrition data" to make sure no one is mislead. Mr Anon

AA In Film

I believe the movie "28 Days" (released in 2000) starring Sandra Bullock should be mentioned here. There is a powerful scene in which actor Steve Buscemi's character describes his battle with alcohol during an AA meeting. That one scene motivated me to attend my very first meeting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerRJ (talk • contribs) 03:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A dead horse, a bike shed

Because it's been discussed before, I thought I'd point out a wikipedia guideline encouraging passive voice. I hope you're all doing well for how sweet it is. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Only a horse that has lived can be flogged posthumously. An admonition against the second person pronoun "you" is a complete non-sequitur since the article has no instances of such "you"s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.75.82 (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur H. Cain criticism

Text from 1963, which may or may not still be relevant, if it is, should we not find a more uptodate commentary, 47 years is a long time and present day AA is not Sixties AA. - Mr Miles (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

1st Sentence

I took out the word "altruistic" as it was not referenced. Somebody put it back in with a reference to the Big Book. I suggest that the Big Book is not a sufficient reference unless it is made clear that it is AA that considers itself altruistic and not a third party. In any case, the reference should show on which page the organization makes the claim for altruism.Desoto10 (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding: AA does not make the claim, Dr. Silkworth does. This may be due to an apparent misreading. Silkworth's description is of AA as an "altruistic movement" and AA's says that its program is one where "we work out our solution on the spiritual as well as an altruistic plane." The statements operate in different contexts: Silkworth's describes the organization, while AA merely relates the basis of the program and the motives of members who follow it. If anyone was ever qualified to make the judgement it was Dr. Silkworth, who we, of course, know was not a member of AA, but an interested professional, and one who, in this case, was not advancing a fringe theory. There also seems to be a presumption of a controversy, and I am curious to know of any reliable sources saying that AA as an organization is not altruistic. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.219.195 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the above discussion, it is odd to call AA altruistic in the first sentence, although it is a just and correct word. I shifted the idea of altruism to the brief descreption of the Traditions, where it seems less jarring to be included. Mr Anon

Also regarding the first line, I'm not sure the term 'non-secular' is accurate as a description of AA. For it to be a defining term, AA would need to be: not of this world; overtly or specifically religious; controlled by a religious body; bound by monastic vows; belonging to a particular religious order. I don't think it is any of those. -Mr Miles (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken since it seems "non-secular" strongly, and inaccurately in this case, implies religious. I used "non-secular' to indicate that AA has a quasi-religious aspects and they are prominent and notable enough to warrant mention in the 1st sentence. If that is so, then how should it broached - especially if the contentious issue of whether AA is a religion or not is to be avoided? Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.239.188 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Spiritual is the only word that, to my mind, avoids the religion problem. However, AA's step-program and group therapy aspects, being psychological, render it only part-spiritual. 'part-spiritual' is, unfortunately, a rather ugly term. -Mr Miles (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

RM non-secular. The word "spiritual" is used in the 1st paragraph to describe the steps. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.239.188 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested outline for "AA and Polysubstance abusers"

AA members may well be predominately poly-substance abusers, and many have other substances as their primary issues, but nonetheless they prefer AA, as opposed to other fellowships, including the all inclusive Narcotics Anonymous and Cocaine Anonymous. The topic is internally controversial and covers much ground, but such a section could look to:
1. AA's singleness of purpose.

a. not intially intended to address drugs

b. when applied to drugs

2. Bill Wilsons history with drugs.

a. finding god again under the unfluence of drugs

b. later use of LSD in the '60s

3. The Big Books many references to drugs and drug use.
4. The Previously named Story "Doctor, Alcoholic, Addict."

a. how it was included and why it's name was changed to "Acceptance Was The Answer"

b. the divisivness the chapter created.

5. How AA has worldwide and locally addressed drugs

a. AA has addressed it via pamphlets at the worldwide level.

b. the local group conscience have allows or forbids discussion of drugs through group conscious.

c. the traditions make it a peretuating open controversy

6. What research shows what ratio of AA members are single substance and poly-substance abusers.

Something for Twelve-step program? Mr Miles (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Attrition

Scarpy recently took out the first sentence to this section that has been there for a while with no comment. The sentence was: "According to AA, most who start attending AA meetings drop out.<ref name="AAInternalSurvey">. Here is the relevant section from the survey discussion from "Comments on AA Triennial Survey":

"It is also noted that about half of those coming to A.A. for the first time remain less than three months. ... This observation may inspire groups to give more attention to the newcomer through such measures as greeting newcomers, beginners meetings, and interim sponsorship. ... The fact that we lose within three months half of those that begin our program may mean that we lose a great number of alcoholics who desperately need sobriety."

So I would say that whoever wrote this is saying just what was removed by Scarpy. The question is, who did write this. I got it from Scarpy's old username who posted it for our benefit:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3264243/Comments-on-AAs-Triennial-Surveys

This is also one of the sources that are used in this paragraph and is attributed to AA World Services, so I guess we decided that this is a reliable source. This introductory sentence is true, sourced, summarizes the rest of the paragraph and is very notable. I'm putting it back.Desoto10 (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I can definitely see your logic here, I think my position would be clearer if you read this. A couple of points from McIntire's paper...

The actual author of the 1990 commentary survey is unknown (at least, not published - other than that they were not part of the "Planning and Survey Supervision Team"), it's also pretty clear from reading McIntire's article, that the opinions presented in the 1990 commentary actually do not represent AA's. It's also not at all clear to me under what capacity the 1990 commentary was "published" (McIntire does not mention this, but does mention that previous commentaries on survey data were presented at scholarly conferences, and presumably vetted or approved to some degree in the process). I originally found (what I'm guessing is) the full 1990 commentary on a tripod site after seeing the infamous "Figure C-1" used on Bullshit!. I put it on scribd sometime later to give it a more permanent home, as I thought (and still think) it's an important document. It certainly does not come with a seal of approval from AA or any other professional organization, and come to think of it may a WP:LINKVIO. At any rate, a more accurate way to open the sentence would be "According to a commentary based on surveys of AA members from 1977 to 1989..." -- if it stays.

Although it's not used in the disputed sentence, the heading of the section, implies that information contained within it is about "attrition" with in AA, using it in a context that it's discussing reduction in membership. People who attend, one or two or really any number of AA meetings are not necessarily "members." McIntire's article states this was likely an oversight of the person or persons or wrote the 1990 commentary, and points out that participation in AA for 90 days was required before someone was considered to have "tried AA" in previous commentaries. Even by that standard, people answering the survey may still not be (or have been) "members" (as discussed in the Newcomer pamphlet "The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking" and "You are an AA member if and when you say so."[4]) although I would consider the distinction between the two be negligible at that point.

It's misleading to call it "attrition" for the same reason is misleading to equate participation with any organization (church, gym, school, union, club, etc) with "membership" in it. Your family could drag your to Mass on Christmas and Easter, but it doesn't make you a Catholic. A friend might suggest that you'd like the gym he goes to and get you in for a day, only to discover that they don't have free weights, so don't join. You may have a girlfriend that goes to Auraria, and you go to a lot of events there and spend time with her on that campus even though you go to CU Boulder, then you break up so you spend your time at CU. You might frequently participate in a union representing your trade, but not be eligible for membership because you don't hold a full-time time job in your trade. You could go to a Junior League meeting, only to discover that it's all females and you have a penis, so you never go back. Are any of these, "attrition?" No. You don't need to stretch your imagination to come up with reasons why someone might briefly attend AA, or even attend AA for several months or more, and still not be a "member." If we're going to keep a version of that sentence in that section, a more accurate title of the section would be something like, "Results of the triennial surveys" or "Changes in newcomer meeting attendance over one year" or something like that, "attrition" is wrong. -- Scarpy (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We should definitely decide on the reference. It is cited a number of times in that paragraph. If it goes then we have to regroup a little bit. I'll see if I can get a copy of the paper that you noted. Whatever the author considers to be a "member" is not worth all that much, but you are implying that he says that AA, at one time defined what a member was. Is that right? I have never heard the term "member" when referring to AA attendance. You were either at a meeting or not. It is not in our article now, but, if true, it should be developed into at least a paragraph. I mean if AA requires a certain minimum attendance to garner benefits, then that is highly notable, I think. I am not against changing the title of that section and I would not be against removing the phrase "according to AA" or however I attributed that sentence.Desoto10 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

AA still defines what a member is, you have to have a desire to stop drinking and declare yourself a member. It's the the A Newcomer Asks... under "How do I join A.A.?"

A scholarly source is definitely better to base this article on that a source that we really can't even verify is accurate. "CliffWalkinFool" commented on the scribd page and said "I think this is prolly the same copy I helped put together (copy edit) about five years ago." If that's true, and he did "copy editing" it, then it's definitely changed since the original, and we don't know in what way or how much. We have no way, that I know of, of getting a genuine copy. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

So, what do you want to do? The reference in question is used 4 times in the section. The AA flyer does not have the retention data. Does the "scholarly source" have it? I am inclined to not use the scribd article as a very strong reference, but it may be all we have.Desoto10 (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Bold Revert

Took a look at the article for the first time in a while and found the lede horribly messed up. Reverted to a credible state without actually studying the changes between. Take a look at the pre-revert state. Sorry if I clobbered any good stuff. PhGustaf (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

AA and "No Exit"

Another difference is that, unlike what happens in cults, AA does not seek to prevent a member leaving or renouncing the movement.

I do not feel like this is an accurate statement. AA encourages members to cut off all contact with those that have left, or in their cult lingo "gone back back". They are told that leaving the cult will cause them to die.

Another standard oft repeated mantra is: "Don't leave five minutes before the miracle."

They also state in their literature that nobody ever "graduates", in other words you can no stop being a member.

This can all be found in their official literature.

I propose that this sentence be replaced by something that more accurately reflects the official AA position.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.26.235 (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened?

What happened to the rest of the talk page? I can see it when I "edit" but not in the normal view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.181.218 (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like some spurious angle brackets caused the problem. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

AA in the Soviet Union

According to Forbes Magazine: In the old Soviet Union one-third of premature deaths were alcohol-related. But AA was unofficially banned: It was defined as a religious sect, since it requires members to believe in a higher power that heals.

I presume this was added as an example of AA's relationship with the Russian authorities. This paragraph doesn't sum up the main thrust of the Forbes article which was that the subject treatment centre struggled to establish itself because of endemic corruption and lack of state funds for such a project. Not because it was 'unofficially banned', whatever that means? Mr Miles (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The history of alcoholism and treatment in the old Soviet Union and, later on, in Russian is interesting. Here is one brief bit about it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=w7P9c7F5mokC&pg=RA2-PA731&lpg=RA2-PA731&dq=%22alcoholics+anonymous+in+the+soviet+union%22&source=bl&ots=yUCiHZ5EpS&sig=fXB42z8LHEJuhV_KwvXuP7TokKE&hl=en&ei=QHK-TL2KHon2tgPcpYCIDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22alcoholics%20anonymous%20in%20the%20soviet%20union%22&f=false

I don't know it that link is going to work, but a quick Google search for "alcoholics anonymous in the soviet union" gave only two hits. You are correct, Mr. Miles, the thrust of the Forbes article is how difficult setting up a "sober house" in Russia can be. Why don't we just leave it for now as a place holder and, hopefully, one of us will have time to flesh it out.Desoto10 (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the Wiki position regarding the scientology page and their editing practices

The information given on the history page is misleading. Bill Wilson stopped drinking at Towns hospital, his meetings with Eddy had no real effect, he even attended meetings at Shoemakers mission and continued to drink.

