Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 6

message: Where's the cavalry? We sent out a call for help and all it did was intensify the debate. God, I hope they come before we destroy each other .... — DavidMack 04:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL 82.0.206.215 14:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's such a clusterfuck I think they're trying to stay away from it. A WP:3O might produce better results. -- Craigtalbert 20:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lord of the Flies]]

message: Bikinibomb, I respect your work on this article, but I don't see the point of pasting the disputed info here. — DavidMack (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I. People can cut and paste relevant parts out of the diffs if necessary. Removing it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: Please explain?
There seems to be an ongoing problem with Mr. Miles attacking the editing by one user.
I refer you to the discussion page :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_W.
PLease check discussion on alcoholics anonymous history...the enitre discussion was deleted!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous
Fred--207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes edits get reverted like Craig said and I tried to say weeks ago because they are sloppily written. Though I don't know why Bill's craving whiskey and other things were removed if they were sourced. He was a really flawed guy who did a lot to try and correct it, but wasn't turned into an angel by his AA, no alcholic I know is. So in his article no one should be trying to remove information to hold him up as a saint, I agree with you there. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't Fred/misteralbert/13's description of Bill W's craving of whiskey that prompted me to remove it, it was his insertion of the text: "his disciples refused him".Mr Miles 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Fred/MisterAlbert/.13/.93, there is an ongoing problem with your incoherent pov pushing edits. It's surprising when they stay untouched -- not so surprising when they're removed. I'll give you that Mr. Miles is a little trigger happy about it. But, seriously, get it together. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You are right Bikinibomb, I'll move it to the beginning. -Mr Miles 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Abuse is a abuse -- a great reason to remove pov pushing edits, and to ignore trolls who would bring a debate from another article in to this article's talk page just to get more attention. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another great reason to remove those edits is the sheer volume of nonsensical and misspelt edits this 'IP 207.232.97.13/IP 207.194.108.93/Fred's1+2/MisterAlbert/TheLibrary' makes. Personally, I don't have time to trawl through all that to find one edit which might actually be relevant. So I just pull the trigger. It's strange that this user will take the time to make an reasonably articulate point exampled by the paragraph above, then just loses it with the article. But, as DavidMack pointed out, it seems like there are two users on that account - or one user in two different 'states' of mind. -Mr Miles 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing problems with posting information... blockage of information: 

message: In a virtuoso display of computer savvy, I have scanned some pages from Vaillant on the Clinic study, inserted them into a word document, and uploaded them to a website!!! R-click to download (1.6 MB) http://www.geocities.com/infopusher/Nat_hist_of_alc_revisited-Vaillant-p188-197.doc
— DavidMack 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see some people are quoting these pages of Vaillant. After reading the text, does everyone agree that what Bufe and Agent Orange said is not what Vaillant said? — DavidMack (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: um...I can't get it...it says the page is unavalible...Coffeepusher (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It works now. Maybe I exceeded my geocities daily bandwidth or something. — DavidMack (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Put a copy up here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigtalbert (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News flash -- Vaillant online! 

message: Ok, If you guys arn't interested enough in a page to watch it and discuss it on that page...please don't engage in discussion here.  I just found this post on the Bill W. page, and it is entirely unprofessional that I have to deal with this crap:
::"Have added Bills last desire to drink in as per discussion on discussion page Alcoholics Anonymous. the library--207.194.108.93 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some cleaning there, needs more work though. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: But...why are you removing that content if it is sourced, and why is it unprofessional? In the religious articles we may discuss issues that apply to related articles and make changes in all of them. I think that's pretty standard. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to discuss the quote on this page.  I am not going to discuss my edits to exorcism, south park, chipecobra, sin, Xenu, public sphere...etc. because this is the AA page, and that is what we discuss.  it was the behavior of coming to this page and having the topic discussed that was unprofesional...essentualy going to mom, because dad said it was not ok.  if there is a wiki-community set up, then the behavior you are discribing is lagit...however there isn't a recovery wiki-community.  You would probably be really pissed if I started changing things on this page because I got consensus from the cocaine anonymous page, and started citing that as the legit reason for a change.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I wouldn't be pissed, as long as you had a source and put it in the right section and all that there's nothing wrong. Anything that helps develop an article seems ok to me, I don't care if AA is discussed in Disneyland talk as long as it improves. Editors don't need consensus from anyone, they can just edit. Main reason I discuss the hot issues is to avoid revert wars, but if I'm feeling stonewalled then I ignore and do what I want. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprofesional behavior 

