Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

Gap in history section

If anyone gets a chance to fill it, there is a 4-year gap between "A new program for recovery" and "The "Big Book" sections—about the break from the Oxford group and early recovery meetings. — DavidMack 16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to plug the gap, rather hasty, but we can build on it. Mr Miles 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Created New Archive and Reminder

I have create a third archive page per 3O recommendation. I have also added {{calm talk}} and {{Off topic warning}} templates to the beginning of the article. I believe it is important that we all follow WP:FORUM and WP:TALK guidelines on the talk page as distractions and heated discussion will prevent us from doing useful work on the article. Looking through the talk pages archives I see a lot of discussion not about the article, rather about pro- and anti-AA debate. This talk page is not the place for that. Lets do are best to keep things on topic. If there are disagreements among editors, they maybe more appropriately addressed in the editor's talk pages or through a request for comment and/or arbitration. — Craigtalbert 16:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi craig. Strange use of the archiveing facility (to remove comments one does not like....). I suggest we do it when debates are fully "thrashed out" and the page is getting full. Seems to be the norm, but I can't find any wiki guidance on this. 82.19.66.37 15:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said archiving was recommended in response to the request for a third opinion. I generally agree with you that talk pages should be archived when discussion is "thrashed out." But we also need to keep with WP:TALK and not let discussion on the talk page devolve in to personal attacks against other editors, and to prevent it from being used like a forum, which I believe it was. Either way, I will stop removing comments I think are disruptive and will either refactor them or use them as evidence against editors that are generally off topic, disruptive, and uncivil. I would also advise editors who feel that they are being attacked, treated uncivilly, or provoked, not to feed the trolls. Those of you who edit anonymously should consider the benefits of having a username. Now, lets get back to making this a good encyclopedic article on Alcoholics Anonymous. — Craigtalbert 22:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Accusations of Cult Practice" section

User 82.19.66.37, thanks for the material. Do you think you could add some pros to your cons to create a Neutral point of view? — DavidMack 20:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Will look into it. Reliable sources are more difficult to find stating the opposite, but I will do google "AA not a cult" and see what I can come up with. 213.235.24.138 08:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

??? I don't understand your apparent sarcasm. Neutrality is a core policy. Both sides of an issue need to be represented. — DavidMack 04:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended at all. I genuinely meant that to sound genuine. I will state that I am somewhat limited in the research that I can do - restricted to the WWW really. Took me ages to get reliable info on AA being a cult (you should see the amount of people who say it is - loads - not many of them reliable. Trying to find anyone who says the opposite, especially when AA as an organisation won't answer the question, is more difficult. Actually, I know that Rick Ross is a well known cult expert who doesn't view AA as a cult. Will trawl his (massive) site when I have a bit of time.

As a side point, I did mean to put the cult bit in a criticism section, which would obviously put the emphasis on criticising AA. If we have to have complete neutrality in that section, then it may mean that we have to provide alternative POVs on other sections (such as the disease bit..) How do people feel about this? 213.235.24.138 08:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is entitled "Criticism and controversy", and every entry needs to have a neutral point of view, e.g. "AA has been criticized for this ..." (with reference), however "AA or other researchers say this ..." (with reference). — DavidMack 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the archive for this discussion (I think it's useful to check occasionally in case we find ourselves reinventing the wheel), DavidMack wrote: "I removed the link to "Cult Busting by Schaler". It is an academically-framed piece of very poor quality. For example, the author visited an AA meeting and claims that the angry refusal of members to consider moderated drinking is evidence that AA is a cult." I read the Schaler article from the in the article and think the same - have removed that part of the 'cult' section. This section of the AA article needs to be very carefully written to avoid POV. It's not successful at the moment. Mr Miles 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, David schaler PhD is a professor at The American University in DC, the recipiant of “The 1999 Thomas S. Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties” and author of several books. On what basis are you criticising the author? Presumably not on grounds of lack of qualifications?

That artcile was published in PsychNews, a prominent online resource, widely used by mental health professionals. Sorry if you don't like what it says, but it is a fairly respected resource. Until you can find some good quality PUBLSIHED criticism of the author and what he has said (and that would be on grounds of academic prominence, not disagreement with his opinions) then I think it should stay. Step13thirteen 15:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did originally remove the link to that article. I do still believe it's poor quality, but if someone wants to include in the text with citations then so be it. We just need to balance out the "Cult" section with some pros and cons. — DavidMack 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I do actually agree with that last point. I honestly can't find anything. The only place I could find a "recognised authority" on cults stating that he didn't believe AA was was on Rick Ross's forum, and that was him arguing with Orange et al. Not sure that qualifies as a proper "source"? 82.19.66.37 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ill be adding material within a month if no one else does. — DavidMack 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention Schaler's qualifications, just agreed that his writing was of low quality. I have rewritten the Schaler part adding in his actual conclusion from the link supplied rather than Agent Orange's interpretation that was copied from OP. Mr Miles 23:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs).

I copied nothing from OP. I personally summarised the information from the Schaler article, which uses a number of secondary sources itself. Step13thirteen 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

re latest change, the conclusion does not make any sense without the rest of the article summarized within it. This information are some of the headings from the rest of the article, and are categorically not POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.19.66.37 (talk)

Schaler's states that his essay is a "commentary based principally on the his personal (rather than clinical) experiences". That's POV then, no? I've adjusted the paragraph to include these points and retained your parenthesis. This section needs attention as it is very POV. Mr Miles 22:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made a stab at a balancing intro to this section. Based on Mitchell K's intelligent comment on AA as a religion. Mr Miles 22:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please site your sources. Step13thirteen 11:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Schaler states that his essay is a "commentary based principally on the his personal (rather than clinical) experiences". Unless an editor can explain why this man's personal experience should be included in an encyclopedia, we should remove it. Mr Miles 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that his essay sites other sources and is published on an established online journal about psychology? Seriously, I don't mind Mitchell Ks stuff being there, just would like a source sited. I think it should perhaps come below the other text, as well? Step13thirteen

Dr. George Valliant

Someone has edited the section I added on Dr. George Valliant. They have added a lot superfluous information and they have deleted the most important which was the study's success rate. As such I have changed back the section to what it was originally. Considering it is the only known study of AA's success rate conducted by AA I think it should stay as I have put it. The section is now under the heading of "AA's success rate" as it originally was. I would ask kindly that it not be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.106.114 (talk • contribs).