Bankole Johnson is accredited source , his interpretation of the AA retention figure holds more weight than the original posters personal interpretationof the data. I have read the survey and no such comments are available in them that the original poster has submitted.

So I will continue to edit with facts, and report those who make changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayseer (talk • contribs) 01:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AA's data

Removed primary sources and replace them with reliable secondary sources. See edit summaries for explanation of restoration and additions. Unless there is a RS to counter the validity of the Triennial Surveys, there really should be no discussion of the analysis of AA's data. This talk page is not a forum to argue about AA. or editor's opinions of AA's data unsupported by RSs. Also note that a valid self-published source is used. I've seen editors summarily dismiss any self-published source, and in this case, that would be a mistake. Finally, The talk page is the place for further discussion, not edit summaries via a revert war. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki editing policy

The key thing about appropriate edits to Wikipedia articles is this: If you or I have an opinion, it's irrelevant. If a public figure has publicly expressed an opinion, and if there is reason to believe that his job title indicates some expertise, then it is appropriate to say in the Wikipedia article that "so-and-so [give job title] has asserted [give citation] that such-and-such is true". If there has been a public disagreement between two people who could reasonably be said to have some expertise, then the Wikipedia article should fairly state the arguments of each. Also, if the public figure has anything that anyone might consider a conflict of interest, the Wikipedia article should clearly state that (without claiming that the person should or should not be trusted). For example, if one person in the public debate is a paid consultant to pharmaceutical companies, that should be mentioned in passing, since some readers might consider that he has a financial interest in pharmaceutical treatments rather than AA-type treatments. Similarly, if a public figure is affiliated with AA, that fact should be mentioned, because some readers might think that makes the person biased in favor of AA techniques. The key thing is to give the reader all the information he needs to form his own judgments, without Wikipedia expressing any opinion of its own. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duoduoduo" 174.7.111.158 (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 174.7.111.158 (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

AA statistic misleading

http://liferingconvenor.blogspot.com/2007/12/once-again-on-aa-dropout-rate.html exclude the 90 percent of your sample that leaves in the first 3 months and come up with a new number. someone took the time to read mccintyre book.Jayseer (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source, and the editor who did access Mcintire came up with different results. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayseer (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to be rigourously honest about this. I will acquire the book later this year and break it down, what his sample size was after attrition to come by the numbers. I think it is best to a Book for Bankole johnson then according to wiki fair policy he can be posted in as there will references cited.Jayseer (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Attrition Revisited

I read the McIntire ref and while I found it interesting, I wouldn't exactly call it scholarly. I don't know what qualifications the author has, as he does not list any, other than living in Burbank. On the other hand, it is a much better ref than the scribd website that we have been using. The facts seem to speak for themselves in this instance: people who begin attending AA tend to leave within a few months. A ref to Kurtz might be useful here to say that, in fact, this is a very common phenomenon in most self-help/mutual-help community based groups and is not restricted to AA. I do think that you (that would be you, Scarpy) are making a big stretch to compare attending church, a gym or other groups to going to AA. For alcoholics, AA is pretty much the only game in town in terms of self-help/mutual help groups, while there are hundreds of gyms, churches, hobby clubs, etc. If you don't like one of these, you move on to the next one. If you attend AA, you attend either because somebody is forcing you (or you think they are forcing you) or you think you have a very serious drinking problem. I suspect that there are virtually zero casual attendees at AA meetings. I do not think that it is a stretch at all to say that, if there was just one kind of gym in town and people went and left after a month or so, then that gym failed to retain members and had a high attrition rate. You could also say that gyms do not provide a very effective means for improving your health. If you don't go, then they don't work for you. If the majority of people drop out of the gym, then, no the gym was not effective in improving health. It would be perfectly legitimate to say that the longer you keep attending a gym, the better the outcome, assuming that you do the appropriate study. Several studies, some of which we use in this article, say the same thing, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.Desoto10 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Returning to McIntire, I find the concept of only starting the clock after some arbitrary number of days or meetings because of "tradition" to be absurd. Why not just make it 5 years and then AA would be nearly 100% successful. I object to McIntire using phrases like:

"The concept of 'a traditional A.A. introductory interval' and the specification of 'ninety days' is critical to any realistic analysis of A.A. Survey data and Comment/Analysis on the surveys."

Why is it critical? Who says that you haven't "tried" AA until 90 days? People attend, then many of them leave. That is all that the data shows. Massaging it to make the program seem more effective with no rationale other than "tradition" is not useful.

Scarpy and I have been arguing about this for a few years now, so if anyone else wants to take a shot at this that might be helpful. Desoto10 (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI - the article we're discussing here and several others appear to be free for the month of November (now would be a good time to fire up CiteULike and get some research).

It's true that McIntire doesn't list any academic credentials, maybe this was a Traditions thing, maybe he doesn't have them, I don't know. But it was published in Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, which does have an impressive editorial board, at least at the moment.

Just because AA is the largest mutual-aid group for alcoholics doesn't change it's definition of membership, which obviously comes in to play if you are trying to measure attrition. What you're advocating seems analogous saying Microsoft has more of a social responsibility than Apple to provide good desktop operating systems because more people use desktops running their operating systems. I agree with that to an extent, but it wouldn't be a reason to measure adoption of their software less objectively. A member is a member is a member, not all attendees are members, and you can't be an "attritient" (I think I just made that word up) unless you were formerly a member.

This really comes back to the point I was making with the gym analogy, in the same way that if you run infrequently to catch a bus you are not necessarily a "runner" you are not necessarily an AA member if you attend a few AA meetings. What the survey is really measuring is changes in newcomer attendance. Even if that strongly correlates with membership and attrition, it's still not the same thing, and it's not an "attrition rate." If it were measuring membership, it should have asked "do you have a desire to stop drinking?" and "do you consider yourself an AA member?" as those are requirements in AA literature.

Then there is the other question of whether or not these figures say anything about "failure" which, again, was not measured. If it were, there would have been a question "have you participated in AA for 90 days or more?" which would have meet the criteria established by AA for someone who has "tried" it. In the same way that it would be unfair to say that an antibiotic was a failure if a patient was told to take one pill a day for 90 days and only took 30, it's unfair to say that AA "failed" with out taking in to account whether someone who tried AA took the the "recommended dosage."

Nearly everything that's said about the results of the Triennial Surveys is inference. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As it stands now, I think that the "Effectiveness" section does not present the attrition data as a measure of failure but does make the point that AA is not for everyone who attends a meeting. That this is a common phenomenon in self-help/mutual-help groups is also pointed out.Desoto10 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There is of a bunch of tautology involved: Rarely have we seen a person fail who didn't drink and went to meetings for a year. The research would be easier if members had to sign up, and turned in their membership cards when they left. PhGustaf (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Then it wouldn't be anonymous. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

history section

I was stumbing around on the Websites and found that Dick B. was citing E. Kurtz, then I discovered E. Kurtz wrote the foreward to Dick B latest edition of AA history books, a friend of mine mentioned that not god in christian terms means without sin. There are a number of history authors, Thompson, Raphael, Cheevers, Pass it On, that may be a better choice for this page. It is up to you, just a suggestion. Jayseer (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Archer and Deluca

Peele's self-published criticism of Archer and Deluca is vague, general, incomplete and seemingly out-of-context. Just what are the "honest differences", and how have the Rand researchers "called out [Archer] for fudging research data"? Peele is mute on the particulars. If we had reliable and relevant sources, they would be welcomed.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My credibility has been questioned based on the Stanton Peele’s unsubstantiated accusations of “fudging” research findings, the preparation of revised summary of the 2nd Study reinterpreting the findings, and lack of research background. To correct these allegations I will respond point-by-point.

First, NIAAA did not revise or modify any of the research findings in the 2nd RAND Study. The study was published and disseminated by NIAAA as prepared by the RAND investigators, without editing or revision by NIAAA staff.

Second, a revised summary of revised research findings was not prepared by NIAAA. The report as prepared by the RAND investigators was presented to the NIAAA National Advisory Council and the general public.

Third, regarding Stanton Peele’s statement that I lacked research background. For seven years, prior to coming to NIAAA, I was administrator of the California Alcoholism program, responsible for State alcoholism prevention, treatment and research. As State Administrator I designed and implemented a statewide treatment outcome evaluation of the State outpatient alcoholism treatment programs, designed and implemented a pilot research program to test the feasibility of providing health insurance program for alcoholism care for State employees, and obtained legislative authorization and state funding for two university based alcohol research centers.

The “honest differences” referred to Ms. Brody in her Jan 29, 1980 article were not over the research findings. They were over which research findings should emphasized in the NIAAA press release.

The first area of difference was over which sub-group’s relapse outcome should be emphasized. The RAND investigators wanted to emphasize the finding that the nonproblem drinking can have a low relapse rate in the less impaired group, 23% of the study sample, NIAAA decided to emphasis the study finding that in the high level of dependence group, 77% of the study sample, those who abstained had a lower relapse rate than those who engaged nonproblem drinking.

The second "honest difference" was the study's finding on AA participation. NIAAA decided to include the statistically significant study finding (see pg. 129) that regular AA attendees were more likely than nonattenders to be abstaining for 6 months or more at 4 years. The RAND investigators suggested that the regular AA attenders were a self-selected group of long term abstainers and that this finding should not be emphasized.

I do not consider myself to be a “credible” expert on Alcoholics Anonymous, I have not published peer-reviewed articles on Alcoholics Anonymous.

I do believe that I met the qualification of “credible” expert on epidemiologic interpretation of the alcohol data sets, such as the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), and the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (NLAES). I have published peer reviewed articles utilizing these data sets. Also for eight years, 1994-2002, following my retirement as Deputy Director, I was an emeritus guest researcher at NIAAA doing epidemiologic research on the NLAES data. Loranarcher (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

AA and USSR

Why is AA in Russia any more notable that AA in Brazil etc? -Mr Miles (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a red herring. No one has added, let alone removed, any info on Brazil to make the question pertinent. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no value of the mention of Russia, though it's less bad now than it was. A more thorough discussion of AA around the world might be useful, but the current entry is just puffery saying "AA survives regardless". PhGustaf (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Puffery indeed unless there is a reason why is AA in Russia any more notable that AA in any other country?