message: um, its taking a bit of time to load this page...and my blackberry dosn't even try anymore...can we archive some of these discussions?  I really don't know the prosedure, and am just wondering?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Threads on this page are automagically archived if they've been idle for ten days.  But they stay as long as people are "contributing".  At the current level of contribution, a Blackberry might be the wrong tool to use. PhGustaf (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: well it works better than the rock and two sticks I had been using (jk.)  seriously, would anyone have any problems if I inserted page breaks onto the "sub-topics" we have above.  some of those threads are over a month old, however it isn't getting loaded because the double equil sign isn't around the title, so the bot thinks its just one big happy thread.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have no problem, but then I'm a well-known vandal.  Be aware that asking AA'ers to not blather on at great length on any topic is a fool's errand.  PhGustaf (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to add them, however if you don't agree just delete them...I do ask that if you delete, give the reasons why please, spacificly I knocked down the tripple = to a double = in the spagetti section, because while that heading is good, those topics are stale.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive? 

message: The cult NPOV is a little out of whack now with one paragraph of criticism and three rebuttal, so Tiginaus if you see this, that's why I may be paring it down later. Also removed your BB reference since it was kind of your synthesis of an argument using concepts in the BB not exactly addressing cult issues, anything like that should really be done by an outside source since this is a touchy article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cults 

message: So, mister Albert et al. has added the new section citing a study from Eric Bernie.  personaly I don't think the information contained within deserves its own seperate section, however it may be incorperated into the body of the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides that it's not even a criticism, if I'm deciphering what he wrote correctly. It's saying members return to drinking with no newcomers to help, well hell, that's what the 12th Step and Bill's meeting Dr. Bob is all about, saying if you don't help other alcoholics you drink. If anything it verifies what AA itself says. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: But, he's brilliant when it comes to logging in. Mind WP:FORUM everybody. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: well, check out the exorcism page to see some contributions...or south park...or Xenu...in fact I contribute to Wikipedia alot...I just have other interests than just AA.  now that we have that out of the way, can we please stop with the personal attacks (we have had this conversation alot, please calm down before you type) I posted this to discuss your contribution, and if you note I liked the information, I just questioned the placement.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 207 the question is, how is it criticism when the study says oldtimers need to keep helping newcomers or they might drink? It's like, so what, it's the same thing AA teaches. What you posted makes it sound like oldtimers ought to be cured at some point and sustain themselves, but AA never says that will happen, it says the opposite. So if anything it might go in effectiveness or program sections verifying that what AA teaches is correct. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric Berne 

message: The added information doesn't really say anything about how effective AA is, it only says treatment centers use it. I use tobacco, but that's not evidence in and of itself it is helping me at all. So, I'm moving this up to Program section until there is more data that it actually makes treatment centers more effective. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences on the Treatment Industry 

message: *For your reference, Vaillant excerpts here (PDF 0.7 MB) — DavidMack (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papers 

message: Given the 11th tradition of attraction rather than promotion, AA has been taking out 30 sec ads on Canadian Broadcasting, Advertising itself and its webpage.  I think it should be included in the article.
--MisterAlbert (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't sound particularly important to me, except in the sense of its being weird.  A catalog of routine breaches of Tradition would be far too long for this article. PhGustaf (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with PhGustaf.  Firstly there are no "independant sources" who have stated it is a breach of Trad 11, so would be "original research".  Secondly, there are constant breaches of many traditions (court ordered AA breaches around half of them, depending on ones interpretation of the trads), so such breaches would take up far too much of the article.  However, if you can find an independant source (or even an AA source, perhaps from the grapevine?) who states what you have, then why not put it in?  At the worst, you would go through the "bold revert discuss" process.  If you don't have a source, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on when the edit was reverted.  Step13thirteen (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not about independent sources, it's about reliable sources -- which means having a fact checking reputation. Even if reliable sources could be found for this particular story, wikipedia is not news. We're writing a scholarly encyclopedia article, not a tabloid. Take the "news" to Wikinews. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to have to agree, around in my town AA has a telivision show where people give their stories and information is given on how to contact AA.  Granted it is at 3 AM, but it still is advertising in the strictest sence of the word.  besides, I don't think that taking out ads that say "to contact AA call...our web site is..." really breaks this tradition, but that is another discussion entirely WP:TALK and I have a feeling this issue won't be persued on this page. Coffeepusher (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  11th Tradition Flouted 

