Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

Test Page

Clean-up

Finally, someone cleaned up this article. It use to be an advertisement for converting. Good Job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.126.200 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

207.194.108.93/Fred Woofy/207.232.97.13/MisterAlbert/MelvilleSitter has made the usual POV pushing edits which I have removed. Apologies if I removed any genuine editors work, please feel free to discuss the changes.

Thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2008 (UTCYou h

You have removed genuine work. You also weaseled the study section which shows POV on you part, all studies or reference to studies are in the effectivenss section where they should be, not pieced mealed throughout the article --207.194.108.93 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)A guy sitting in the library

I have not removed genuine work, you have been banned many times for vandalism. The study section is not POV on my part as I didn't write it. Ironically, it is you, under various sockpuppet accounts, who have been POV pushing on this article for years despite counter arguments from many other editors. You waste our time again and again because of a personal grudge. Absolutely crazy. Mr Miles (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted these edits as I believe they need debate - I believe that putting discussion of AA as a cult under the heading "Religious based" is a misleading and potentially inaccurate interpretation of cult. While AA has religious elements, I would argue that it is not a religious cult, only that it has cultlike elements - the heading should be changed to be more representative.

Secondly, the reference to Vailliant citing Nace is misleading - having checked the source, Valliant does not actually quote Nace directly as I believe this sections suggests - he paraphrases Nace and this citation should be reworded to be more representative of this. The subsequent reference to an earlier work by Vailliant is non specific and I believe it needs to be more detailled (indeed, the two works by Vailliant referred to in this section are but revisions of the same work.) Kipoc (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore my comments above - the edit I was attempting to discuss has been reverted - two POVs exist on the matter obviously. I've left my comments on the page should the topic be revisited again. Kipoc (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments were relevant and would have been useful to a discussion, however User:207.194.108.93 will not enter into a discussion but would rather edit war. Incidentally, he did not write the material contained in the section "Religious based", but has pasted back in material already discussed and removed. Mr Miles (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

.13/.93 and his sockpuppets add a lot of original research to the AA articles and use plenty of unreliable sources, but I do admire his spirit and tenacity. We should be taking a lesson from him. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

this is a wiki and people are encourage to add information, information should not be deleted without a discussion. The only edit war is from the idiot who continues to vandalize others contributions --207.194.108.93 (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)a guy at the library doing research...

P.S. Why was the religious base section eliminated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk • contribs)

There is an obvious dispute at hand here. To prevent a potential edit war, I've protected the page for two weeks or until such a consensus can be achieved. Pushing a specific agenda is not the way to go about it, and after reviewing the edits, you seem to be doing some housecleaning to remove most negativism of AA; that's simply unacceptable.

Discuss it here, reach consensus. And please be more civil with your comments, and refrain from making any more personal attacks against other editors. seicer | talk | contribs 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note the POV pushing in the studies selected to discuss in the AA section and those left out. A review of the Natural History of Alcoholism 1983, and The Natural History of Alcholism 1995 , Vaillant changed his results . "The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited" page 191 Dr. Vaillant clearly stated that he counted dead people as "sober" and that improved the numbers from the 1983 edition. Also those who cateqorized "in stable remission" only needed to be sober for 51 weeks of each year to qualify as "sober for 3 years".

I believe this should be taken into account when reviewing Vaillants work. Also left out of the discussion on the AA page are studies by Alan Marlatt and Brandsma. It skewers the studies into a POV therefore the others should be added for balance or all of them removed and left in the "Effectiveness Section".