No comparison has been made, and a non existent limitations on using RS's on AA in other countries has not been in effect, but that is the basis of the arguments. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The argument is that standing alone, the Russia section implies the country to be some kind of special case in relation to AA. As PhGustaf has suggested, a more thorough discussion of AA around the world might be useful, currently the USSR section looks odd. -Mr Miles (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No argument; others should add more info, but there is no reason to leave out Russian content until then. BTW, there was no puffery on my part, I quoted the source. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A problem with this article is that Wikipedia demands reliable sources, and that AA, by its nature, doesn't provide any. This tempts editors to grab any source that mentions AA, no matter how casually, and plonk whatever pops up into the article, whether it's important or utile or not. PhGustaf (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time Forbes has been suggested as an unreliable source. There is no consesnus, yet. No one has stated why the USSR is not notable, it in fact was a notable for it's unofficial opposition to an inherently non-political organization. I am open to suggestions on how to reword, or reposition this sub section. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Forbes is a fine source, and it's not exactly a secret that the former USSR suppressed religion in all its forms. But I don't see this bit as notable enough to include. PhGustaf (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on retention

Long established consensus has rejected the 5% myth. See [5]. Reverting without discussion can be interpreted as edit warring, especially when it goes against consensus. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus by who, those attending AA meetngs, The 5% is not a myth especially cited by an expert such as Bankole Johnson, the information contained in the survey shows no such comments or interpreations that have been posted on this page. It is subjective and without a real accredited source. It reads like a personal interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayseer (talk • contribs) 01:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are unfortunate, unproductive and suggestive of bad faith assumptions in almost all cases. Johnson is a unreliable source who has a financial interest in a pharmacuetical solution to alcohol abuse. He is even more dubious a source for not understanding or distorting a simple frequency distribution. The long established consensus has been cited and has been plainly made available. At this stage it is up to you to look at it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bankole Johnson response to his Critics regrading his ariticle in the Washington Post:

Bankole Johnson Charlottesville, VA (RPRN) 10/19/10 —

In my article in The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660.html), I provided empirical data that questioned the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Not surprisingly, the response of some who are vested in the advocacy of AA and other 12-step programs continues to be mostly anecdotal.

Fortunately, science has moved on from the days when a person can simply express an opinion without solid data. The recent article by Catherine Cosgrove of the Heritage Home Foundation (http://rushprnews.com/2010/10/06/do-12-step-drug-and-alcohol-rehabs-work) fails to acknowledge that more than 95% of my research funding comes from the National Institutes of Health.

Indeed, the last time my group did a study for Pharma was 2008, and I have not been the main investigator on a Pharma study for almost 5 years. Nevertheless, consultation by experts for industry is critical to the development of new medicines. I do not advocate for one medicine over another. My goal is to promulgate new knowledge about alcohol dependence that is commensurate with modern medicine to all, dispel myths, and show the way toward evidence-based treatment.

Yours sincerely,

Bankole A. Johnson, DSc, MD, PhD

Professor and Chairman, Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences

University of Virginia"

174.7.111.158 (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Jayseer (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

First, attacking editors as manipulative is not a good idea, especially when the contempt seems to proceed any investigation of helpful material. As a helpful suggestion, you could sign your posts using for four tildes, and use editing tools at the top of this editing box. Johnson says he "has not been the main investigator" for a pharma study in five years. Nonetheless, the Washington Post said Johnson is "has served as a paid consultant to pharmaceutical companies developing medications to treat alcoholism" and his denial leaves this intact and unchallenged. He should have been more categorical. Thirdly, the talk archive 8 clearly and thoroughly debunks the 5% myth by dealing directly with the frequency distribution Johnson has shockingly misquoted. (Your insertion of the falsehood is directly contradicted by the Attrition section, and makes no attempt to acknowledge the difference, or find some way to reconcile the conflict of data.) Finally, when an aspect of an article rests on long established, well-discussed consensus, it is the obligation of an editor who wishes to challenge the view to become familiar with past discussions, and to proceed from there. Unless the consensus can be overturned, it is the status quo. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Attrition rate: how does AA collect Data, does the person sign in each week, what of those who come and don't sign, don't want to sign, new people who leave without any record of them being there at all, after all it is anonymous. I think what is in quesstion is the data itself , and how it was collected, Johnson states in his article the AA survey is a hands up approach and represents those who have affilation with AA therefore not a true representative for results and analysis. Jayseer (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as Bankole Johnson , the awards he has collected through out the years for his research speak for themselves. His research is showing promising results for those who struggle with addiction.

oops forgot my four tildes Jayseer (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The good Dr. Johnson lists the following in the "Disclosures" section from a 2010 AJP article: DISCLOSURES Prof. Johnson is a consultant to Johnson & Johnson (Ortho-McNeil Janssen Scientific Affairs LLC), ADial Pharmaceuticals, Organon, Transcept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Psychological Education Publishing Company (PEPCo LLC), and Eli Lilly and Company.

He is clearly a paid consultant to companies that will profit from the development of, for example, Topiramax, a J&J product, for alcohol abuse.Desoto10 (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The research has been conducted the results are in:

Johnson’s research focus is on the neuropsychopharmacology of addiction. His work integrates the neuroscience and behavioral aspects of addiction medicine with the goal of formulating a more thorough understanding of the basis of drug-seeking behavior and developing effective treatments. Central to his research is the role of and interaction between midbrain monoamine systems with a focus on serotonin, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)/glutamate and dopamine.

Johnson’s Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) paper, titled “Topiramate for treating alcohol dependence: a randomized controlled trial” and published in 2007, gained national and international media attention. The 14-week U.S. multi-site clinical trial involved 371 male and female alcoholics. Those patients taking topiramate had reduced heavy drinking and showed better results with lowering cholesterol, body mass index, liver enzymes, and blood pressure than those taking the placebo.[7] The study results were featured on Reuters, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox News, USA Today, the Associated Press, and many other media outlets.[8][9][10][11][12][13]

Johnson’s current research involves clinical trials and human laboratory studies, and includes neuroimaging and molecular genetics. He now incorporates neuroimaging evaluations into his drug interaction studies to identify the site-specific effects of abused drugs and to evaluate the effectiveness of potential medications for the treatment of addiction. Current studies include a clinical trial aimed at determining the effectiveness of ondansetron, a serotonin-3 antagonist, for the treatment of subtypes of alcoholics, as well as a human laboratory project trying to elucidate the effects of naltrexone and acamprosate on hepatic and renal function in alcohol-dependent individuals.

[edit] Honors and awards Inductee, Texas Hall of Fame for Science, Mathematics and Technology, 2003 Appointed to the National Advisory Council for NIH/NIDA, 2004 – present Member, Medications Development Subcommittee of NIDA’s Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, 2004 – present Member, Extramural Advisory Board for NIH/NIAAA, 2004 – present Member, Medications Development Scientific Advisory Board for NIH/NIDA, 2005 – present American Psychiatric Association Distinguished Psychiatrist Lecturer Award, 2006 (for outstanding achievement in the field of psychiatry as an educator, researcher, and clinician) NIH Roadmap Consultant, 2006 – present Listed in "Best Doctors in America", 2007, 2009 Fellow, Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2007 – present Distinguished Fellow, American psychiatric Association, 2008 – present American Psychiatric Association, Solomon Carter Fuller Award, 2009

Obviously he is a skilled researcher with results therefore it stands to reason he would be pursued and paid consulting fees. The same goes for heart research, and a host of other diseases. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the cure lies in biochemistry, the victims of addiction no longer need to pay $$$$$$ for bogus rehab centers. Bill Wilson sought such a cure and held such beliefs long after he founded AA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayseer (talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue, as I see it, is how to handle an incorrect comment from a legitimate source. Johnson's comment about 95% is incorrect, but, as a trained clinician/researcher, he should know that. I suspect that he has just looked around the internet and bought into this interpretation without actually looking at how attendance was monitored. Desoto10 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would argue it needs to be handled responsibly. Agree that Johnson must have just pulled the 5% success rate off the internet without checking validity. Regardless this is a very contentious issue and must be discussed before changing the article. Mr Miles (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the following text, pending discussion amongst the editors.

Bankole Johnson has seen in his work with alcoholics how AA's philosophy of once a person starts to slip he or she is powerless to stop, as being harmful to those patients who chronically relapse; the stronger the alcoholics belief in that message the longer and more damaging the relapses. Another damaging message is when alcoholic fails, it is his fault, not the program's as outlined in the Big Book "Those who do not recover are those who cannot or will not give themselves completely to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates . . . they seem to have been born that way." He states this message can be devastating. He further states what has inspired little confidence is the recent review by the Cochrane Library, a health-care research group, of studies on alcohol treatment conducted between 1966 and 2005 whose results state plainly: "No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF [12-step facilitation] approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems." and though AA has released success figures, these are self voluntary reports of those who maintain ties to AA and therfore not a true representative.

My criticism of the text is that it reads as an opinion piece, perhaps being due to its newspaper source, such that the claims are not supported with any actual research. Also, Johnson's misinterpretation of the triennial frequency distribution graph, whether deliberate or through incompetence, doesn't seem to make him a very reliable commentator.Mr Miles (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Further to this:

Is the article sited not mainly a criticism of rehab not AA, specifically cost and lack of controlled studies?

Its point about Cochrane Library already covered in the Wiki article

It is worrying that this author misrepresents the Triennial graph and carelessly restates the 95% myth

Is the 24.4% natural recovery rate general consensus? (can his reading of it be trusted in light of previous point)

I don't know the source of the 24.4 natural recovery rate. A more accurate estimated rate of abstinence during the past 12 months for individuals who never attended AA is 16%, this estimate is based on NLAES data. Loranarcher (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Same point again with regard to his mentioning the 2005 article in the journal BMC Public Health 2005 article in the journal BMC Public Health about Project Match (which didn’t specifically study AA).

His statement that ‘AA holds that, once a person starts to slip, he or she is powerless to stop’ is a misrepresentation of AA literature which applies the concept of powerlessness an alcoholics general state with regard to alcohol and not specifically a slip. For example The Doctor’s Opinion section of the book Alcoholics Anon describes the taking of alcohol leads to ‘craving’ hard to resist not complete powerlessness.

His quote "The stronger an alcoholic's belief in this perspective, the longer and more damaging relapses can be. An evening of drinking turns into a month-long bender". This appears to be opinion not based on any actual study.

Also Johnson's point that AA maintains that when an alcoholic fails, it is his fault, not the program's - is this not a criticism of one line in AA’s literature, is it accurate to extrapolate that to the whole organization's attitude?

The article is problematic with its conflict of interest, the pitch for a drugs related solution at the conclusion from a doctor sponsored by pharma industry.

Please address these issues before reposting the text into the article. Thanks Mr Miles (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Under wiki criteria, Johnson is a reliable source. Johnh677 (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. MIles I am amazed, a consensus, really,

Arthur Cains piece done for Harpers Magazine 1963 regarding the cult aspects of the program did not need a consensus.