User 69.158.106.114, I have removed your recent changes. I'm not sure which material you originally added on Vaillant, but this article may have evolved a bit since then. Your cited source was not the book itself, but a selective interpretation of the material from an unreliable source. Especially in a controversial topic like this one, please add material only from reliable sources — academic papers, etc. Thanks. — DavidMack 04:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there 69.158.106.114. If you want a "reliable source" (wiki definition) which may provide some balance to the Valliant contribution, look at http://www.peele.net/lib/vaillant.html which is a review by Dr Stanton Peele of the book. Dr Peele is a well known critic of AA and one of the foremost experts on addiction treatment in the world. 213.235.24.138 08:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The study done by Dr George Valliant has been documented by many sources and is readily available by AA Intergroup in New York. I was the person who first added the section on Dr George Valliant. I have also seen the study with my own eyes. As such I am returning the section as I originally posted it. As another user here has stated Dr. Peele has also documented this study and is another reliable source. With three sources I would ask you not to change it. The specific numbers are found in A.A.'s Triennial Surveys, New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services,

Right now the article contains the original material on Vaillant (the first paragraph, which begins with "Dr. George Valliant is a board member...") and the material that has been added over the last few months. The first paragraph has some gaps. It says "He compiled 40 years of clinical studies..." but does not say what those studies concluded and does not give a reference to a reliable source. The paragraph also states "95% of alcoholics who reach AA fail to stay sober", also without a reference to Vaillant's book or to a reliable source. Orange Papers is not a reliable source — it's a personal website. To improve this article, we need references to sources, otherwise the material can't be left there. It's not enough to say you've seen the study with your own eyes, you have to read the material — all of it, not just the pages that Agent Orange gets upset about, and preferably the more recent edition. Then you can say where your material comes from. If there is relevant and reliable Peele material, then put in a sentence about what Peele says, with a reference. For better or for worse, Wikipedia does not care how many people have written personal blogs about AA, it only cares what is written in reliable sources. — DavidMack 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

David I have referenced the exact AA material that states the 95% failure rate. AA's own material should qualify as a credible source. I have also attempted to balance the article a little more. Valliant makes conclusions that are totally at odds with his own research. I think it is important to state this. John --74.100.143.100 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is still a citation needed. The AA material is not the same as Vaillant's study. Also, Agent Orange says that 95% of people coming to AA are gone within a year. That means that if someone goes to an AA meeting and decides not to continue, or decides they don't need AA, Agent Orange claims a "failure". Can you see how Orange might be a wee bit biased, and maybe not the best source of material? Imagine saying "95% of people going to gyms are gone within a year, therefore exercise is not healthy." — DavidMack 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(some off topic - revert if you must...) I like that gym analogy. I genuinely think you should write to orange with that specific question. So many AA's write to him with pure abuse, barely attempting to read, let alone analyse, what he has said. Would be interested to hear his response to that. However, having read the Orange analysis (and, admitedly, not the original...), it seems that Valliant does indeed state that AA had "completely failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism". I do think this warrants inclusion in the article. Unfortunately, I have never read the study, which (by wiki guidelines) prohibits me from quoting from a secondary source (unless that source is "reliable"...). But if anyone can dig out the original.... 82.19.66.37 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the references. I will read the material you referenced, if I can find it. Out of curiosity, did you read the material, or did you rely on Agent Orange's interpretations? — DavidMack 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The AA material I referenced is a commentary on Valliant's study, it specifically stated Valliant's figure of 5% success rate. I have read the material I referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.115.215 (talk • contribs).

After a bit of hunting, I finally found a copy of the document "Comments on A.A.'s Triennial Surveys" (1990) at The Arid Site (PDF here, 2 MB). There is no mention of Vaillant in it, so please remove the reference. Did you make a mistake, or were you being dishonest? — DavidMack 22:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Vaillant conducted the 1989 survey and the compilations of the other surveys that the pamphlet refers to (see figure C-1), despite the fact there is no mention of his name. Vaillant is an AA board member. Perhaps a call to Vaillant or AA General Service Office in New York would clarify things. I will make the call when I return from vacation. I will leave the reference for now until I can confirm it. I resent the question about lying. Thank you for the link to the pamphlet. Andy--74.100.143.100 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. sorry. — DavidMack 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have removed the fictitious reference, since Vaillant's work on his test population are completely separate from AA internal surveys. I am doing some more close reading of Vaillant and hope to make some improvements to this section eventually. — DavidMack 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

News flash on Vaillant

People may like to know that Vaillant's 400+ page book Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited, actually has a summary chapter at the end that references the key graphs and data. So you can understand the book without having to slave over it for a month and without having to take Agent Orange's word for it! I'll be adding and clarifying Vaillant material as time goes on. — DavidMack 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's great, it will be valuable to the NPOV of the article to have an independent overview of Vaillant's research/conclusions, rather that AOrange's selects. Why, for example, does Vaillant state effacacy of 5% yet still supports AA strongly? Also what was the nature of the study group that returned the 95% relapse rate - were they just AA attendees or were they addicts who progressed through and completed all 12 steps of the AA program? Mr Miles 16:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Vaillant was reporting the disappointing results from his clinic in The Natural History of Alcoholism: 95% of his tracked patients relapsed at least once during the 8 years after treatment. By reporting this result he was using very stringent criteria by reporting improved drinkers as failures; i.e. he was being both honest and tough on himself. Research studies usually pay attention to how many drinkers improve, but the point of this closing chapter was to face the hard fact that clinical treament for alcoholism helps, but doesn't cure. The study was of his "multi-modal" clinic -- hospital, detox, AA follow-up, and more -- so the results were not really applicable to AA alone. He cites other studies that suggest that this failure rate is typical of clinical treatment for alcoholism. (See also the statement in Newsweek: "A year after completing a rehab program, about a third of alcoholics are sober, an additional 40 percent are substantially improved but still drink heavily on occasion, and a quarter have completely relapsed." -- and this was after only one year.) In other words, there still is no "cure". This leads to a discussion of what can we do to help? There is a ton of discussion and many tables in the book on AA and what it did and didn't do for people, it's just that AOrange et al. like to focus on the negative results. Anyway, I believe most anti-Vaillant entries are from people who have not read the material, and I'm continuing my reading. — DavidMack 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that a study that shows that alcoholics anonymous, an abstinance based programm, "works" would not consider people who were not abstaining to be successes. Very "honest" of Vailliant... Haven't read it, and have no intention of doing so, but will add some of the peele comments on it, when I get the time. 82.19.66.37 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think if you read the book you'd likely agree that Vaillant's analysis is objective, transparent, and fair. How come you'd rather trust Peele than read the actual book? — DavidMack 00:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, not that I would rather trust peele than the book, but more that I can't be bothered to hunt it down and then read it. My own statisical analysis abilities are somewhat limited, and my understanding is that some of it is extremely heavy on the stats. Secondly, I have read enough about it to have a reasonable understanding of the conclusions (here, OP and Peeles, surprisingly neutral, critique). I guess it just comes down to time and energy. And I don't doubt the honesty of the study, I just don't think that is something that should be overly commended. If you're doing an academic study, you really should go in with open eyes. If it prooves your hypothesis wrong, then so be it. If it prooves it half wrong, then that is what you should report. I guess I was being a tad sarcastic. 82.19.66.37 19:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Well, not that I would rather trust peele than the book, but more that I can't be bothered to hunt it down and then read it". Well, no problem then as Davidmack has taken the time and trouble to obtain the book and read it. We can add his none-partisan overview of the Vaillant research and remove the biased content from OP/Peele. Mr Miles 21:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs).