This is a wiki and information pertaining to other studies by Alexandeer Rollins etc should be left in. The idea is to provided information and information that is not favourable to AA is constantly being deleted from this page. --MisterAlbert (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC

Vaillant in the Natural History of Alcholism Revisitedp.266

Quote: In a balanced review Nace 1992 has examined some facets of AA that attracts criticism. First because of its idealogical nature members are not encouraged to take a scientific or dissionate approach to the study of its effiacy. Personally based loyalty to the ideology of AA comes into conflict with the empiricism of the research community. Second AA does not hold opinions, individual members like any partisan group can be extremely and erreonously opinionated. Third , AA certainly functions as a cult and indoctrinates its members in ways common to cults the world over. The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited, George E. Vaillant, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995, pages p. 266

--MisterAlbert (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments under Regligious Based (one section up) regarding Vailliant & Nace - the two sections are essentially linked in my opinion and this could be double handling. Kipoc (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is up for discussion:

Also note Vaillants comments concerning treatment of which AA attendance was part of:

After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease. Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling. The Natural History of Alcoholism: Causes, Patterns, and Paths to Recovery, George E. Vaillant, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983, pages 283-285.

the same inforamtion can be found in The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited, George E. Vaillant, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995, pages 349-352.

--MisterAlbert (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Was this a result of a particular study conducted by Vailliant or was it a seperate study by another researcher(s)? Is there further information on it to clarify the reference to death rate, the sample size, what the compelling evidence is? Kipoc (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. This article relies too much on summarizing Vailliant summarizing other research. We should be working with the original studies when possible. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In short Vaillant returned to his original study and altered the results. He included those dead as now in stable remission he also altered criteria for the year abstinence to produce a different result.

My advice is to take a look at this and open it up for discussion.

If you want to quote Vaillant direct Vaillant views AA as a religion and it indocritnates like many religions. This can be found in the Natural History of Alcoholism 1983. It was posted originally but deleted.

--207.194.108.93 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)a guy sitting in the library

A critic by Peele should be added to show more light on the Subject of Vaillants study. "Dr. Vaillant reports that 95 percent of the patients treated at his clinic, where A.A. attendance was compulsory, relapsed following treatment. After two and eight years, they showed no greater progress than comparable groups of untreated alcoholics. In acknowledging this, Dr. Vaillant confronts the dilemma of how to justify his faith in the efficacy of therapy. His resolution is to encourage the therapist not to interfere with the natural healing process."

http://www.peele.net/lib/vaillant.html

--207.194.108.93 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)a guy sitting in the library

Kurtz sees it as containging religious components and specifies what they are, nace sees the cult like eleements, and Vaillant states it is a religion and cites Nace. Rolling and Alexander see it as a cult. Hence there is agreement more or less on this issue. This is a wiki and hence the information should be posted for the readers benefit. Whether AA want to view itself as relgious not spirtual is not a matter of concern for the wiki. --207.194.108.93 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)a guy sitting in the library

Vaillant change the criteria and altered the results

It appears Vaillant changed the criteria and reduced the number of weeks sober without a drink to qualify for a total period of 3 years sober which increased the number that quailified, all one needed was 51 weeks out the 52 without a drink to meet the criteria of three years sobrieity. He appears to have included those people who were no longer alive, who had passed into the stable remission caterqory, thereby increasing the number of people in stable remission. Check out page 191 The Natural History of Alcoholism revisited 1995.

--Fred Woofy (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

sources used for editing, Franicis Hartigan "BillW. , Pittman , Bill "AA the Way it Began" Alcholics Anonymous "Pass It On" , Cheevers, Susan "My Name is Bill.

I would say these sources are credible and have been used by other editors.

POV

Would be the inclusion of a study for special mention such as Project Match which did not study AA, unlike The Brandsma study which did. Vaillant sits on the Board of Trustees of Alcoholics anonymous and giving special reference to his viewpoints certainly is POV.

POV is also reflected in the ommission of vital information and the small details that paint a more complete picture.

It is amazing editors such as Mr. Miles forgot to mention that Wilson was being treated with drugs when he underwent his conversion!!!! -- Fred Woofy (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Fred Woofy

It would be much easier for me to discuss the article with you if you could stick to using one account -- Scarpy (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That, and it would also be useful if the discussionw as not as scattered as it is - I find it very confusing to follow the threads and to understand the links between them. A bit of reflection and synthesis of the debate about changes would be useful. Kipoc (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Separate the two Issues of Religious in Nature and Cult Similarities

AA and its relgious aspects were not only described by Edgar Kurtz in "Not God" but it goes back to the tensions tension between of two original but separate groups of early AA, the cleveland Group which grew out of Akron and New York group. Certainly there is room for discussion in this page of Edgar Kurtz observations drawn from the History of these two groups. Parts of the book can be read online with a search in Google Books."