Bankole Johnson's qualifcations far exceed Cains, the evidence speaks for itself:

Inductee, Texas Hall of Fame for Science, Mathematics and Technology, 2003

Appointed to the National Advisory Council for NIH/NIDA, 2004 – present Member, Medications Development Subcommittee of NIDA’s Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, 2004 – present Member, Extramural Advisory Board for NIH/NIAAA, 2004 – present Member, Medications Development Scientific Advisory Board for NIH/NIDA, 2005 – present American Psychiatric Association Distinguished Psychiatrist Lecturer Award, 2006 (for outstanding achievement in the field of psychiatry as an educator, researcher, and clinician) NIH Roadmap Consultant, 2006 – present Listed in "Best Doctors in America", 2007, 2009 Fellow, Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2007 – present Distinguished Fellow, American psychiatric Association, 2008 – present American Psychiatric Association, Solomon Carter Fuller Award, 2009

Mr. Miles YOUR STATEMENT:

"The stronger an alcoholic's belief in this perspective, the longer and more damaging relapses can be. An evening of drinking turns into a month-long bender". This appears to be opinion not based on any actual study.

As a prominent psychiatrist he is more than Qualified to describe how the alcoholics he has worked with respond to such messages.... and how such messages impact the alcoholics he has worked with. As for the concept of powerless over alcohol it is STEP ONE of the program Do you really think Johnson is unaware of the research undertaken by Alan Marlatt which demonstrate how such said beliefs cause major relapses after an initial one????

Your issues with Project Match Mr. Miles:

Same point again with regard to his mentioning the 2005 article in the journal BMC Public Health 2005 article in the journal BMC Public Health about Project Match (which didn’t specifically study AA).

Project Match was posted on the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous wik page for eons, it was used to demonstrate that AA is as effective as other treatments. Why didn't you object then??????? You certainly had enough time,in fact months, years of time to take a consensus on that issue or better yet remove it from the webpage. Why didn't you????

As for your unsubtantiated Point of View [POV] Mr miles:

The article is problematic with its conflict of interest, the pitch for a drugs related solution at the conclusion from a doctor sponsored by pharma industry.,

Doctor Johnson has taken the time to respond to allegations such as yours online, this was posted earlier on the discussion page, it does help to read the discussion page Mr. Miles:

Bankole Johnson Charlottesville, VA (RPRN) 10/19/10 —

In my article in The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660.html), I provided empirical data that questioned the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Not surprisingly, the response of some who are vested in the advocacy of AA and other 12-step programs continues to be mostly anecdotal.

Fortunately, science has moved on from the days when a person can simply express an opinion without solid data. The recent article by Catherine Cosgrove of the Heritage Home Foundation (http://rushprnews.com/2010/10/06/do-12-step-drug-and-alcohol-rehabs-work) fails to acknowledge that more than 95% of my research funding comes from the National Institutes of Health.

Indeed, the last time my group did a study for Pharma was 2008, and I have not been the main investigator on a Pharma study for almost 5 years. Nevertheless, consultation by experts for industry is critical to the development of new medicines. I do not advocate for one medicine over another. My goal is to promulgate new knowledge about alcohol dependence that is commensurate with modern medicine to all, dispel myths, and show the way toward evidence-based treatment.

Yours sincerely,

Bankole A. Johnson, DSc, MD, PhD

Professor and Chairman, Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences

University of Virginia"

Now as for your other point of view Mr. Miles

Also Johnson's point that AA maintains that when an alcoholic fails, it is his fault, not the program's - is this not a criticism of one line in AA’s literature, is it accurate to extrapolate that to the whole organization's attitude?

If you have read the article you will see Doctor Johnson spoke to that specific message not to the entire program. As a qualified psychiatrist he is in such a postion to make a judgement how such a message can impact a person.

HE WAS ALSO SPECIFIC TO ONE REVIEW THE COCHRANE, HIS ASSESSEMENT or lack of confidence.....also he was specific to AA claimed success rates being from only those who have affiliation with the program...the two issues tie together in his critique... he has been specific about aspects of Alcoholics Anonymous.

you have sought to keep this off the AA page, knowing full well information overlaps from wiki page to wiki page all the time.

Are you aware that AA surveys are posted on this wiki page and there is not one posting regarding their limitations?

George Vaillant in his 50 years of research came up with a 5% success rate for his treatment of alcoholism, which included AA affilation, Stanton Peele among others have published the 95% attrition rate for the triennal survey among others.

The 95 % attrition rate, all one has to do is look at the pdf file provided on the AA wiki page and go to graph C provided it definitely looks like an attirition rate . Stanton Peele and many others have cited it as an attrition graph , no indication whatsoever it was a frequency distribution graph, by the way frequency of distribution, why did not AA speak immediately, years earlier, to such so called misinterpretations, the survey was done 1989, that was twenty odd years ago.

Jayseer (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For the third time, please refer to talk archive 8. "It looks like" is not a standard to go by. If you can contradict Loran Archer with a reliable source, please do, but vague notions are not something we can cite. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayseer, a coincidence that your IP address is downtown Vancouver, the same as a guy who plagued the AA article with edit warring a couple of years ago and ended up having his IP addresses and sockpuppet accounts blocked? Funny, your writing style is similar too, as is your liberal use of the space bar. Mr Miles (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Miles it is not up to you to question the validity of an editor, I edited this page recently for reasons: 1. The effectiveness of the alcoholics anonymous page had been vandalised with certain studies such as the Cochrane review simply wiped clean off the page, this had been left unaddressed for months. 2. The link to the main page of HISTORY OF ALCOHOLICS was missing, obviously editors have taken the time to link to other source pages...why was this not addressed? 3. The brief introductry to history found on this wiki page provided a misleading account of the events by the ommission of events.

Mr. Miles you haven't as yet answered the question , if Project Match was such a concern why leave it on the Effectivenss page ???

Concerns regarding Loren Archer as a source:

The limitations of the A.A. membership surveys are well described in the GSO internal memo on page 4. A major limitation is the significant under counting of the A.A. membership resulting from the many groups that were not surveyed.

The most recent "A.A. Fact File" that I received from GSO shows the estimated A. A. membership in the U.S. as 1,168,990 members.

This is a significant undercount of members.

Using a national representative survey of the U.S., in the

I found that in 1991-1992, 2.4 million individuals reported attending an A.A. meeting during the last year.

Mr. Archer questions the validity of current information sent by AA GSO and instead he reverts to a head count undertaken 19 years ago. Does he seem a reliable source???? Another point, any first year student well knows that when gathering statistics one does a random sample , they do not sample the entire population ie. each and every group. Jayseer (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The NIAAA 1991-1992 National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (NLAES)is not a "simple head count", it is a random sample of the US populations. The estimated AA attendance is based on NLAES item 7015-1 "Did you go to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting during the last 12 Months". The positive responses are then projected to the US population to provide an estimate of US population attended AA during last 12 months. Loranarcher (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Loren Archer has severe credibility issues for being used as a reliable source he has already been called out for fudging research data.

Loran Archer was co-director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism when the Rand Reports were published in 1976 and 1980. The second, four-year Rand follow-up was particularly hard on disease advocates since it found that – among a highly dependent government-treated population – safe drinking resolutions were as stable as abstinence – more so for some sub-groups!

Archer and the NIAAA’s director, John DeLuca, set about reinterpreting the research. This provoked a response from the authors published in an article by Jane Brody in the NY Times (January 29, 1980), along with Archer and DeLuca’s rejoinders:

The directors of the alcohol institute ... readily acknowledged their 'honest differences' with the scientists in interpreting their findings. The Rand Researchers, in turn, have expressed dismay with what they see as a distorted interpretation of their findings ... Mr. Archer said that he was strongly committed to the philosophy that total abstinence was the only sure path to recovery from alcoholism. Mr. DeLuca questioned whether any alcoholic who could safely return to drinking had been an alcoholic to begin with.

http://www.peele.net/blog/100106.html

More So he appears to have extreme bias

The second Rand report (Polich et al., 1981) responded systematically to criticisms of the original report; again, the investigators found substantial numbers of what they termed "nonproblem" drinkers. Criticism by the NCA and related groups was somewhat muted this time around, while a large number of social scientific reviews in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and the British Journal of Addiction were almost uniformly positive. The most remarkable consequence of the second report was that the Director of the NIAAA, John DeLuca, and his executive assistant, Loran Archer (neither of whom had a research background), offered their own summary of its results. This summary emphasized that abstinence ought to be the goal of all alcoholism treatment and that AA attendance offered the best prognosis for recovery, statements the report explicitly rejected (Brody, 1980).

http://www.peele.net/lib/denial.html Jayseer (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Stanton Peele and I had a length exchange on the Kettil Bruun epidemiology email list concerning the 2nd RAND report and the Jane Brophy NY Times article. Stanton stated that I undercut the Rand results and that the researchers complained about this. My length answer and a pdf of the NY Times article can be found at KBS mail archives website http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1001&L=kbs-list&T=0&F=&S=&P=3627.

I did not “fudge” or reinterpret any of 2nd RAND report findings. I support the report’s findings but I do not support Stanton Peele’s misinterpretations of the report’s findings.

The 2nd RAND study was one of the first studies to describe differential recovery status associated with severity of dependence. The 2nd RAND study findings have been strengthened by subsequent research by Dawson et al 2005 <http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh29-2/131-142.htm> which found that severitywas associated positively with the likelihood of abstinent recovery and associated negatively with the likelihood of non-abstinent recovery. Loranarcher (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Loran Archer