== Is AA considered a Religion == A friend made a comment that he felt AA is a religion of some kind. Any comments

• AA has been defined as a religion by the US supreme court. This is

alluded to in the coercive section of the "controversy" part of the article. Personally, I think it should be a section of its own. What does anyone else think? Should be easy to reference from both sides... Step13thirteen 08:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should get the religion/non-religion issue in. It was

attempted in the past, but degenerated into an edit war. However this article is getting more balanced as time passes. I can get to it within a month, unless anyone else can do it sooner. — DavidMack 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC) The courts have stated that AA is religious in nature and not in and of iteself a religion. People should also be specific as to whether or not they are talking about AA the Fellowship, AA the Program of Recovery (as outlined in the AA "Big Book,") or AA the business entity and incorporated boards and publishing company. There are different "AA's" out there and should not be viewed as one entity or practice. As to the so-called cult question - Many AA members do exhibit cult-like behaviors and attitudes but reviewing the literature, Traditions and other practices, the Fellowship and practice of the way of life as outlined in AA's "Big Book" does not meet the cult criteria. Putting all of AA's various practices, literature, members and other distinctly different aspects can be dangerous and misleading (unless that is the intended agenda). There are cultural, geographical, ethnic, social and a myriad of other differences which can be found in AA members and practices globally and AA itself cannot be characterized as a single entity or practice. Again, depending upon one's agenda that is very misleading. (PS - I too like the gym analogy).... Mitchell K.

Assuming that all of the various elements of the AA "movement" cited above include the mandate to surrender oneself to a supreme being and deny that one has any control over one's own addiction (and arguably, by extension, one's own life), yeah, a cultic analogy is a fair one. 209.77.79.7 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

New Thought and the Emmanuel Movement

Are there any objections to the information added to this article? Links to sources have been included.24.168.224.213 18:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

Fine material, but I believe it is irrelevant to AA and should be removed. — DavidMack 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing that specific bit (perhaps the author might like to make a specific page about that organisation?), but I do think an overall picture of temperance movements should be included in the history section is to include a "pre-AA understanding of alcoholism" section. Know nothing about them, myself, except that they existed. Step13thirteen 12:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So that there should be no objections,the material that was recently deleted now includes sources which directly link the Emmanuel Movement with the development of AA.24.31.114.168 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The material found at the website God, Drugs, and Hope states: "It is important to note three of the highly influential lay therapists for alcoholics in the United States, Courtenay Baylor, Richard Peabody and Samuel Crocker were all products of the Emmanuel Movement. All three individuals were involved in or influenced the development of Alcoholics Anonymous in the early 20thcentury and the innovative accompanying 12-steps program." Including this information provides a clear and more accurate account of the development of the AA program and the influence of spiritual based counseling in the United States.24.31.114.168 11:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This material is, at best, peripheral to Alcoholics Anonymous. no direct correlation is established between the advent of AA and New Thought's influence. The source seems a bit weak. The information is in none of AA's extensive history books, as far as I am aware. Seriously, it's not that I don't like the work, it is just that it doesn't belong here. There are several other temperamence groups that could be mentioned here, with roots going to the mid-1800's. I would have no problem with New Thought and the emmanuel movement being mentioned with the others, and if a more direct link could be established between the two then this would be good information to put in (with more emphasis on said influence, rather than an emphasis on background of New Thought.

I hope those are helpful suggestions? Step13thirteen

In the opening paragraph regarding "Pre-AA understanding of alcoholism", mention is made of Richard Peabody, who along with Elwood Worcester, Courtenay Baylor, and Samuel Crocker were involved in the Emmanuel Movement. The link to Peabody and AA is established in the following statement: "A little known book, however, by Richard Peabody titled "The Common Sense of Drinking" first proffered the alcoholic could "train his mind" so that he would no longer want to drink. (It was this book where the phrase "halfway measures are of no avail" originally appeared, and Bill Wilson borrowed from it heavily in composing Alcoholics Anonymous.)" To disregard the roots of the Emmanuel Movement seems to be indicative of suppression. Perhaps you should investigate why this information causes you so much distress.24.31.114.168 15:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Because this is an article about AA, not the Emmanuel movement. — DavidMack 22:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This may be worth investigating:

Dubiel, R. M. (2004) The Road to Fellowship: The Role of the Emmanuel Movement and the Jacoby Club in the Development of Alcoholics Anonymous. New York: iUniverse. 191 pp.

Sample pages at http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=059530740X

-- Hipgnostic 03:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely in favour of including all the fringe influences (for example, Moral Re-Armament and the Emmanuel Movement). For amateur historians, these provide excellent links ("rabbit holes") to other sources. There's no space limit in Wikipedia, and we're free to indulge ourselves with endless threads on a topic. That's the big bonus of Wikipedia over other search tools - it goes on and on (as long as contributors don't intentionally cut it short). Hoserjoe 05:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"The length of a given Wikipedia entry tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long entries would cause problems. So we must move information out of entries periodically. This information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new entries to hold the excised information." From Wikipedia:Summary style

I am totally in favour of having a fairly detailed (1 paragraph?) section on the Oxford Group, as countless AA texts and other sources make clear the evolution from one to the other. The Emmanuel Movement is not a so well documented link. I would not be that bothered if it were not mentioned at all, but would go with the flow on a brief allusion, as featured in the article right now. 82.19.66.37 12:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Peele and Project Match

As Peele is a well known authority who has written much about many of the various facets of AA, I don't see any reason why we should restrict his opinions to just the disease section. If an important expert has doubts about the scientific validity of a study such as MATCH, surely this is worth mentioning? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Step13thirteen (talk • contribs).