A separate section can be used to allow for the Alxexander and Rollins study into cult behavior and Dr. Arthur Cains observations and one to discuss the religous based aspects of the program taken from the court documentation and that of Edgar Kurtz.

--MisterAlbert (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Mister Albert

Ernest -- Scarpy (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right, Ernest Kurtz.

However, Edgar Nace's observations could easily be added to the observatons of Alexander and Rollins. --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. If you can confuse Fred, Albert and Melville, I totally see how you could have made a slip here. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious Based section

Below is the text proposed for re-insertion by the multi-account user 13/Melville/Albert/Fred/93. I have added his version to the sandbox Test Page above and suggest we make changes to take in order to find agreement before changing the main page - this worked previously and avoided edit wars.

Dr. Arthur H. Cain, in 1963, examined AA as a religion or cult: it was his view that the term "sobriety" has taken on a religious flavor and thought AA members over-rely on dogmatic slogans and became overly dependent on the group. In 1985 two sociologigists, Alexander and Rollins measured AA against criteria developed by Robert Jay Lifton, in his work on Thought Reform and concluded “AA uses all the methods of brain washing, which are also the methods employed by cults,”George Vaillant, who sits on the Board of Alcoholics Anonymous Trustees, in his book The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited cites Edgar P. Nace ,1992: "AA certainly functions as a cult and systemically indoctrinates its members in ways common to cults the world over " though its negative effects are benign in comparison with other cults he has known.Vaillant in an earlier much eariler written work in 1983 described AA as a relgion.Ernest Kurtz holds alcoholics anonymous contains religious aspects, in that it holds both the pietist belief that salvation is an end to human alienation and the "humanist belief that God appears through people and their activities, these two attitudes have shaped religious in America and appear in Alcholics Anonymous.

Just a reposting of my thoughts on the above section - I believe that putting discussion of AA as a cult under the heading "Religious based" is a misleading and potentially inaccurate interpretation of cult. While AA has religious elements, I would argue that it is not a religious cult, only that it has cultlike elements - the heading should be changed to be more representative. Secondly, the reference to Vailliant citing Nace is misleading - having checked the source, Valliant does not actually quote Nace directly as I believe this sections suggests - he paraphrases Nace and this citation should be reworded to be more representative of this. The subsequent reference to an earlier work by Vailliant is non specific and I believe it needs to be more detailled (indeed, the two works by Vailliant referred to in this section are but revisions of the same work.) Kipoc (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Then the best way to address it is cult like elements in the heading and repost. --207.194.108.93 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)a guy sitting in the library

Issues I have are:

* The section is critical and if it were included would belong in the section allocated to criticism.

* The heading doesn't make sense.

* The section contains two unrelated arguments 1. AA is a cult, 2. AA is a religion. If these points were found to be notable and backed by reliable sources they should be presented in two separate sections.

* The argument that AA is a religion is already covered in the Court Section (Supreme Court found AA is not a religion but has religious components).

* The argument that AA is a cult, falls into the category of conspiracy theory and is unsuitable for an encyclopedia (in that the argument is just not serious enough).

* Alexander and Rollins attempts to apply Lifton's techniques could be applied to many mainstream organizations and render them 'cults' (Wright, K). A&R's work hasn't been read by 13MAF93 either, just appropriated from other sources, so it would need to be verified.

* I agree with Kipoc re Vailliant/Nace.

* The Cheever quote is confusing.

Thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Miles on most points - The suggestion that this section should be put under the criticism section is valid. I believe Mr Miles is correct in his assertion that there are two separate arguments - I'm not entirely convinced that a decision by the court should eliminate a brief section about religion in the criticism section, however I can see that POV. I'd personally have to do my own checking on the veracity of the sources Mr Miles is debating (A&R), but that's an aside.