Loran Archer is an acceptable self-published source and belongs in the article. His analysis can be described as self-published, but that would also mandate inclusion of his bona fides to counter those views to fairly present him. If there are RS's to challenge his reliablity, and unless they are compelling, they can be noted in the article. Peele, as noted by me above, has so far not made any good claims in that regard. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You can put in a request for a third opinion, but the article authored by Loran Archer cited is clearly not a reliable source. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not seem "clearly" so, but simply an unsupported assertion that is insufficient to act on. I hope the self-published canard does not reappear without reference to why self-published sources are accepted and why Archer is an exception to be excluded. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It clearly is and is now tagged appropriately. Self-published sources can only be used in articles about themselves, as described here. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The section immediately above the one you' ve just cited offers a very different policy that is the relevant one to apply. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's the same policy if Loran Archer has never published in a scholarly sources on the topic of AA's newcomer attendance. If you can produce those sources, then it will would give some credit to your point and nullify it at the same time (if there are peer-reviewed sources where Loran was published, why not just use those?). -- Scarpy (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad to | oblige. There is no policy which prevent citing Archer's self-published material. It is acceptable as it is per RS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because someone has published on alcoholism does not make them an expert on the topic of AA newcomer attendance. He does have a pretty good Knol on the topic, and his actual blog entry on the topic looks pretty good. But this is still close, but no cigar. If we could find where he got the numbers for the NLAES, then maybe. Otherwise it looks like we're just citing OR. Again, feel free to put in for a 3O if you disagree. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki RS standards have been met, and your own are not what we go by.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think you're wrong. I put in a 3O. -- Scarpy (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My input .... the above informtion aka is referring to was posted by me. A reference to a yahoo members, group is not self published , published is published and subject to peer review. If Archer is cited then the reader would need to know of his handling research done by the Rand Corp. Can be purchased from the New Times Archives. Jayseer (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 8 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Analysis: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is an opinion of that type. By the numbers: (1) Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_that_are_usually_not_reliable self-published sources are, with a couple of exceptions, not reliable. (2) Per SPS, blog postings and Yahoo group postings, whether referenced directly or indirectly, are considered to be self-published. (3) It is also true, however, per SPS, that one exception to self-published sources being non reliable is this: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Though not essential to my opinion, just let me note for future reference that all of the following elements have to be satisfied in order for this exception to apply: The proposed expert on the topic of the article Must have work in the relevant field (i.e. work on the topic of the article) Which has been published in reliable (i.e. Wikipedia-reliable, not just dictionary-definition reliable) third-party publications (note that it is plural; a single publication, even if reliable, is not enough). (4) Per WP:BURDEN it is the obligation of the editor who initially posts new material to provide, adequately document, and defend reliable sources. Conclusion and opinion: While I see the potential for Loran Archer, considering his resume, to perhaps be shown to be an expert described in the exception quoted in #3, above, I see no proof of it. (I would note that I've {{dead link}}-tagged the one item of proof noted above by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous.) While it has been previously asserted that, "Loran Archer has published quite a bit in peer-reviewed journals" (Nov 9, 2009 by Desoto10), no one seems to have come up with any proof of that assertion. The burden having not been met, the addition of the {{self-published}} tag is entirely appropriate. Indeed, per WP:BURDEN, the material should eventually be removed altogether if proof of full satisfaction of the exception is not provided within a reasonable period of time but, per BURDEN, "How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." Recommendation: This same disagreement over Loran Archer has played out on this talk page at least three times, more or less, depending on how you want to count the instances. If this Third Opinion doesn't settle the dispute, or at least establish the ground rules for settling the dispute once and for all, someone needs to take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for discussion and consensus. A word to the wise to all editors re edit warring: The three revert rule is merely a bright-line rule and it expressly says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed Archer refs from PubMed:

Reducing alcohol-use disorders via decreased consumption: a comparison of population and high-risk strategies. Dawson DA, Archer LD, Grant BF. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1996 Sep;42(1):39-47. PMID 8889402 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2.What if Americans drank less? The potential effect on the prevalence of alcohol abuse and dependence. Archer L, Grant BF, Dawson DA. Am J Public Health. 1995 Jan;85(1):61-6. PMID 7832263 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Free PMC ArticleFree text

3.Relative frequency of heavy drinking and the risk of alcohol dependence. Dawson DA, Archer LD. Addiction. 1993 Nov;88(11):1509-18. PMID 8286996 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4.Alcohol and the elderly. Dufour MC, Archer L, Gordis E. Clin Geriatr Med. 1992 Feb;8(1):127-41. Review. PMID 1576571 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5.Gender differences in alcohol consumption: effects of measurement. Dawson DA, Archer L. Br J Addict. 1992 Jan;87(1):119-23. Erratum in: Br J Addict 1992 Apr;87(4):659. PMID 1543934 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

6.A review of progress in development of health insurance coverage for alcoholism treatment. Archer L. Alcohol Health Res World. 1981 Summer;5(4):4. No abstract available. PMID 10252102 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Desoto10 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion TransporterMan, and thanks for those links Desoto10.

My opinion for what it's worth. I think the 95% myth is notable for inclusion as many RSs have misunderstood the Triennial data. Loran Archer, supported by references provided, is then by Wiki criteria outlined by TransporterMan, a not ideal but acceptable (in the absence of another) self-published RS and should stay. - Mr Miles (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we will all have opinions on how broad 'topic of the article' can be. -Mr Miles (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Loran Archer qualification as self-published reliable source

Thanks to TransporterMan for so clearly stating what are reliable self-published sources (and for pointing out the dead link which has been repaired). To restate and annotate:

"...all of the following elements have to be satisfied in order for this exception to apply: The proposed expert on the topic of the article must have work in the relevant field (i.e. work on the topic of the article) which has been published in reliable (i.e. Wikipedia-reliable, not just dictionary-definition reliable)third-party publications (note that it is plural; a single publication, even if reliable, is not enough)." [Bullet points and caps where removed and modified for readability.]

Desoto has overwhelmingly shown this standard is met and surpassed, and there is no apparent reason to let the "improper references to self-published sources" tag remain. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree -Mr Miles (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Publishing on the topic of alcoholism is very different than publishing on the topic of Alcoholics Anonymous. Like transporterman said, on the topic of the article. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

One could also argue that having expertise in publishing on the topic of AA is very different from interpreting frequency distribution data, and so on. -Mr Miles (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize the burden rests on those who wish to include Archer, but one would assume an eminent expert on the treatment of alcoholism would would as a matter of course would qualify as a notable and reliable self-published source for his views on AA. Even so, the ever more stringent standard has been suggested, and and is easily met, though it is not needed. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

One more article of Archer's specifically on AA

No, "one" would not assume that knowledge about alcoholism is the same as or implies knowledge about Alcoholics Anonymous, and I'm not even sure that he qualifies and an "eminent" expert on alcoholism. I also see you followed or found the link I provided for you yesterday. Yes, like I said then, the Knol is very good, but like it is also self-published. Since it is non peer-reviewed it cannot be used to establish credibility as an expert on any topic.

I have a life outside of Wikipedia and this edit warring and the exacting arguments to get self-published sources included in this article is really taking up more time than I can spend here. I'm taking this article back off my watch list -- you win the war of attrition. Congratulations on having the time and energy to spend all day on Wikipedia bikeshedding. You've successfully pushed your POV (to it's detriment), decreased the quality of the article, and again frustrated me passed my capacity to collaborate on this article. Have a nice day. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The next step of the process needs to be followed, my suggestion is that it be submitted to the the Wiki reliable source notification board. I would also suggest that the editing war cease, that the page be restored to Scarpys original until this matter is resolved. Jayseer (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean request for comment -Mr Miles (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If that is the next step yes, Jayseer (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC) The issue should not be that the attrition rate is an indicator of success or failure. Mcintyre in his review also notes the attrition rate was 81 percent, and speculates on a number of reasons for this. People leave that is all that can be said. One size does not fit all. He then looks at the statiscal data on those that remain after three months which show that over half have achieved a result. Looking at the graph of membership numbers over the last years the membership has remained consistent. Jayseer (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

81% attrition only exists in the minds of those promulgating a statistical error. If Mcintyre's text does that, it can be included as an example of such. -Mr Miles (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is the source materail being reliable. My suggestion is to find a published peer review article by Archer to support his position. Jayseer (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If someone was looking for an encyclopedic rebuttal to the 5% newcomer attendance after a year claim, and the citation for the rebuttal was a post on an obviously biased yahoo group, you couldn't at all blame them if they continue to have doubts -- in fact I think it would solidify them. It's sabotaging the point it's trying to make from the get-go. The only reason why someone would want that citation in the article is is they were so desperate to push their POV that they'll cite anything (as is probably the case here) or they're acting like a provocateur to deliberately sabotage the article (not impossible). In any case, it's a blight on the article and should be removed. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The two Knol’s on Alcoholics Anonymous that I self-published were prepared as I would for submission to a peer-review journal. The decision to use the Knol format as a method of publishing was an experiment in open sourcing to allow broader dissemination than would be available from a research journal. The Knol format allows reviewer comments. and I had hoped to receive peer-review comments. I provided detailed description of NLAES items and methodology to allow peer review and replication of findings. Unfortunately, thus far my experiment has been a failure, no one has submitted review comments. Loranarcher (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

For a digital immigrant you've caught on to Wikipedia pretty quickly. Just to make sure everything is on the up and up, you think you could post something associating your Wikipedia identity on one of the Knols or on your blog?

Either way, did you not realize that your research would carry exponentially more weight if you had it published in a real journal? Why would you open to door to discredit a POV that you seem to care very much about by self-publishing it when you've been published in scholarly journals before and could easily be again? If you wanted to experiment with a Knol, wouldn't it be much better to do it on a less controversial topic? -- Scarpy (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only have I published in peer-reviewed journals but I have also served as a peer-reviewer for the journals so I am more skeptical that peer-reviewed journals carry that much weight. Unfortunately peer-review does not always assure that the facts are correct. I am more interested in clearly describing the data to allow the reader to replicate and verify the findings. At my point in life I do not need to "publish or perish". My only interest is publically making the data known and hopefully encouraging others to replicate the findings with more recent data sets. I prefer to think of the Knols as working papers not as POV. As you may have noted from my blog I am an advocate of free and open access to research articles. The Knols are the only economically feasible means to publishing the data. For examplwe the open source journal Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy has an article publishing fee of $1290, I prefer to make the data publically available for free. Loranarcher (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a straw man, no one ever claimed that everything published in a peer-reviewed journal is correct, and if you're comparing the "weight" if a post you (allegedly) made on a yahoo group (as you are currently cited in the article) to a peer-reviewed article, then we have real problems. Peer-review says that you're a human and willing to admit your fallible and therefore to have your work stand up to process and scrutiny from people who do so professionally. If you're not willing to do that, then it's self-published and not appropriate for a source in this article. I'm currently very skeptical that you actually are Loran Archer, especially since you're not willing to show evidence of your identity. You've had a week to post a simple message somewhere saying "BTW, I'm Loranarcher on Wikipedia" and if you've done it, I haven't seen it yet. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

agree with Scarpy, with the exception that even if you are in fact Loran archer it doesn't matter. Wikipedia has inclusion criteria which recognizes the peer-review process as vastly superior to the blog process when it comes to accuracy of information. Loran Archer is not of the expert caliber to allow a blog post to be included in a wikipedia article. Kuto's on your Knol’s experiment, while I am sure you will find it beneficial in many ways you still can't use it as a source on wikipedia because in doing so you bypassed any outside process which could validate your findings for us prior to publication.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not comparing the posting on the yahoo group to a peer-review article. The yahoo posting was merely an observation on the limitations of the AA trienial surveys. I did not place the comments attributed to me on the Wikipedia site and would not be slighted if they are removed due to exclusion criteria. I have placed a short bio on the Wikipedia user page which hopefuly will satisfy Scarpy that I am Loran Archer. Loranarcher (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

no offence but I could place a short bio of a yeti on my user page, it would not prove I am a yeti. we asked you to place something on your blog, a blog that we assume only Loran Archer has access to, which is how that would prove you are him. The biggest problem with the inclusion of this information is that it is contested information, and several of those contrary studies are in fact peer reviewed. I need to have more than a name backing up contested information...some people like Agent Orange, and the only thing that keeps his statistics out is the fact that they are not peer reviewed.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Survey results from National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey

This was added as if it were actually FROM some kind of major study. It is, in fact, the results of a self-published blog where the author takes it upon himself to analyze the census data. The information could perhaps be included, but not as presented.Desoto10 (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As Desoto has suggested I have re-submitted attrition data from NLAES Manual 1 July 11 1994 as the data source. Loranarcher (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The source of the data is not particularly in question. It is the analysis of the data that appears on Knoll that is borderline OR. I think that we need to clearly differentiate between legitimate, traceable, peer-reviewed studies and self-published, non-reviewed blogs. I am not saying that the information cannot be included, but that the weight has to be put in proportion somehow. Otherwise, we open the door to any expert in a particular field including their own views simply by self-publishing a blog article somewhere. Naturally I defer to those who know the Wikipedia rules better than I.Desoto10 (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Desoto therefore I did not reference the Knol data, the attrition data is from published NIAAA NLAES data manual. If this source is not accessible I can provide a pdf copy of the page source of the attrition data. Loranarcher (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Effectiveness

I removed the following unreferenced summary:

It is difficult to scientifically study AA; however, surveys show high dropout rates for those initially entering the program and high success rates for those who are able to stay with the program over longer periods of time.