It would be good to make a factual statement about what Peele actually said about MATCH, instead of saying what an important guy he is and how political MATCH was etc. — DavidMack 15:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"The study has been criticised by renowned addiction expert and vocal AA critic Dr Stanton Peele as unscientific and politically motivated. Dr Peele stated that the outcomes of the study were at odds with abstinence based programs, as Project MATCH defined a "successful outcome" as a reduction (as opposed to cesation) of alcohol use." Thats what he said. Thats what was in the article. Someone removed it. Wasn't sure why. Thought they might like to discuss it here. Step13thirteen 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments and questions would be:

• Remove the word "renowned". An expert is an expert. Stay neutral.
• MATCH's objective was to compare different treatments, so how is their definition of improvement relevant to this article?
• Peele commented that there was no control group, and hence no basis for stating that "treatment works." This sounds valid, so that's likely why the article does not say that MATCH proved that AA works.
• Rather than stating Peele's accusations of political motives, maybe just stick to the actual scientific issues that Peele brought up. That might be more relevant, and neutral.
• Perhaps there are comments by Peele on MATCH that are more relevant to the AA article.

— DavidMack 01:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with the "renouned" thing - will remove that shortly

• Not sure what your second point was about. If it was related to the abstinance thing, then surely this is relevant? Match is included in this article to show the success rate of AA (whether that be that it shows that AA works or that it doesn't...). If it actually shows the successes as something different to the AA definition of a "success" (as mentioned earlier in the article with "AA teaches that an alcoholic, in order to recover, should abstain completely from alcohol on a daily basis") then this should be highlighted in regards to the validity of the study as a proper measure of AA success?

• I don't know about the political motives thing. I actually really like that, but admit that this may be personal bias. I can't see any specific reason why not, as it is a sourced statement, but would be "ok" with it being removed. I'll leave that one to others...

• I'd be more than happy for you to find comments by peele on Match that you think are more relevant. I simply looked at the article where he discussed it and added in some of his criticisms. 82.19.66.37 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of Peele was already discussed and consensus decided that he should be given one mention (in the section on Disease Theory). Why include more of his opinion? Are we going to give Stanton Peele's opinion on every aspect of Alcoholics Anonymous? Mr Miles 21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Peele is one of the most prominent academics discussing AA. His work covers many aspects of AA, so it is useful to give his opinion in order to achieve NPOV. Consensus is where everybody agrees. We clearly do not have "consensus" about this. 82.19.66.37 13:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• NB, info on wiki concensus from the relevant policy page "A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." 82.19.66.37 15:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus means general agreement often through compromise, not total agreement. The discussion around Peele was between those that wanted lots of links to his website (you) and those that didn't want him mentioned at all (me), we compromised around the general feeling of the other editors that for balance he should be mentioned only once as he is a maverick whos views do not generally represent those of the academic community. Looking at the quote from Wiki; "A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." This article hasn't gained "wider attention", and you were in the original group debating the inclusion of Peele. What has actually happened is the original group have visited the page less frequently of late and you have reneged on the spirit of the original decision and taken every opportunity to add links Stanton Peele because it fits your none-neutral POV. On who's authority is Stanton Peele regarded as "one of the most prominent academics discussing AA"? Mr Miles 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs).

More from wiki consensus policy: "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group making a decision does so on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. If the community disagrees, the decision was badly founded, or views change, then the updated consensus replaces the old one."

The discussion was around wanting a link to his website in the external links section. I never formally agreed, simply was threatened with banning if I continued an edit war, despite the fact that I was "in the right" re wiki policy on external links. This is very far from even your (rather skewed) understanding of consensus (trust me as someone who has worked a lot in groups that use consensus based decision making). I was "shut up" because none of you would agree to any "anti-AA" link, and because I couldn't be bothered to continue with a distracting edit war. Well done, you won that one - very true to the principles of wiki.

This is a completely new issue. Somebody suggested that we incorporate material from Peeles site into the article. Clearly you don't like this material. It certainly gives people a greater understanding of some of the problems with Project MATCH. This IS NPOV - giving both sides of the story. Please don't claim to be perfectly in the middle on this issue. It insults my intelligence.

"Dr. Peele's work has influenced my professional work and changed my personal life for the better." —Anne M. Fletcher, MS, RD, LD. Author, Sober for Good

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1053972711.html on peele 'Stanton Peele is a leading figure in the field of alcoholism and addiction. He is the author of, among other works, "Love and Addiction," "The Meaning of Addiction," "Diseasing of America," and "The Truth About Addiction and Recovery." Dr. Peele has received the Mark Keller Award from the Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies and the Drug Policy Foundation.'

Also look at this review page on stantons site, which has reviews of his book "diseasing of america", about 12 step issues from other prominent academics http://www.peele.net/bookstore/diseasing.html

I'm sure I could find more with 5 minutes research. Step13thirteen 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As we previously discussed - "For balance he should be mentioned only once as he is a maverick who's views do not generally represent those of the academic community". Listing a few names and quotes from Peele's own website don't alter the fact that Peele's opinion is minority - and he is also conflict of interest (he promotes his own recovery programme).

Showing both sides of the story is useful for NPOV, which is why the inclusion of Dr. Mark Willenbring's counter viewpoint balances that section and makes unnecessary the Peele entry anyway (read it again). I've removed the quote another time, hope you don't feel the need to get into another edit war (with me this time).

I certainly don't want to insult your intelligence, you're clearly a bright guy, it's a shame you don't seem to be approaching this opportunity to learn more about Alcoholics Anonymous with as open a mind as you could. Try avoiding OP for a while, remember, Agent Orange is a sixty year old man who only got sober aged fifty-five, he only went to a few AA meetings yet seems to hold very strong views and to be very bitter for no logical reason (that he gives). I've learned a lot over the last few months of visiting this site, and shifted my opinion on several points relating to AA, but I'm not in the middle nor claim to be - I don't know enough to be in the middle. Mr Miles 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the idea that his views don't generally represent the views of the academic community. Peeles analysis of Project MATCH was, for example, agreed with by Science Now magazine. I'm not sure there are many people who state that peele is incorrect on much. Won't bother with any more links, given your attitude. Would be grateful if you could show me some that state Peele is a maveric who is at odds with the rest of the academic community.

The disease theory is not the pre-eminenet addiction theory in the whole world. In England, where I am from, it is limited specifically to AA and Rehabs. Methadone clincs and other advocates of harm reduction treatments never use the disease theory. WHO don't use it. DSM doesn't use it. Peele is outspoken on the "recovery industry" (which I intend to discuss in a future section on this article), but that is due to the amount of people with a financial interest in keeping 12 step treatment prominent in the US. Peele is a useful resource on many issues to do with AA, and I shall continue to site him.

I have read the article. Dr MWs opinion is a strict analysis of the results of project match. It makes no comments on the efficacy or validity of the study as a whole.