The only point I disagree on, at least for the moment, is the assertion that the argument that AA is a cult or has cult like elements is a conspiracy theory and not worthy of inclusion. I personally don't think it is however from a NPOV perspective I think that if the section can be written with reference to reliable and appropriate sources, then it should be included. The rejection of it as a conspiracy theory doesn't appear valid to me at present as there seems to be enough sources discussing it... I'm definitely open to spending more time looking closely at those sources and looking for others to determine their reliability and bias (or lack thereof). Kipoc (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is most certainly plenty peer-reviewed literature documenting some specific things about AA that are cult-like, but nothing that says it is a full-blown cult with any kind of scholarly reputation. I could see a enough material for a sub-section like "cult-like practices" under criticism would not be terrible. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would add that I think peer-reviewed literature documenting some specific things about AA that are cult-like would be notable, but do those sources use the term 'cult-like'. A question might be, can something be 'cult-LIKE'? Isn't an organization either a cult or not a cult? AA members are certainly capable of being dogmatic (although that may be argued by some as being necessary, I guess Vaillant does that). Kipoc, your statement that you don't believe AA is a cult but some statements (in the literature/meetings) could be interpreted in as cult-like, I've heard many times and I agree myself (although I'd probably use the term dogmatic or doctrinal for the reason just given), our challenge is perhaps to communicate that without adding fuel to cult-conspiracy theory which Scarpy pointed out has no scholarly basis. Agree, discussion on expanding the religion/spiritual debate. Mr Miles (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but it's really not for us to decide (at least, not on wikipedia). If the reliable sources use the terminology "cult-like" then we cite them as saying so. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how there is a cult conspiracy? Please elaborate on what is a cult conspiracy?

The information I have provided has come from a variety of sources.

The Alexander Rollins research state in their findings they suggest AA is a cult, Vailliant suggests in 1983 it is a relgion and in his book in 1995 cites Nace who states it is like any cult it indocrtinates. The courts state that AA engages in relgious activity and prothelization. Susan Cheevers acknowledges AA is relgious and cites Kurtz. The courts point out AA mentions God 12 times. It is simply gathering information and presenting it. There are enough reliable sources to open up a chapter. Bill Mahers has said all religions are cults. --Fred Woofy (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, my response here is twofold-

1) Being religious, religious activity and utilisation of religious elements does not make an organisation a religion - Schools (religious, state or otherwise) that have religion subjects or utilise religious elements are not a religion... neither is Alcoholics Anonymous. Using this evidence to declare Alcoholics Anonymous a religion is inaccurate and misleading.

2) Bill Maher (assuming you are talking about the comedian and that Mahers was a typo) is most certainly not a valid source in this instance in my opinion - I don't believe that he has NPOV or that he would represent the scholarly source needed to make the connection you are trying to.Kipoc (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bill Maher comment was humor , I am fully aware he is not a reliable source. Alcoholics Anonymous is not a school. It is involved in religious activities as defined by the courts, it engages in prayer, it mentions God , It invokes God {however one defines him} to be active in one's life , to remove character defects and the courts have ruled it is engaged in Proselytism. In fact a more detailed description of religious based as defined by the courts shoul be added under court rulings. --Fred Woofy (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Scouting involves religious activities, engages in prayer, mentions God, and is involved in Proselytism. Is Scouting a religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Picking up on Scarpy's earlier point that it is the reliable sources which decide content and not us, I don't really agree with that. I could, for example, base an article around Wikipedia authorized reliable sources which state AA not only saves all alcoholics but could solve many of the world's problems. Conversely, I could dig up other reliable sources which portray AA as an abusive and parasitic cult. AA is neither of those two opinions, and as editors we do get to choose. To answer 13MAF93's question what do I mean by 'cult conspiracy', I mean an attempt to portray AA as the second of those two opinions when it is clearly not. And I use the term 'conspiracy theory' because, like it or loath it, AA is (effectively) promoted by health authorities and legal systems around the world, no cult ever has been. To suggest AA is a (Jonestown like, or even Scientology like) cult is to mislead the readers of this Wiki.