This is a bold enough statement that I suggest needs a reference.Desoto10 (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Spirituality

Thanks for putting this in. In the past some people have hesitated to point out the "spiritual" nature of AA. Would it be possible for you or someone else to provide a deffinition, in terms of AA for Spirituality.Desoto10 (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"AA leads to better alcohol use outcomes"--"leads to" suggests causality, but, given the nature of the MATCH data and the applied analysis, shouldn't this be something like "is correlated with" or "is associated with"?Desoto10 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DeSoto that "is associated with" would be a more appropriate description, unfortunately the article authors did not use the term "associated with". In the summary they state "Findings suggest that AA leads to better alcohol use outcomes, in part, by enhancing individuals’ spiritual practices and provides support for AA’s own emphasis on increasing spiritual practices to facilitate recovery from alcohol use disorder." Also in the conclusion on pg 8 they stated "At a behavioral level. for those viewing these findings from a purely spiritual or metaphysical frame of reference, this study suggests that AA leads to better alcohol use outcomes, in part, by enhancing individuals’ spiritual practices, further explanation of the results may not be necessary." I did not know if it is acceptable on Wikipedia to revise author's statements from a peer-reviewed article. Loranarcher (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that it's essential to follow the sources. But I don't see any sources that really say what "spiritual" means in an AA context. Some would argue it means "religious, with a formal policy of lying about it", or "'spiritual' is a bait-and-switch towards conversion." PhGustaf (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please adhere to what the source actually said. As you know, Tonigan is a rabid supporter of AA and may not be the most objective bloke around, but he is also a respected and prolific author of many peer-reviewed articles relating to AA and spirituality. I have asked this a few times in the past (for someone to expand on what is, arguably, the most important aspect of AA, spirituality and the "spiritual awakening"), but got no takers. After taking a look at the gibberish on the Spirituality page, I guess that I can see why. Whatever happened to the Jayseer dude?Desoto10 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I am going to change this paragraph around a bit to make it clear that the authors claim certain things, rather than the way it is now. Do the authors claim a "robust" response or is that LorenArcher's interpretation? In reality, this whole section is worthless without some explanation of what spirituality means in the AA context. I think it means religious, thus I am probably not the person to write it.Desoto10 (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Religion vs. Spirituality is a ditch to get stuck in real quick. I heard one authority on what a religion was say an essential element was that it had been around at least 150 years. In a way, he was indicating how impossible it was to make the distinction. My opinion is that a religion dictates behavior and beliefs, or you get the boot. The only way to get the boot in AA is to be a threat to the physical safety of the group or otherwise incredibly disruptive. (Wanna talk smack about Bill Wilson? Be drunk but mannerable every meeting? Fine. Knock yourself out.) Even then, there is no way to get banned from AA as a whole, the next group will probably not care about it. I can't think of a single religion so tolerant. Back to the issue, I think it would be a good idea to cite what AA thinks it means by a "spiritual program' and their view. If contrary RS's exists, then they could be included, but most who insists it is a religion, and by extension, dogmatic, are off the beam, and have the impossible task of defining a religion to dog their arguments.

I understand the issues. Sources that you added call it "quasi-religious". Note that I said that I think that the spirituality invoked by AA is religious, not that AA is a religion. In any case, the issue is we now have this nicely referenced section on "Spirituality" with a study (reanalyzing the MATCH data, by the way) which claims that positive outcomes are associated with an increased "spirituality" by the subject. I just want to know what that means. As LorenArcher has written, this is a core principal of AA and so I think we need to say something about it.Desoto10 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tonigan, who has devoted much of his research to trying to understand how spirituality relates to AA recovery has a nice poster here: http://casaa.unm.edu/posters/Spirituality%20and%20AA%20Practices.pdf . His conclusiong (which may also be the conclusion of the paper in the article) is that spirituality, by itself, has no direct effect on recovery, but that increased spirituality does influence other behaviors that do have a positive effect on recovery (at least I think that is what this mediational analysis stuff is about). In other words, as your Spirituality Index (SI) increases, you tend to attend more AA meetings. Increased attendance at AA meetings is correlated with decreased drinking. Therefore, even though the SI has no bearing on drinking behavior, it "mediates" a better outcome by increasing AA attendence. I wonder if simply describing the way that "spirituality" was tested in these studies would be a sufficient description of spirituality?Desoto10 (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayseer is busy making huge edits over at Stanton Peele. Most of them don't seem to be very good.

One notable AA critic who isn't mentioned here is Albert Ellis. He was certainly a notable psychologist with many ideas about addiction, but most of his (very extensive) work was printed (on cheap paper with tiny margins) by his own publishing house. I'll poke around to see whether I can find something citable and appropriate. PhGustaf (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Experience, Strength and Hope

Since the entire AA program essentially hinges on one alcoholic carrying the message to another alcoholic personally, one on one, it would be helpful for practicing AA members to share some of our stories in this article: Whenever I encounter a new AA member who appears to be interested in sobriety and/or recovery, I usually start by telling them that I am totally invested in AA, spiritually, emotionally and intellilectually. I can't help but feel the way I do because of the results that I have experienced in my life since I "turned my will and life over to the care of God as I understand God". I also feel a deep abiding need to pass these feelings on to the next guy. I have seen things happen that are nothing short of miraculous happen in my life and the lives of my fellow AA's. I had practically destroyed my life and the lives of my wife and children by spending most of my money, time and resources feeding my uncontrollable compulsion to drink and drug. I honestly believed that it was impossible for me to get sober. I thought that I would die either from an alcohol and/or drug overdose or that I would finally get up the nerve to kill myself. When it got bad enough, I chickened out and asked, no, begged for help. When I believed there was no other hope for me and I was desperate enough to try anything, I finally admitted that I was beaten and I asked for help from a friend who was a staunch AA member. My life started to change quickly and the changes accelerated over the years until I became totally convinced that my only hope was to try to live a life of total abstinence and to devote myself to helping others to recover from alcoholism. Since that time, I have had many evolutions which, for the most part, have been positive experiences. Through the program of AA and the people with whom I choose to associate myself, I have learned that any situation which arises in my life can only be made worse if I drink or drug. But, if I throw myself into the program, pray, meditate and try to help someone else in order to take the focus off my problems, then the situation tends to rectify itself and my life returns to normal again. It works, it really works. AA doesn't solve my life problems, but the principles of AA help me to cope with life on life's terms. I know that my life is tremendously better than it would be if I didn't have AA and the conscious contact with my Higher Power in my life. Kajun51 (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that telling stories to one another is a major part of the AA program, that isn't really what we are doing here. Wikipedia strives to make electronic encyclopedia entries rather than engage in outreach. What that means is we strive for a neutral point of view instead of advocacy. That being said, there is a link to the electronic copy of the book Alcoholics Anonymous, which contains several personal stories, so those stories are inadvertently available through wikipedia, but the article itself is not the appropriate place for such things.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Spirituality" Essay

It's uncited, and words like "robust" make it highly suspect. It doesn't belong in the article.[6] PhGustaf (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)\

The article exists. It is cited, but the citation needs repair. Good faith requires that which another editor thinks is "suspect" to be shown to be in fact, more than suspect, but, in fact, to be in error. I also think the section, which I never cared much for ,BTW, is a little too exuberant, but unless I actually do some work, say, pay for the article, or somehow or other get access to it, there is not much I can do. I assume, however, we can now agree that Synth is not at issue. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's wait a bit to see what others say. Note, though, that AGF doesn't require us to disprove questionable content: the poster is required to prove it, and the content in question is not proven. PhGustaf (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The citation, even as it is, does that. Obligation done with. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an essay and uses one source. That falls under WP:OR. This is one person's view on spirituality and AA, not a prevailing point-of-view. As a tertiary source it is not Wikipedia's job to make an argument or to convince the reader of anything. We can only provide mainstream and accepted points-of-view. And as PhGustaf states, the language itself is not encyclopedic. But to rewrite it would not solve the main problem, that this is one person's view and there is a clear attempt to forward an argument. freshacconci talktalk 00:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Essay" has been used as a pejorative, lacks civility, and makes no worthwhile distinction. Any section of a Wiki article can be called an essay. Unless the editor can be shown to have done OR, and not have relied on a respected publication, the charge is baseless. The cited article has multiple authors, so it can't be "one person's view", unless, you can show that the authors have been misrepresented. I'm very interested to know what Wiki policy mandates that "We can only provide mainstream and accepted points-of-view." I'd run from any use any encyclopedia with that axiom as I would from a burning building. Are we all settled that Synth is not in play in any way? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about one section, not the entire article and it's rather spurious of you to claim otherwise. That one section is written by one editor -- he/she left a message on my talk page explaining that he/she left the text in place as as a placeholder for a section on spirituality but that as it is written it should go. And this throwing around words like "charge" and claiming incivility for using a word such as "essay" in itself smacks of not assuming good faith. "Essay" is not pejorative but Wikipedia should not be publishing essays as they are generally intended to position an author and state an argument. As for mainstream points-of-view, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE cover that quite well. freshacconci talktalk 01:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the "Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research" is an academic journal that publishes as a matter of course fringe articles? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about the section only too, especially since I recall making no mention of any the rest of the article. So what false or fake claims I am imagined to have made baffles me. (BTW, the word "spurious", which imputes malevolence, is most unfortunate addition to this interchange, but I will extend the benefit of the doubt and presume that carelessness, or unfamiliarity with the word's meaning, brought it into play.) I still wonder, and am still shocked, by the idea that Wikipedia can only reflect only "mainstream and accepted points-of-view." What policy blatantly declares that allowable views have to be both "mainstream" and "accepted"? I have been wrong before, and would be grateful to be enlightened to be shown how narrow minded and illiberal Wikipedia actually is. Unless the original editor says, or yourself or anyone else looking into the source, can show that the text does not accurately reflect the citation, I can't view as valid anything based on opinion alone. We can't dispose of citations because they are clumsily related. And just to make sure, is Synth completely out of the way? Two editors have said otherwise and we should have some acknowledgement that the matter is settled and will not be pursued. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Right here: "The cited article has multiple authors, so it can't be "one person's view", unless, you can show that the authors have been misrepresented." freshacconci talktalk 02:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Overlooking the phrase "cited article" clearly points out how you most likely arrived at this misunderstanding. This is a simple misreading that we should be able to let go of and proceed with the substantial arguments. Also, among the other objections brought up, is OR no longer an issue as well? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the rest of what you said, I already pointed out the policy and guideline on sources. Just because something has a source does not mean it belongs in the article. It is one person's view-point and it is very much an essay, i.e. it is presenting an argument which means it is WP:OR. And please drop the patronizing tone, I am not playing that game with you. Three editors, including the editor who actually wrote the section, feel the text is inappropriate. A section on spirituality is acceptable as it is relevant to the topic, but what is there right now is not useful. As for WP:SYNTH, I was relying on an old version of that guideline or perhaps I mistook it for something else; it was an edit summary so it is hardly worth discussing. I've made my opinion pretty clear. freshacconci talktalk 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I could point out the policies and say they support my view of WP policy and it wouldn't mean anything but the creation of a silly standoff. (Matter of fact, the is WP Policy the advises this editors to not argue WP policy links in this way. It smacks of talk to the hand, and not dialog.) That is why I was careful to explain why Synth is irrelevant . Moreover, he error of the Synth arguments makes it somewhat doubtful that the editor has taken more care to better understand other WP policies. That means that work has to be done to make opinions substantial. Saying that statements made in edit summaries are hardly worth discussing is a poor way to seemingly concede an argument. I may be old fashioned and quaint in this way, but believe what I say in a edit summary is something I said and something I am accountable for. Just as I would acknowledge that I has misread and misunderstood a simple statement. And, trust me, I have. When will there be proof that OR has been practiced? Wikipedia is not about what editors "feel", it's about what they know and can present as verifiable. The original editor did produce a source, and as far as we know, that editor accurately used the source. Finally I know of no better false dichotomy of fringe vs mainstream. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few people watch this page, but perhaps not on Sunday. My plan is to wait a day or so for other opinions; those here have made theirs clear. There is no deadline. PhGustaf (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of sorts