As for AA, I was a member for 2 years, attending meetings every day for a large proportion of that. Have read much on the history. Oranges analysis (which I first read 2 years ago) fits in directly with my own experiences of the organisation. Indeed, I had to leave the day after I read it. Orange seems to have attended a "whole lot" of those meetings, as stated in the below link. He also seems to have read A LOT. He seems to have a variety of pretty good reasons to want to expose AA as a harmful cult. The fact that I agree with some of what he says does not mean that all I have written comes from his page. Influenced, yes. Acting as a mouth piece for him, no. I have read a fair bit of other stuff, including much of the more-revealed site, much of peele, the old AA-deprogramming site. Lots of stuff in my research for this site.

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-intro.html

Step13thirteen 15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing your experience of AA. I'm curious to know why you went from attending meetings every day for a large proportion of 2 years. That frequency is quiet a commitment for which I presume you must have felt you were receiving something in return, particularly as there is no obligation to attend in any set way (except a suggestion at some meetings that a first timer goes once-a-day for 90 days). And curious to know why you felt the need to "leave", quiet a dramatic word in this context, when there is no expectation on you to attend in any particular pattern. Personally, I know people who only go every few months or so. Was your AA experience in a small community? I've only ever been to meetings in large cities, mainly London and Amsterdam (NL), so perhaps my experience is very different. Mr Miles 21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was attending daily meetings. I always struggled with "the steps" and some of the more spiritual/religious aspects of the program. I was aware of the fact that some people considered it a cult, as I had started reading "Cult or Cure" three months before, and had to put it down as it seemed so spot on and threatened my world-view (ie, AA, NA and the 12 steps are the best thing ever, etc) at the time. One night I mentioned to a friend who I had introduced to NA about the cult thing, and she expressed doubt. I said that I would look it up on the net and show her at the next meeting that we attended. I came across the orange papers that night and, quite simply, found myself having a moment of clarity. Every inconsistency he highlighted, every snidey tactic for brainwashing the newcomer, every smear against detractors, I had personally witnessed. All the negative stuff about AA/NA that I had pushed to the back of my mind and not really thought about was now in the forefront with clarity. How could I go back?

Yes, I did get something out of AA. I got companionship, support, a "safe place to be" in those lonely early days. I also saw countless people attend and fail. The "it works if you work it" lie was exposed. The fact that it doesn't work (evidenced by the randomised controlled studies into the organisation, as well as my own experience) was the final nail in the coffin.

I live in a large town in berkshire, 40 miles from london. We have daily (sometimes twice daily) AA meetings. There were 4 NA meetings a week also. I attended meetings in London semi-regularly. It was always roughly the same. There were some people who attended infrequently, generally old-timers. The regular attendees were always at the same meetings week in week out, spouting the same stuff about how "nobody can retire from AA" and "you complete your program when you die" and "no one graduates".

Looking on the net, it seems that many people experience roughly the same things in meetings. Go to any AA forum and you will here the same stuff that I heard in meetings.

By the way, I am considering my response to the deleted stanton peele material on Match. I really don't want a further edit war, but I do think we need to reach consensus (which we have not done). How do you suggest we do this? I guess it will take compromise from both sides. Step13thirteen 15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Step13thirteen, thanks for your objective and cool-headed response. You inspired me to do some reading of Peele over my lunch hour. Here are my rough notes on Peele's MATCH article, which I found a tough read. According to Stanton Peele: Item 1. invalid to select treatment based on type of alcoholic: need the alcoholics to select their own. Item 2. it's not the diagnosis and type of treatment that matters, it's the person, their environment, and how they interact with the therapists (Item 3.) that matters. The sample was not representative:

• eliminated dual users of alc & drugs
• subjects were volunteers, not coerced -- unlike forced treatment programs
• people with residential instability, legal or probation problems were filtered out – hence sample was of stable and motivated people

Item 4. Their conclusion "the good news is that treatment works" is invalid because there was no untreated control group for comparison. Item 5. The results indicate that the Twelve Step model, . . . the most widely practiced . . . in the US, is beneficial." Also not a valid statement because there was no untreated control group. In fact other studies show that 12-step is not effective. Item 6. The 12-step therapists were highly trained and monitored, whereas regular 12-step therapists tend to be directive to the point of abuse. Item 7. Brief interventions are more effective and were not studied in MATCH, except that the MET therapy was often shortened when patients left early. Item 8. studies show that most alcoholics recover on their own without elaborate treatment. Item 9. Studies show that most recovered alcoholics can return to controlled drinking. NIAA and others recommend abstention. However effectiveness in the study was measured by reduction in the frequency and intensity of drinking, which is a contradiction. Item 10. This contradiction could be resolved if the subjects were inadvertently rated alcoholic when they were not or in remission when they were not. Or, maybe the DSM criteria for alcohol abuse is too stringent and rules out some abusers. Likely many abusers are ruled out because US researchers are biased and don't want to classify social drinkers as recovered.

On this basis I tried to represent concisely the main criticisms by Peele that were relevant to the AA article. What do you think? — DavidMack 19:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am more than happy with the amendments. Good edits, and fair summary of peeles points. nice one! Step13thirteen 12:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to my questions Step13thirteen.

AA - cult or cure, continued

For the record here is mine. A few years ago, it became obvious my drinking was out of control, most of my adult life was spent drinking too much and I got progressively worse until I was regularly taking time off from work to binge drink 24hrs-a-day. A friend suggested I try AA and I went along to one meeting. I got the usual warm reception and heard for the first time that Alcoholism was an illness not a 'moral failure' (what I actually heard was someone saying they weren't a "bad person who needed to get better, but rather a sick person who needed to get well), that helped my low self esteem. However, I didn't stick around and drank in the same way and worse for another eighteen months, trying psychotherapy during that time, which didn't work although I managed to not drink for three weeks which was a record for me at that time. After a particularly bad binge, I decided to try AA again and this time went every day for the first few months, got a sponsor and did what he (and others) suggested. Basically, to pray in the morning (to whatever), make a gratitude list, telephone someone else from AA once a day and go to meetings regularly and help out there (washing up/making tea etc). I did those things and stayed sober, I worked through the 12-steps, which took some time but was not really difficult and I've not drunk for three and half years, naturally I attribute that to AA.

During those three and half years, I lived in Amsterdam for over a year and attended meetings there which were English speaking and pretty much the same as London. From this experience I have an interesting observation for you. AA in Amsterdam is small, around eighty people (not counting the many tourists who pass through). The locals I got to know well, then returned to London. I went back to work in Amsterdam for a few weeks last year, after being away for a year and during those weeks caught up with everyone from before. They were all still sober. Not one had drunk during my year-long absence (they said, and I believe them, they all seemed so well), around eighty people with sobriety dates of over a year to twenty odd years.