The real-world AA has it's critics, who make valid points about zealous dogmatic members and overly doctrinal aspects to parts of its literature, in my opinion it is this which should be discussed in the article - as should some counter opinions of the 'alcoholics are deeply troubled and need strict guidance in order to recover' kind. Attempts on this Wiki to promote the AA is a cult POV will just lead to edit wars. What do you all think? Mr Miles (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I never said AA was a school - I was using another example based on your argument - regligious activity, etc does not constitute a religion - that's the point I was trying to get across. Secondly, noone is suggesting that AA is at the level of cults you mentioned, Mr. Miles. AA has religious elements and cult like elements - I think that to some degree that has been accepted even on a simplistic level. If they are considered criticisms as has been suggested, then put them under the criticism section. Just reading through the last two comments from you both, it is obvious (and was before through the edit wars) that there are two completely opposite POVs here being debated and, like it or not, a compromise has to be made. What elements of each others arguments are you both willing to concede have some validity? If we can determine that and decide what can be added (or removed) on that basis then we are at least one step closer. Kipoc (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to re-state my earlier point that there is no such thing as 'cult-like' - an organization is either a cult or it is not. The POV I am opposing is attempting to claim AA is a cult, not that AA has 'cult-like' elements. I don't believe AA is a cult any more that the Boy Scouts is a cult, and yes, that is my POV. Mr Miles (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to buy into the idea that AA is promoted by legal and health professionals around the world, considering the number of court cases in the U.S. around this very issue. I do wish you would provide references , if this is true. In my part of the world I have asked four qualified , licensed, psychologists { two with Masters degress },about their view on alcholism and the disease theory. Well all four were in consensus, they view alcohol usuage as a choice.

The purpose of the Wiki is to provide information, not to restrict it, Do I hold with Alexander Rollins that AA is a cult, no, but I do hold with the idea it has a number of characteristics of a cult or relgion in that it indoctrinates. Yes I do. That is the point being made by Vaillant and Nace, it indoctrinates. So I suggest rather than approaching it as a cult. The article should contain some inforamtion regarding the "Indoctrination process". --Fred Woofy (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC) --Fred Woofy (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen a editor advocating a prevalence of AA promotion among professionals. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor Mr. Miles, scroll on up and you will read this:

"And I use the term 'conspiracy theory' because, like it or loath it, AA is (effectively) promoted by health authorities and legal systems around the world, no cult ever has been. " --207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I disagree with Miles. You could not dig up enough reliable sources to write articles concluding that AA will solve the worlds problems or that it is a parasitic cult. I don't know the percentage of professionals that are "advocates" but I'd imagine the statistics are similar to self-help groups. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The study section needs a revision. First off equal mention should be given to Brandsma et al, as well as Marlatt {disease theory} A revision of that section that outlines some of the other study findings in short sentence form rather than only a special mention of Vaillant and the controversial study called Project Match. --Fred Woofy (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's like pure energy. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

...or pure chaos :)

"I find it hard to buy into the idea that AA is promoted by legal and health professionals around the world, considering the number of court cases in the U.S. around this very issue." The court cases exist because in the US individuals ARE mandated to attend AA meetings, the court mandating process is an (effective) promotion of AA. AA receives 11% of its membership by this promotion by the courts. The same is true of the medical profession which regularly 'perscribes' AA attendance. What other cult receives membership in this way? Mr Miles (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Miles..United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on this issue in September 2007, and clearly stated that a parol officer could be sued to ordering attendance at AA meetings, The survey you are citing from AA was undertaken in the year of 2004. I have added the above information to the section "Court Rulings" to avoid further confusion. --207.194.108.93 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

13MAF93, in the US, AA receives 11% of its membership by promotion by the courts, the 2007 case will not change that. Actually the 2007 finding reiterates the earlier Warner v Orange County case which stated that AA programme was 'famously successful'. So, as I said, the US legal system activly promotes AA, which it is unlikely to do if AA were a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs) 12:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Worldview Template

I need some rationale behind why this template was added, or I'm going to remove it. -- Scarpy (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the tag further down the page. Demographics and the two sections that follow it are all US based, without any similar details for other parts of the world.--Dmol (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've changed 'upheld the earlier decision and went a step further stating' to 'stated', to make it more concise and because the line reads like a lay person giving an analysis of the legal consequences of that decision - unless a quote from a lawyer explaining the consequences can be found, let's leave opinion to the experts.