The whole spirituality argument began this way.

1. 03:56, 20 February 2011 Freshacconci --- (→Spirituality: this is pure WP:SYNTH)
2. 20:28, 20 February 2011 The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (RV major deletion made w/o discussion)
3. (22:00, 20 February 2011 PhGustaf (Rv; material based on unpublished source.)
4. 22:53, 20 February 2011 The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (Undid revision...article published online in 2010, citation needs fixing and[sic])
5. 23:09, 20 February 2011 PhGustaf (Reverted...Even if the cite works out, the language is NPOV [presumably meant to say POV] and SYTHetic[sic])
6. 23:15, 20 February 2011 The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (Undid revision...One source used making Synth impossible, POV not proven. Good faith requires assuming the editor has correctly related the source)
7. Discussion starts on talk page

First thing : Discuss big stuff first.

Any major deletion should have be discussed on talk prior to action.

Second thing: Read and understand a policy before citing it.

WP:SYN wrongly alleged by two editors. Syn required two sources being combined. Spirituality section has only one source.

WP:OR is a serious charge, so back it up when you toss it around.

No editor has to prove they have not done OR after providing a RS. But, if another editor actually looks at the source and finds discrepancies, then it's on.

Don't yell POV unless you first look at the source.

The Spirituality section is an editor's summary of an article from a respected academic journal. No one has shown that the editor has misrepresented the article in any way yet.

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor, LorenArcher first entered the section in question. At that time I questioned him about the wording and he claimed that he accurately represented the article. I have access only to the abstract. J. Scott Tonigan wrote a good, referenced, even-handed review a few years ago:

http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/Fulltext/2007/04000/Spirituality_and_Alcoholics_Anonymous_.38.aspx

A summary of this review might be more useful than just this description of a single study.Desoto10 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the formal term used in many of these papers and for the Lagged Mediational article is spirituality/religiousness, while the term spirituality is also used, I believe, as shorthand. It should also be mentioned that the paper quoted in the article is an analysis of MATCH data and, as Tonigan says, does not describe causual relationships.Desoto10 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Additions to Disease Concept of Alcoholism section

Quotes from the two main texts Alcoholics Anonymous and The 12 Steps and 12 Traditions relevant to the concept of disease as it is viewed in AA were added. These quotes follow:

The term disease is not used to refer to alcoholism in the two main texts of AA. The word disease is found in the Big Book on a single occasion to discuss its mental, physical, and spiritual components: "From (resentment) stems all forms of spiritual disease, for we have been not only mentally and physically ill, we have been spiritually sick. When the spiritual malady is overcome, we straighten out mentally and physically." Alcoholics Anonymous p64

The word disease is found in the 12 and 12 on a single occasion as well, to advocate a unified approach in addressing alcoholism: "Alcoholics Anonymous can be likened to a group of physicians who might find a cure for cancer, and upon whose concerted work would depend the answer for sufferers of this disease." The 12 Steps and 12 Traditions p150

Here is a reference for these being the only occurrences of the word disease in these texts:

http://www.164andmore.com/words/disease.htm

These quotes are specifically germane to any discussion on the Disease Concept of Alcoholism as it applies to AA because as they represent the only two occurrences of the word disease in the two original main texts of AA.

In addition, the quote "Physicians who are familiar with alcoholism agree there is no such thing as making a normal drinker out of an alcoholic. Science may one day accomplish this, but it hasn't done so yet." Alcoholics Anonymous p31 was added to the Disease Concept of Alcoholism section.

The bottom line is the characterization of alcoholism as a "spiritual" malady in nature... and the admission there is no scientific cure available or medical treatment to remove alcoholism or its effects on the alcoholic presented in the AA main texts are diametrically opposed to the Disease Concept of Alcoholism.

These additions were removed from the article after I made them. As an individual whose experience in editing Wikipedia articles is limited to this article on AA, I am certainly new to this process and do not understand why these quotes were removed. I received a notice that I had made more than 3 edits to the article and was labeled a participant in an "edit war." I have no idea what edit wars are and have never been involved in such. I am however, clumsy enough as an editor that certainly more than 3 edits were made, in large to undo the mistakes I made in previous edits.

Again, as a new contributer I am presuming this is the forum to address such issues. The message I received was not signed, but it said to visit the article's talk page, which this appears to be.

Suggestions and fixes to this issue are welcome. Stickembaby (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR. You'll need to find secondary sources for whatever point you're trying to make. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OR? Wikipedia's definition of OR: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists." What exactly is original on my part about citing the original texts the original members of Alcoholics Anonymous wrote? The page numbers of the quotes are given, and the quotes say verbatim what is on the referenced pages; hence, it would appear they constitute a reliable published source on the subject of AA. Moreover, they represent the most reliable source available. The fact the founders of AA chose not to use the word "disease" in their texts seems rather relevant to the Disease Concept of Alcoholism as it applies to AA. It is unclear what you are alleging. Please clarify your statement. Stickembaby (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

First, your civility, good faith edits and avoidance of edit warring bode well for your continued contributions to Wikipedia. The issue is the use of primary sources that vaguely refer to the paragraph topic. Meaning, POV has been used. I removed the following, "...no such thing as making a normal drinker out of an alchoholic" because it's bearing on the section is unclear and wobbly, meaning POV has been used. Unless a secondary source can relate that quote to the disease concept, it can't be used. Also the cancer/disease quote from the 12X12 can't be used because it can be argued that the only disease referred to was cancer, not alcoholism. If you could find a secondary source that showed that the 12X12 indeed meant to say that alcoholism was, like cancer, a disease in the writer's minds, then it could, and should, be added to the argument. The page 64 quote can't be used to show AA was announcing that alcoholism is a disease when BW clearly said that AA had consciously avoiding making the connection. As a matter of fact, he referred directly to that passage. As an aside, and a slightly personal note, checking, as you did, Wiki Policies before replying, should be continued; you have so far done better than I did as a new editor. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Survey redux

Currently reads: "The 1990 commentary evaluated data of triennial surveys from 1977 through 1989 and found that one twentieth (5%) of those who first attend an AA meeting are still attending after one year. " Wasn't the consensus that the number was really something like 25%?Desoto10 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, AA's own statistics from 1989 verify this number. It is an old and unsubstantiated AA saying that "50% get sober right away, another 25% eventually make it." Statistical projections done on subsequent long term studies have pinned the percentage of members who remain after 12 months at 5% as well, independently of the 1989 survey. If you'd like, you can read the 1989 survey publication here (http://thearidsite.tripod.com/AACOMMPR.PDF), the relevant graph Is on page 12. 222.154.137.159 (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

First woman in AA

Florence Rankin is not mentioned on page 52 of Kurtz, nor on any other page of the book. In any case, she wasn't the first woman AA member; she was the only female member when the Big Book was written, which is an entirely different thing. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Spr[i]ng[ing]" from Oxford Group

   The cited pg. 129 of My Name is Bill... does not support

AA sprang from The Oxford Group, a non-denominational movement modeled after first-century Christianity.

1. The phrase "sprang from" at least suggests it being a project initiated by members or employees of OG acting formally on behalf of OG, which is clearly not established by that page. Some wording like "was in substantial part inspired by teachings of the OG and of WJ" would avoid any appearance of PoV.
2. The description "a non-denominational movement" is misleading, since OG's leader(s) so particularly addressed CofE followers; something implying more clearly the Anglican (and apparently RC) affinities should replace it if it's relevant enuf to be mentioned at all.
3. The phrase "modeled after first-century Christianity" is something explicitly said by some Christian groups, and treated by most of the others as so obviously their intention as to make it unworthy of explicit mention. (And BTW, following the phrase with "... unlike those heathens who go around calling themselves X'tians" is very close to being implicit in the short phrase. I could give you a decent rendering of -- but not chapter and verse for -- a text that proves Christians avoid creating the occasion for such invidious comparisons being construed, but no doubt any competent bible-thumper can come up with three verses still better supporting the idea.) With an adequate ref, "OG described themselves as trying to model ..." could avoid PoV. But the accompanying article is abt AA, not OG, and TMI should be enuf reason to let those who want to know that much follow the damn links to peripherally related articles, instead of trying to make one article so definitive as to obviate links.