AA in London is harder to track as there are so many meeting and people move around. I go to around two meetings a week now and see many of the same people at my 'home' group in the West End one night. Many of those people have sobriety longer than mine and many with less. Some of the ones with less I have seen change over the months/years they've come to meetings and have witnessed their recovery which manifests itself consistently as hugely increased confidence and self-assurance. People have said the same of me. I've never heard: "nobody can retire from AA" and "you complete your program when you die" and "no one graduates" in any meeting here. I did once hear someone say "this (meaning AA) is the only show in town", but of course that's not true. Nobody has ever told me what to do in an AA meeting or tried control - I would run a mile if they did, as would most people I imagine. I have heard "AA is a bridge to normal living", from the literature I think, which I always take as encouragement not to hang around in AA meetings all the time, but to get on with life.

A few months back someone asked me to take them through the steps, which I agreed to. Guess that makes me one of the 'brainwashers', although I don't feel like one. I am actually just describing to this guy what I did during my sobriety and I answer to phone to him when he wants to talk, that's it. I've no interest in whether he does what I did, nor do I feel responsible for his sobriety - although I hope, of course, that he doesn't drink as his drinking was brutal.

That is my experience of AA, very different from yours and I don't understand why. My friend who suggested I go hasn't been to a meeting in nine years but hasn't had a drink in ten years (he does some kind of therapy to stay sober). He's an atheist and didn't like AA's use of the word God, but said "I'm glad AA is there, just in case".

What were the snidey tactics for brainwashing the newcomer and smears against detractors that you personally heard? Mr Miles 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(Thanks for sharing, Mr Miles.—DavidMack 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

I will respond to this properly later, but here are a list of "musts" from this "suggested" program of recovery, in response to the idea that AA does not try to control people (all from the main section of the big book). Ever hear an oldtimer quote stuff like this from the big book? You can surely see how these might be interpreted as something more like requirements than advice....

• We are not cured of alcoholism. What we have is a daily reprieve contingent on the maintenance of our spiritual condition. Every day is a day when we must carry the vision of God's will into all of our daily activities.

The Big Book, 3rd edition, William G. Wilson, Into Action, page 85.

• I must turn in all things to the Father of Light who presides over us all.

The Big Book, 3rd edition, William G. Wilson, Chapter 1, Bill's Story, page 14.

• But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life or else.

The Big Book, 3rd edition, William G. Wilson, Chapter 4, We Agnostics, page 44.

• Above everything, we alcoholics must be rid of this selfishness. We must, or it kills us!

The Big Book, 3rd edition, William G. Wilson, How It Works, Chapter 5, page 62.

• Whatever our ideal turns out to be, we must be willing to grow toward it. We must be willing to make amends where we have done harm, provided that we do not bring about still more harm in so doing.

The Big Book, 3rd edition, William G. Wilson, Chapter 5, How It Works, page 69.

• We must be entirely honest with somebody if we expect to live long or happily in this world. Rightly and naturally, we think well before we choose the person or persons with whom to take this intimate and confidential step. Those of us belonging to a religious denomination which requires confession must, and of course, will want to go to the properly appointed authority whose duty it is to receive it.

The Big Book, 3rd edition, William G. Wilson, Chapter 6, Into Action, pages 73-74.

• To some extent we have become God-conscious. We have begun to develop this vital sixth sense. But we must go further and that means more action. Step Eleven suggests prayer and meditation. ...

The Big Book, 3rd edition, William G. Wilson, Chapter 6, Into Action, page 85.

• To be vital, faith must be accompanied by self sacrifice and unselfish, constructive action.

The Big Book, 3rd edition, William G. Wilson, Chapter 7, Working With Others, page 93.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.24.138 (talk) 09:41, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

The word 'must' may indicate manipulation, or not. "You must erase all negative thoughts about our leader." (manipulative) "If your boat sinks at sea you must find something to float on." (emphasis) Personal experiences should always be respected, however Wikipedia is a summary of reliable sources. — DavidMack 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, indeed. TBH, I was thinking that we were so far off of the topic of the article that such things would not really need to be stated. I am well aware that my own personal experience of AA would not really be relevant to the article, but I do think that it would help the regular editors of this article to reach concensus in the future if we were able to discuss, understand and respect each others opinions on AA. So, Mr Miles, thanks for sharing from me, also.

I shall try not to use this talk page to score points against AA (as I was trying to earlier with the list of "musts", if I am honest with myself). For the moment, I will just put it down to differing subjective experiences and hope we can get along....(!) 82.19.66.37 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

DavidMack, you make a good point about interpretation of 'must', one which Agent Orange hasn't considered in his list repeated above. It's true Wikipedia is a summary of reliable sources, but which reliable sources to include is a decision made by editors with opinions formed by personal experience. Ideally, a spectrum of opinion would be represented editorially. Personally, I find it a little depressing that so much Orange Papers' dogma is regurgitated on this Wiki without critical engagement of the material by the people adding it, is that cult behavior too?! Still, on a positive note, the article is getting better and I think the controversy section idea works well.

I was happy to write my experience. I agree 82.19.66.37 that it would be helpful (and interesting) to understand each others opinions of AA, so what were the snidey tactics for brainwashing the newcomer and smears against detractors that you personally heard? Mr Miles 10:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I understand that the AA musts are suggestions, but I believe the expression is "it is suggested in the same way that it is suggested that you weara parachute when you jump out of a plane". This is, of course, not a suggestion, it's a manipulation due to the fact that it comepletely fails to take into account the huge amount of poeple who can and do get sober without the AA program.

I accept that the anti-AA brigade can be just as dogmatic in their opinions as the pro. But I find it a little depressing that much of this page reads like an AA-approved peace of lit, so I guess we're all going to have to compromise?

OK, manipulations, double-standards etc that I saw in the program, which were brought into focus by AO et al: "Shifting objectives: First the goal is to quit drinking, and then the goal is to "acquire faith" and "come to believe" in Bill Wilson's religion" I attend meetings and am told that I need to do the program to get clean (not true, but fair enough, if that's what you believe). Then people start talking about how AA is the only way to achieve spirituality, and about how it is a solution to all of the worlds problems.

"First, Bill Wilson declared that Alcoholics Anonymous was only one of many ways to achieve sobriety, then he declared that it was The Only Way." Seriously, the amount of people who talk about dry drunks (anyone not doing AA) or about how if you don't do the steps you WILL relapse. But this doesn't come straight away. See the "suggested v list of musts" thing above. At the very least, you can understand how this is a very mixed message?

"First, they will tell you that you can "Take what you want, and leave the rest." Then they will tell you that you can't ever leave." Saw this - specifically, someone saying that a person who had died had "completed his program"

"First, they will tell you that you can "Take what you want, and leave the rest." Then they will tell you that you must follow the formula exactly, or else it won't work." EG, when someone relapses after working the steps, it being suggested that they never fully "got" step one. Seen that.