message: Hello, I am from Third Opinion and I will be rendering my discussions momentarily.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: ^ Krista Conger. "Study points out value of 12-step groups in treating substance abuse." Stanford Report, May 23, 2001. Retrieved 2007-05-05. 
This is some kind of informal newsletter-type article and is certainly not peer-reviewed nor indexed in the major databases.  I think that this ref should be replaced with the ref to the actual study. Desoto10 (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Reference 

message: I changed the second study description to emphasize that the "12-step" groups were not actual AA meetings, but rather professional therapists who encouraged the participants to continue with AA after treatment.  Also, the fact that this is a "quasi-experimental" study is a little bothersome. Desoto10 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Studies 

message: This comment by NIAAA Chief Gordis is troubling:
NIAAA Director Enoch Gordis, M.D. said that treatment providers and patients can have confidence that, if well-delivered, they represent state of the art in behavioral treatments.[34]
Yes, he said that, but no, the MATCH study did not address the absolute effectiveness of any one of the three treatments.  Do we just leave it there because he said it, or what?Desoto10 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In re reading it...it really dosn't say anything that we would use (in this article).  I would not oppose its deletion, In fact I will support it.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gordis comment 

message: I changed one of the sentances in the description of the Match study section to emphasize that this was not a study of AA, per se, but of a professional implementation of 12-step methods.  This is a critical distinction that is often overlooked by both supporters and detractors of this study.  AA does not involve professional psychotherapists and so to compare an AA meeting to a session with one is invalid.  It is probably arguable as to which is better :)Desoto10 (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed doing this before, I kind of though Step13/.215 would make the changes as it was his idea.  But, at any rate, thank you for doing that. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: AA is by nature a difficult topic to research. (Quote from before:) Because of the inherent limitations of research on AA (discussed in the article), you either get a direct study of AA that is vague with suggested results, or you get an indirect study of something similar to AA that may give high quality results. The MATCH study is the latter type. I believe the best option is the current version: to state the results and note that they apply to TSF, not strictly to AA. To make things more complicated, the press release states "Many patients in the three treatments also participated in community meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous..." — DavidMack (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Match Edit 

message: This sounds like an interesting study, but it appears to reference a dissertation.  Is there an actual peer-reviewed published full study on this?
The largest benefit associated with AA attendance was increased abstinence, followed by reductions in alcohol-related consequences. A slight positive association was also found between AA attendance and increased purpose in life – the study found that AA attendance was associated with psychosocial improvement.[54] Desoto10 (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which study are you discussing here? Maybe it got separated from the original thread. — DavidMack (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It was published in Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly: . -- Craigtalbert (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Studies 

message: Thought I would post this  and open it up for discussion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/health/25drin.html
--MisterAlbert (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me that the conclusions are the same as MATCH: "researchers ... found little to suggest that 12-step programs reduced the severity of addiction any more than any other intervention," which sounds like a negative way of saying that AA is equally effective. Another MATCH-like statement is "None of the studies compared A.A. with no treatment at all, and the researchers said that made it more difficult to draw conclusions about effectiveness." It looks like this study may have covered Project MATCH, since it mentions "cognitive-behavioral therapy" and "motivational enhancement therapy", which both featured in MATCH. Anyway, those are just comments, it looks like relevant and reliable research. — DavidMack (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Italian Study 

message: It's usually better, I think, to work out major changes to an article in a sandbox or in preview pages than to post a half dozen intermediate edits on the way there.  At least this keeps such careless editors as myself from slashing in at the middle and leaving a worse mess than existed before. PhGustaf (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, someone should 'splain to me how I managed this too-small font. PhGustaf (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On making major changes 

message: Have just received my copy of the Oupatient Treatment of Alcoholism p. 115
Note 1/3 of the Book is comprised of Appendices.   
Overall the results indicate coerced attendance to AA is not recommended. 
Chapter 9 conclusions:
1. AA had the most dropouts of all therapies
2. AA & RBT had the least number of sessions for those who didn't drop out
3. Treatment of any type was better than the control group
4. Insight and Pro RBT were the best in the number of days dry.
  