I've changed instances of 'religious spiritual' to 'spiritual', as it reads better, the two terms are interchangable in this context and as already discussed the AA program contains religious elements, rather than being a religion.

I've added the words 'what he believed to be' in front of Bill W's spiritual experience, because as User 13MAF93 spotted, it wasn't NPOV before.

I've removed the extended piece about the Belladonna treatment from the (supposedly) concise version of the history, that is a minor detail, already covered in the main History article, why does it need to be here?

Please be careful not to add unnecessary spaces all the time, else the article will look a mess.

- Mr Miles (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that two AA historians, Pittman in " AA the Way it Began " who went into great depth on Wilson and this cure, and much of the same information was given by Robert Thompson "Bill W", makes it important. Your continued harrassement of editors by deleting their contributions to make this article fit to your POV has given rise to a number of edit wars Mr. Miles. I have added it back. The fact Seicer had left it intact when he locked down the page and that is good enough for me. --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the above post, that line is a minor detail in the whole AA history, it may be notable to the full history but is given undue weight here. I'm changing your revert back to my edit for that reason. I'll ask again, why do you think this line is so significant that 5% of the whole history needs to be dedicated to it? Mr Miles (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In the past You have deleted the entire study section leaving only two studies intact , those Pro to AA attendance, a separate page had to be created to contain the information , otherwise they would have been lost to the wiki. Your POV has been constant through the continued ongoing deletion of other editors contributions. You have been cited by Seicer for this, yet you continue to do so. The fact is a number of AA historians have made it clear {Pittman, Thompson, Cheever} made that Wilson was treated The Bella Donna cure , when he had his spirtual awakening. Pittman went into incredible detail and research on this point and it warranted a number of pages in his book. Wilson, himself, stated he was given the Belladonna cure, Check out Alcholics Anonymous 1984 Pass It on.

This is the Wiki, this is the place for facts. This fact has appeared again and again in AA history. To state he went to the hospital, what hospital, Towns hospital. Towns hospitqal is significant in each and every AA historians account of AA history, yet to continue to delete.

It appears you are on the Wiki to sell AA, and you do it by trying to control and restrict what other editors can and cannot post here. You have been called on this by Seicre once when he locked down the page. --MisterAlbert (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll restate what I've said before, that line is a minor detail in the whole AA history, it may be notable to the main history article but is given undue weight here. I'm changing your revert back to my edit for that reason and remind you of the 3R rule. I'll ask once again, why do you think this line is so significant that 5% of the concise history needs to be dedicated to it? Mr Miles (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, let's get some perspective here - The edit warring has taken off in force once again since the page went unprotected. I'm going to break down the most recent edits into sections - can you both just give one considered response to what I'm saying and we'll see if there can just be a consensus? Items in bold were added by Mr Albert and reverted by Mr. Miles and are essentially what we're dicussing. Please try and keep your feedback limited to those specifics.

• Wilson was treated at Charles B. Towns hospital

- To me, this edit seems fine. The information added is minor but provides detail.

• Silkworths care, It was under Silkworths care that Wilson was administered the The Belladonna Cure which induces hallucinations.

- I think this edit may be useful but it needs to be trimmed. As it stands, it potentially misleads the reader into linking hallucinations with the spiritual awakening mentioned in the next line. If it is to be kept within the article, I suggest it should read "During his stay in hospital, Wilson was administered the Belladonna cure by Silkworth." Leave out references to hallucinations, etc. as such descriptions are irrelevent here but there administration of the cure may not be. When you look at the trimmed down version I've suggested though... is it really necessary? Personally, I'd say absolutely not - it has no bearing on the topic imo - but if it does have to be in the article, that's my suggested phrasing.

• He laid claim to a spiritual experience versus While in the hospital, Wilson underwent what he believed to be

- Arguing over semantics here in my opinion - both suggest it's his own personal belief and noone elses. While in the hospital gives location but that's about it for this edit.