   It wouldn't literally enhance my day to do the rewrite, but feel free to construe this as a threat to do it myself if that's what it takes.
--Jerzy•t 09:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

well page 128 states that "the oxford group made it a point never to interfere with an individuals religious beliefs" so non denominational is covered, page 129 states that the oxford group is "modeled after first-century christianty" and the entire first chunk of the book describes bill wilson as a member of the oxford group, working within it's tenets.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any definition that would equate the phrase "sprang from" as necessarily entailing formal oversight and guidance. (BTW, is there a greater weasel word than "suggests"?) The reasonable reader would conclude that only an immediate antecedent is being asserted - not suggested. The rest of the section details what was the nature of the antecedent, further keeping the reading from reaching erroneous conclusions. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Making a "threat", or any better-do-it-or-else tactic, is antithetical to establishing consensus. The editor should realize that taking an article hostage doesn't work and should withdraw the "think of it as a threat" - or explain better what is meant, and, in any case, should think of better ways to influence others. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   The only "threat" i was making was to make fixes on my own (tho i lack the subject-area expertise to be likely to get fine points right) if there was no one to collaborate with, and my assessment that that was likely seems mistaken. (And i can understand how my sardonicism could be misperceived.)   
Can we discuss further what language would best serve in that 'graph?
--Jerzy•t 07:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: The only "threat" i was making was to make fixes on my own. Glad to see I didn't mistake your intent to turn this mother out if no else did. Re: "language". We have discussed it "further" and the ball is in your court to respond substantively. BTW, this is not a negotiation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your claim was not to rework the language, it was that the sentence wasn't supported by the citation. It is supported by the citation.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

God vs. a god

I changed this because I have never seen any mention of "a god" in any AA literature, just "God". I have never seen the higher power referred to as "a god". The phrase is almost universally, "God, as we understood him". Thus, I changed the bit about Ebby telling Bill about higher powers. If the source says otherwise, then fine, but if not, we should change it.Desoto10 (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Ebby would not use "god". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Spirituality

Currently this section reads:

"A study found a robust association between an increase in attendance to AA meetings with increased spirituality and a decrease in the frequency and intensity of alcohol use over time. The research found the same amount of recovery in both agnostics and atheists"

AKA tried to fix it up but now it sounds like agnostics were compared with athiests, which is not, as I recall, what was studied. I think (although it has been a while since I read the paper) that they found the same associations for (athiests and agnostics) as they did for "others in the study".

Maybe just take out the "both"? I don't know what the authors called the "non-athiests and non-agnostics".Desoto10 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like your more on it than I am. No problem. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Spirituality

Removed unsourced claims such as "recent studies have shown" etc. The sources in the paragraph below only discuss the fact that atheists and agnostics also can benefit from 12 step programs, not the efficacy of the program itself. 50.92.83.246 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What was the reasoning for removing the sentence on the non-affiliation with any religious denomination? It was sourced and seemed relevant.--Sarah.x.g (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If the diff was posted, we could answer to that. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Survey Results section

an extensive critique of the triennial survey keeps being incerted into the article. I have removed this as it offers WP:UNDUE on specific critical surveys and belongs more to the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous article.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing - what I have inserted is not a "critique" but an "enhancement" to the claimed results without removing the existing entry. Here is what I have added:

The 1990 commentary however failed to recognize that the 1983 report claimed to be the first to use scientific statistical sampling techniques. In that year AA finally employed a professional consultant who introduced them to the statistically valid stratified sampling technique. This indicates that any survey results prior to 1983 were unreliable. Though AA had never before 1983 used valid statistical methods they regularly reported high success rates as noted above (Comments on AA’s Triennial Surveys, 1990). It is therefore misleading to evaluate the data of the triennial surveys by placing equal emphasis on the the results from years 1977 through 1982 during which the surveys were not conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The introduction of valid statistical methods have yielded the only reliable data produced by AA beginning in 1983. In 1989, AA reported that on average, after 6 months, 93 percent of new attendees had left the program and that after one year only 5 to 7 percent remained (Comments on AA’s Triennial Surveys, 1990). This must be counted as the short-term success rate of the Alcoholics Anonymous program.

The first large long term, and reliably validated scientific study of alcoholics was conducted over several decades by Dr George Vaillant, MD, a Harvard psychiatrist and noted authority on the disease of alcoholism, and published in his 1996 book, "The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_History_of_Alcoholism_Revisited. Dr. Vaillant, an open proponent of Alcoholics Anonymous, concluded that alcoholics with no treatment of any kind, including AA, recover on average at the rate of 5 to 7 % per year. After years of study of the patterns of alcoholic's behavior he wrote, "there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease." ("The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited",(1996 Harvard University Press:ISBN 0-674-60378-8, page 350).'

All of the above text is documented as you can see and yes it contradicts some of the published analysis referenced in the preexisting text. It is not a critique to state a fact that has been ignored by a meta-analysis. I can however move the last paragraph (or all of it for that matter) to Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous if that is the consensus. I am new to this and am not trying to engage in edit warring.

But what puzzles me more is that my addition to the subtopic Other Criticisms has been removed as it is a simple reference to a magazine article just like one of the other entries. Here is the one:

"*The Council For Secular Humanism's magazine "Free Inquiry" published an article titled "Exposing the Myth of Alcoholics Anonymous", by Steven Mohr (Free Inquiry, April/May 2009 Vol. 29 No. 3) in which the author, a self reported recovered alcoholic, firmly concluded based on his own experience over several years of regular AA meeting attendance including a 28 day stay at a 12 step based rehab and independent research, that the 12 steps are entirely based on the Judeo/Christian concept of God. He points out that the God of AA is a fictitious Higher Power that is the Creator of our universe, a god of intercessory prayer and capable of performing miracles. He goes further and concludes that AA is an evangelical group because the twelfth step calls for recovering alcoholics to have a "Spiritual Awakening" and spread the word of God to others. Finally, Mr. Mohr provides evidence that long term involvement with the 12 step programs may actually be detrimental to recovery because of the nihilistic nature of the 12 step doctrine that teaches recovering alcoholics that they are "powerless over their disease". The entire article can be found at http://stevil-speaks.blogspot.com/?view=flipcard"

What is the point of removing this reference? Stevil-speaks (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mainly, consensus is against it. Not one editor wants it in. When that is the case, it can't be in. Mohr is not an WP:RS, your edit is your essay, and you are not an RS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

But then the second entry under Other Criticisms should be removed as well because the Cain "essay" was published in Harper's magazine which is not a scientifically peer reviewed periodical, if that is the criterion for a WP:RS. I believe that according to the guidelines both are legitimate criticisms, especially in the highly debated context of whether or not AA works. Stevil-speaks (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is the judge of that. See if you can get other editors to agree. I don't. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Intro Rewrite

The intro was rewritten to have it indicate better the body of the article. The intro now touches on the following topics: Oxford Group beginnings formation and development, the program (The 12 Steps and Twelve Traditions), the disease concept of alcoholism, demographic makeup and development, effectiveness, attrition, relationship with institutions, and cultural identity. dsafsdfetrfcdgdfhds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.101.94.136 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

AA in film

I've noticed that Coffeepusher has removed the February 15, 2012 addition I made to the article about a comprehensive documentary film made about William G. Wilson, co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. The film, titled Bill W. was eight years in the making, is feature length, was done with the cooperation of AA, is an official selection at film festivals, and has been covered by credible media. Two links to begin the notability challenge to this addition to get the new information restored or modified for inclusion in the article: http://www.ohio.com/news/movie-crew-shoots-scenes-at-stan-hywet-for-a-a-film-1.200159 and http://2012.thinlinefilmfest.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113%3Abill-w&catid=42%3Acompetition&Itemid=114 Souris40 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see wikipedia's guidelines for film notability. While this film has been produced under hopeful conditions it at this time has not generated the impact necessary for inclusion. Now other editors on this page may disagree and I would welcome their comments.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia's guidelines for film notability pertains to the notability guideline for film-related articles when deciding if a film-related topic can have its own article. We are not debating the creation of a new article about Kevin Hanlon's film; we are talking about "AA in film," and the documentary titled "Bill W." is a documentary film about the co-founder of AA. This feature length documentary film belongs in the article with or without its own article. Souris40 (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded, and keep in mind that notability is established by consensus, not bombast. What reception is there to show notability? A filmfest add falls far short of the mark. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I understood that those guidelines were specifically written in regards to articles. I also understand that most articles use those same guidelines when establishing notability within their film sections. So while it isn't a hard and fast rule, if a film fails by those guidelines then it is up to the submitting editor to convince the other editors why, even though it failed, it has enough notability to be included in the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Information about the film "Bill W." is just starting to appear on the internet. I am including a link as reference point for authors who may work on the future inclusion of "Bill W." in the AA in film section of this article: http://www.page124.com/about/ Souris40 (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The film, "Bill W." is now listed in the Internet Movie Database (IMDb): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2275549/ Souris40 (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

An article in www.freshwatercleveland.com, a weekly e-magazine reporting about topics in the Cleveland area, appears to support the fact that no documentary has ever been made on the life of AA co-founder William Griffith Wilson, and the film "Bill W." is the first one. This information is intended help foster an argument for notability of the film "Bill W." Souris40 (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A comprehensive article was just published about the film Bill W. which provides a lot of details: Documentary tells whole story of Bill W., Beacon Journal, By Rich Heldenfels. Quote from the article: "It works admirably well at portraying Wilson, presenting someone who was far more complicated than some tales have made him, someone who found a marvelous way to help others — but never stopped searching for more."Souris40 (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

well that is promising, but it is a movie review for a local film festival. let's get some national coverage before we revisit this question.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The film has opened in Los Angeles and New York, so I think we are getting close to the point where is will get coverage, and be worthy of inclusion in this article. Here is another source article: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/bill-w-review-co-founder-alcoholics-anonymous-finally-050500469.html Souris40 (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the film Bill W. now has enough notability to be included in the article:

• LA Times Review: "'Bill W.' cuts through the anonymity, The documentary about the co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous is an engrossing success story."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/18/entertainment/la-et-bill-w-capsule-20120518

• Variety Film Review: Bill W.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117947556/

• New York Post Movie Review

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/bill_3W5xU1IOnc6Ya8DanRXNHL

• IndieWire Review: "'Bill W.' Draws You Into The Trials And The Triumphs Of Alcoholics Anonymous"

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/review-bill-w-draws-you-into-the-trials-and-the-triumphs-of-a-a-20120517

So what's the process to get this film put back into the AA in film section? Souris40 (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wording is confusing

The sentence that starts with "The first female member..." at first glance (to me anyway)appears to be somewhat confusing and depending upon how you perceive the information to read, one could say that it is inaccurate. Is this saying that Florence was the first female AND the first non-Protestant member or is the first female and the first non-Protestant member two different people? Tattoodwaitress (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Survey misunderstanding

I reverted a common misinterpretation of AA's triennial surveys. The study derives monthly data only from those in their first year of sobriety. For every 100 people in the first year, 19 were in their first month and 5 were in month 12. This proportion has held about the same for four surveys. (Another study uses more surveys.) What this means is that of those with one year or less sobriety, out of that 19 in their first month 5 of them made it to the 12th month. That is a 26 percent rate.

Also of interest is the three-month number: 10 percent. That means that out of those 19 with one month, 10--more than half--made it to the third month. Of those 10, five will attain one year. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you added "...one quarter (26%) of those who first attend an AA meeting are still attending and abstinent after one year" Where did you find the "abstinent" part? Thanks.Desoto10 (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The surveys survey months of sobriety up until the first year, after that they only measure years of sobriety. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources, it is not at all apparent that the survey reports months of sobriety, and in fact their methodology is confusing. I'll delete the "abstinent" part. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is correct. These surveys seem to be strictly about AA attendance. Thanks,Desoto10 (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)