"First, they will tell you to see a doctor, and say that "we know only a little", but then it's "We know more than doctors", "We are the experts on addictions", and "Don't take medications." " Certainly seen aspects of this, especially in NA, where I was informed upon mentioning that I was taking anti-depressants that the other person would not consider himself clean if he was on them (interestingly, this person was actually a doctor, but one who was letting the 12 steps cloud his judgement on medical issues)

There are plenty more examples of things from Orange Papers that I realised I had witnessed after reading that website. But it is saturday and I don't want to take up too much time. 82.19.66.37 11:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

AA influence on US addiction treatment

Could be a new section. Think it would add to the article. With 95% of US rehabs being 12 step based, this could hardly be underestimated. Being me, I would like some sort of neutrality in the section, if anyone else decides to do it. If and when I get the time, I may do it myself. What do people think? 82.19.66.37 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC) (AKA: step13thirteen)

Personally, I think that's a good idea. I would suggest:

• Make clear the distinction between the US and the rest of the world

• emphasis on alcohol rehab

• Include reasons why the decision was made to base rehab on 12 steps (or did it just happen Lassez-faire manner)

• Keep the section small, the article is about AA, not addiction treatment generally

Mr Miles 11:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

AA in popular culture

I'm sure some of you have noticed WP:TRIVIA and the templates that keep getting dumped on some pages. Do you think it would be good to ditch the popular culture section completely? 82.19.66.37 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Did it myself. 82.19.66.37 13:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A "popular culture" section can be interesting if it is written as a commentary that focuses on key examples. E.g. see Alcoholism: Stereotypes. — DavidMack 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this doing under the heading about moderation vs. abstinance?

As Nancy Shute wrote in U.S. News & World Report, "When AA works, it works extraordinarily well: The testimonies of lives saved by AA are legion. But it's not for everyone."[65]

This is irrelevent to the topic. 66.120.181.218 20:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

== Occasions of abuse at meetings == Qualitative Research of occasions of abuse at meetings: http://www.morerevealed.com/library/rfhorror/rfhorror.jsp A reference is required for statements that are likely to be contested, hence the citation needed tag. 82.19.66.37 11:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that the statement that "No research has been undertaken to determine if Alcoholics Anonymous carries more or less risk of abuse" is likely to be contested? If so, please explain why. Mr Miles 12:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC) I'm saying that I contest it, as there has been research and suggestion that AA does carry a high risk of abuse. 82.19.66.37 12:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Then remove my line and put the research in! Obviously with a citation to a reliable source. Mr Miles 12:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs) Will do, when I can get the time to summarise Ms. Fransways book. In the meantime, do you accept that it is contested? 82.19.66.37 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC) No. Fransway's book is published by Sharp Press and is not a reliable source. See discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous/Archive_2#Regarding_bias_in_Removing_the_Link__Ken_Ragges__online_library_which_allows_direct_access_to_read_the_books%7C archive]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles ([[User talk:Mr Miles|talk]] • contribs) 12:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Ok, the arguments against See Sharp from the archived discussion

Wiki insists that all sources should be published by reputable (and

preferable academic) houses. Sharp Press, who have only published a few books in small numbers and of deliberately radical content, I believe fall foul of this guideline. What Wiki actually says about verifiable sources is that they should be "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Now, as far as I know, See Sharp would come under the heading of "respected publishing house". If you can find any source which questions their reputation for editorial oversight or fact checking, then we can re-visit this question.

Additionally, on their website (www.seesharppress.com), the publisher

describes itself thus: 'Sharp Press is a "cause-driven" small press. Our mission is to make available radical books and pamphlets that would otherwise not be published, especially in the areas of anarchism and atheism.' Wiki defines unreliable sources as: 'Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.' Sharp's mission of publishing material that 'would otherwise not be published' clearly contradicts the prevailing view of the academic community, and therefore contravenes Wiki's policy. Many of the sources referenced in the article (such as the Dick B ones or the Hazledon ones, and certainly all of the AA ones) would be described as "cause driven", and on these grounds, a lot of it would need to be removed/resourced (all of the contentious, non-factual bits). Because a publishing house makes available POV's that would not be published because of commercial reasons, as opposed to not being published because they make outrageous claims, this does not mean to suggest that there is a supposed "conspiracy to silence them". In terms of them contradicting the prevailing view of the academic community (and there is no one prevailing view...) Stanton Peele has written for them, and writes intros to many of their books. As a person directly involved in the anarchist movement within the UK, I take exception to the idea that just because a view is not the only one, or has a small (that is not to say insignificant) minority supporting its perspective, that this view is automatically considered unimportant and not worthy of recording. Certainly, Wiki does not state this. It talks of giving proportional representation to POV matters, when there are two contradicting views on the subject. The large amount of support the anti AA camp gets (as well as the fact that it is already included in the article) would go to show that it is certainly a view that is worth recording.

Finally, on neutrality, Wiki states: 'Please be clear that the

Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views.' As discussed above, the anti-AA camp is not so marginalised that it should not be discussed. It simply must receive proportional coverage in the article to the amount of "coverage" it gets in the real world. 82.19.66.37 15:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of the previous users' commentary (unsurprising, I

guess, given my own anarchist convictions). I would say that AA can be quite valuable for many people. My concern is that the existing article's section on abuse is clearly a pro-AA hatchet job. The argument, for example, that any few alcoholics can call themselves an AA chapter is irrelevant, just as much as the fact that an individual conservative organization in some small town might be anti-industry doesn't disprove that the Republican party is pro-industry. Some argue that AA does abuse some of its members and marginalize people who leave, and a rulebook can't be used to that claim, true or false. ArekExcelsior 06:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Dick B's reference is to a non-controversial statement (a tiny bit of history), but yes, that should be removed too. References to AA's own literature/website is to support a description of it's position/aims, I doubt you find that description controversial (in it's accuracy). Fransway's book is not research, for example there is no counter to the claim that she selected the interviewee's to match her POV, or that their testimony is true rather than invented/exaggerated (for example, Police reports to support a rape claim). There are thousands of non-academic books written by individuals helped by AA, shall we add material from them also?!