• and Smith also found sobriety through the Oxford group religious practices and spiritual means

- According to referenced links in wikipedia (and thats as far as I've personally gone here), the bolded section appears more or less correct. To remove some of what the controversy appears to be, my suggestion would be to make the line "and Smith also found sobriety through spiritual means including Oxford Group practices."

Feedback please? Kipoc (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job checking the references. I made changes as per Kipocs suggestion. Dropped the hallucinations. Pittman elaborates on that. Added in utilizing the Oxford group practices. Smith was very involved with the Oxford group. --Fred Woofy (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Pittman did careful research on this, he even gave the weather conditions on the day Wilson re-admitted himself for the fourth time. It was while under the influence of the Belladonna , Wilson had his spiritual awakening, yes it does matter. Robert Thompson in his book "Biill W" goes to some to great length discussing this very issue.

Saying that Me, you or anyone went to a hospital and had a spiritual awakening, and failing to report that me, you or anyone had been administered over a 50 hour period a drug cocktail containing deliriants , is sidestepping the issue. Aldous Huxley had spiritual experiences, he had them in California, can you imagine wiking that information and leaving out the fact his experiences were induced by LSD!

Did you ever wonder why Wilson would embrace a drug , such as LSD. so enthusiatically, to even promote it and encourage other AA members to take it. He obviously had an accptance of drugs as a means of ehancing a spiritual experience. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We all agree what you're saying is true. But let's be adults, as interesting as the "OMG! BILL WILSON TOTALLY TOOK LSD AND WAS ON BELLDONNA WHEN HE HAD HIS SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE" stuff is, it's pretty old-hat now; if it's relevant anywhere it's in the History of Alcoholics Anonymous article, not in this one. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, lets be adults "CraigAlbert/Scarpy", it is relevant, you are speaking of the founder of AA, who laid claim he underwent a spirtual awakening ,

the experience went much like this: All at once I found myself crying out, "If there is a God, let Him show himself! I am ready to do anything, anything!" Suddenly the room lit up with a great white light. I was caught up in an ecstasy which there are no words to describe. It seemed to me in my mind's eye, that I was on a mountain and that a wind not of air but of spirit was blowing. And then it burst upon me that I was a free man. Slowly the ecstasy subsided. I lay there on the bed, but now for a time I was in another world, a new world of consciousness... and I thought to myself, "So this is the God of the preachers!" A great peace stole over me... Alcoholics Anonymous Comes Of Age (1957), William G. Wilson, page 63.

According to Pittman this experience took place on the second or third day of his drug treatment., Wilson himself describes he suffered delirium tremens.

Why do you object so? You would think in the interest of a good wiki you would be horrified that Miles deleted the entire study section, but not so. You did little to balance the study section, WHERE MILES deleted all the studies but the two that favored AA. A new page perserving the study section had to be added by another person. All you did was change the name to make it the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous from Effectiveness of Twelve Steps and then add later how poorly written it was all the while allowing POV to remain unchallenged on this very page. It took a review by Seicer to realize you were blocking information.

And now this, more facts are added and you object again. Do you have a problem with facts, after all it is only one line and it is true and factual. So let it stay, BE AN ADULT. --Fred Woofy (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Miles deleted copyrighted material that you keep reposting. I've done nothing to "balance" the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous, as I haven't really edited it. I did suggest correcting the title as nearly all of the content was AA-specific (most twelve-step groups are not even for any kind of substance abuse recovery), an admin agreed with me and changed it.

Just because something is a fact doesn't mean it belongs in this article. Things about the History of Alcoholics Anonymous should be in the article about the History of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Everytime I read any of the AA-related articles, they strike me as horrible embarrassments to wikipedia. But, working on any of the AA articles is like hearding cats and I rarely have the patience for it. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the last sentiment. I can't say anything more really and to be honest I don't think I can do more to try and gain consensus at this stage. Kipoc (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you two joined in, you seem to have got my point that I think the Belladonna line IS notable to the main history article but is given undue weight in the concise history of this article. With regard to consensus, Kipoc's suggestion has my vote too, so I guess we're all in agreement. Happy days. 82.35.59.169 (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)