I actually don't know how she selected interviews, but this is probably a fair criticism. However, it doesn't deny that those stories are true, police reports notwithstanding. Indeed, as the AA response on the Wiki points out, one should EXPECT to see a lot of people who allege abuse or have a bone to pick with any organization as large as AA. 209.77.79.7 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I respect your right to hold Anarchist views but this is a mainstream encyclopedia, material from Fransway's book wouldn't get anywhere near a conventional encyclopedia. As you well know. Perhaps it would help if you stated your aims for how you would like this Wiki to develop. If your wish is to make a political statement against Alcoholics Anonymous then you may as well be open about that. Mr Miles 10:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that Fransway isn't the only source for allegations of abuse. Most of the allegations of cultishness, for example, also imply the potential abuse. 209.77.79.7 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, Fransway's book is not published by Sharp Press or anyone. Mr Miles 10:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • [[Special:Contributions/Mr Miles|contribs]]) Quite frankly, I am not actually looking to make a political statement. I make no attempt to hide the fact that I am in the "anti-AA" camp, but am simply trying to rebalance the POV of this article, which I have said before reads like an advert for AA (controversies section aside). Wiki is in the top 10 hits on any respectable search engine results for "alcoholics anonymous" and people come here looking for an unbiased opinion. Surely it is the "duty" of any wiki editor to try and present the facts as clearly as possible? well, I guess we just "perceive" the facts differntly. Personally, I would like someone who is completely neutral to come in and help clean up this article... Fransways book certainly does qualify as qalitative research, which tends to be focused and designed to examine a specific group to support a thesis. Given the nature of her study (anonymous, which would be used in any study, qualitative of quantitive), the is no surprise that none of the information can be crosschecked. How can we be sure Valliant did not make up his study? This is not a valid argument. Rebecca Fransway is a publsihed poet, who has written a book with fore-words by noted addiction experts. I think this rises her work above your average Hazledon piece. Add what you want from anybody. We can discuss those when we come to them. Note from this link that Fransways work was published by SeeSharpPress and appears on More Revealed with their permission. http://www.morerevealed.com/library/rfhorror/rfhorror.jsp Step13thirteen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.24.138 ([[User talk:213.235.24.138|talk]]) 12:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

== Allegations of pro-Christian bias == I've moved the New York Court of Appeals 1999 ruling and United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruling to this section because although they are the result of court mandate, they actually relate more to this section - kind of. It's very messy and needs citation, particularly the Bill W quote, is that made up? I've heard that some AA meetings in the US end with a recital of the Lords Prayer, probably worth mentioning. Personally, I think the title of this section doesn't sound encyclopedic. Mr Miles 12:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC) I don't particularly like this section. I think that it overstates this alleged christian bias. It is clear that AA has some sort of Christian founding, but I prefer the OP view that it has evolved beyond this and is now not in keeping with any widely practiced form of christianity (as evidenced by the Oxford group being "cast out" of the catholic church). Personally, I think that "AA as a religion" should be it's own section ("Spiritual or Religious"?). I would prefer the Court of Appeals thing to be kept in the other section(as it has nothing to do with Christianity, but is a direct result of coercive AA recruitment), but will leave it as per your changes for the moment. Would appreciate another viewpoint. 82.19.66.37 12:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC) I think that the NY Court of Appeals bit should go back to the court-mandated AA attendence section, because it fits there much better than where it is now. That paragraph has everything to do with forced attendance and nothing to do with Christianity. I agree with 82.19.66.37 that, at least as far as what is published, AA does not adhere to any typeical Christian denomination, but I am the last person to write a section about that--any theologists out there? And yes, interestingly, many AA meetings end with The Lord's Prayer. Sorry, that bit above was me Desoto10 03:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Okay that's fine by me. This Court Mandate bit is not particularly very controversial really is it?! The bit about breaking tradition 3 should also be removed if all court mandates are sent to 'open meetings' - the tradition 3 rule doesn't apply to 'open meetings' Mr Miles 10:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Well, court mandated AA is actually really controversial. Stanton Peele has written exstensively on coerced AA treatment and how to fight it. As someone who works in drug treatment in the UK (which is currently going very much in the direction of coercion, but not towards 12 steps), I can assure you that there are some very real ethical issues before you even factor in the "spiritual/religious" aspect. These are "external controversies". There are also people who would say that it certainly does fly in the face of trad 3, could affect AA as a whole (and thus extends beyond individual meeting autonomy), tries to carry a message to people who may not be or don't admit to being alcoholic, lends the AA name to outside organisations, is certainly not based on the idea of "attraction rather than promotion" and does not lend itself to anonymity. Certainly these were the arguments I put forward when we had a group conscience about it in my home-group 2 years ago. 213.235.24.138 15:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ==First person perspective== (Just to begin by announcing my perspective: I think AA can be a tool for people to get out of addiction, like other 12 step programs, but that we do ourselves a disservice in imagining its philosophy to be the only way. Anyways). The article has far too many lapses into first person. I'm addressing these and changing them to similar sentences written from the third person. A lot of people allege that this article is a pro-AA propaganda piece; it shouldn't amplify this sentiment by being written defensively, with anti-AA positions responded to by the abstract "voice of Wikipedia". In the future, advocates of AA should remember (and I imagine this was done innocently) to write with the voice of Wikipedia: State what AA's response would be, charitably but not glowingly, and preferably cite sources on the matter at hand. I also wonder what civil libertarians have to say about AA being in America the only place one can typically get court-mandated alcohol rehab. ArekExcelsior 06:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Hi Arek. Thanks for highlighting incidence of first person writing, let's continue to improve the content of this work-in-progress article. I reverted your edit of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Occasions_of_abuse_at_meetings |Occasions of abuse at meetings ]] to the original by DavidMack because Rebecca Fransways work, being a collection of opinion, anonymous interviews and published by Sharp Press, is not a reliable source. Additionally, your reference to www.mentalhelp.net didn't link to qualitative research on AA. Mr Miles 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Mental Help URL includes allegations cited by a doctor who had

written a fairly positive piece. Unfortunately, data on both sides as the Baldwin Research has noted is pretty sparse, so we do have to turn to articles with a bit less quantitative data. I don't doubt that the Fransway book is fairly extreme, but it's going to be cited, Miles, so it's time to give up on that one. The responses to Fransway's book should be noted in the article, of course. My edit was designed to charitably present her argument, because at the moment the "Occasions of abuse" descends IMMEDIATELY into a pro-AA defense without describing what people say is the abuse. That's a) making the page a pro-AA propaganda page (imagine if the page on Jonestown just leapt into a defense of the suicide and deleted a paragraph describing the poisoned Kool-Aid!) and b) dismissing the elephant in the room, which makes a shoddy and illegible article. I had to cut to the talk page to know what the abuse section actually says. I'm re-introducing a first paragraph with Fransway's allegations, but adding the responses on the talk page to her work. If we can't describe what the alleged abuse IS, then we need to eliminate the section heading - maybe take a vote on that one?

Also: I'm adding back in the formatting that makes the individual allegations of rape and abuse separate. What I'm staggered by is that y'all don't want to include Fransway's book, but have no problem introducing just as unverified and prejudicial individual accounts, chosen just as randomly, from other sources!ArekExcelsior 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)