In  3 month after terminating treatment,   the AA group had  increased their binge drinking, some in the AA  group said it made them feel superior. p. 106--Freddydog (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brandsma Et Al 

message: Project MATCH should really have it's own article. There were almost 70 peer-reviewed articles based on it. It is arguable about whether or not it belongs in this article, but is at least worth mentioning in it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project MATCH fork 

message: Do Alcoholics Anonymous Groups Really Work? Factors of Adherence in a Brazilian Sample of Hospitalized Alcohol Dependents
Would provide more of an international world view. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks interesting and relevant. Is it a reliable source? — DavidMack (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most definitely. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazilian 2008 Study 

message: Been off of wiki for a month or so now, due to sheer annoyance at an old WP:3O decision.  Come back to see craig is banned, and also seems to have deleted his account.  Anyone know the whats and whys behind this?  I may email him when I get back to work, as i have his email there, but if he has deleted his account, then he may not want to hear from me.  Wondered if anyone else could shed some light.  82.0.206.215 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Craig was blocked for apparent repeated vandalism on the Justine Ezarik page, and soon after invoked his WP:RTV privileges.  My guess is that he just had a bad few days, and I look forward to seeing him back under a new name. PhGustaf (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame he left over something so innocuous as that - sounds like a pretty tame case of vandalism, a reasonably deserving target and an excessive ban.  I also hope that he will be back - it probably is only a few bad days, but sometimes it can be good to get a break.  Despite some major fallings out, I always enjoyed "sparring" with Craig.  He also put in an awful lot of work to this page and did a whole lot of research.  Would be a shame to lose him.  82.0.206.215 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to craig? 

message: This comment seems odd:
Other researchers stated that "AA has rarely been investigated with the kind of rigorous methological attention it received in Project MATCH." [41]
As has been mentioned before, Match did not evaluate "AA".  So, just like Dr. Gordis' statement, I don't know what to do about it.  The investigators apparently did say this in a peer-reviewed journal article (that I have not read), but it is wrong.  If we need to say something positive about Match, then I don't think that should be too difficult.Desoto10 (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back in. It is a comment on MATCH from a reliable, academic source. — DavidMack (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: MATCH evaluated AA indirectly. As stated in the article, direct, randomised trials are difficult or impossible with AA, so the best research available on AA is always indirect. — DavidMack (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, in this article certain users tend to generate a flood of copy, and others have to pare it down to what is concise, reliable and relevant. — DavidMack (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Doesn't look like the rebuttal ever got added.  Somebody should, if they can - they present some extremely complex arguments and it will take someone with a sound understanding of stats and an ability to translate those stats into "laymans terms".  I for one struggled reading through the whole thing.  82.0.206.215 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment about Peele in Project Match Section 

message: Fred/13, could you add a journal title and volume to the info you added? Thanks. — DavidMack (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference needed 

message: Craig suggested moving the MATCH study out of AA and into its own entry.  I think that this would be a good idea.  Like it or not, we spent $26M or so on the study and it has generated tons of secondary studies using its data.  It achieved its primary endpoint.  Subsequent misinterpretation by supporters and detractors has also led to a slurry of articles.  It has been pretty much a distraction in the AA entry.  The coverage on the AA page could simply be that the study was done and showed that matching didn't make much difference.  There were criticisms by some and commendations by others.  Point out that TSF, while not AA, may be a useful alternative to the direct study of AA.  Any takers?Desoto10 (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, until someone writes a separate MATCH article, I believe the article should stand as is. — DavidMack (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Desoto, above you are agreeing that we should get a WP:3O about the PM section.  I assume you mean that we should leave Match in this article, rather than that the content is 100% sound as it is.  Corrct me if I am wrong....82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, broadly.  Haven't got the time to do it right now as I'm round my GFs on a sat night, but will happily move the main body of text to a new article soon.  I'm not too sure what needs to be in left in the article, but I would agree that it should be kept to a minimum, with the difference of TSF to AA highlighted.  I'll be bold, unless someone beats me to it. step13thirteen   90.209.21.9 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Done.  Moved to Project MATCH.  Took out one or two bits that made it feel "AA-centric" (it was never a study specifically of AA, or even TSF) and added a web link.  Am going to work on it, but this will be slow.  Any colaborators interested, see me on that pages talk page.step13thirteen   82.0.206.215 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move MATCH 

message: I am wondering what others feel about this section.  It is essentially one or two sentance blurbs about studies without enough detail to really make a decision about the validity of the studies or their conclusions.  It is kind of an annotated bibliography.  Could this be condensed into a couple of sentances saying that studies have been performed with some supporting and some not supporting the effectiveness of AA?Desoto10 (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe a written description is better than a list, otherwise the list can degenerate into a dumping ground. The written description takes a bit of work, though, to put everything in context. — DavidMack (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem a bit over-populated, mainly because half of the studies seem to show that affiliation with AA increases likelyhood of abstinence.  This should be summed up in one or two sentences with references to all the studies left in.  Other studies showing more interesting results, such as the faith-matching one, or the BSTP v 12 step one, should be left in (but some perhaps shortened - breivity, after all, being the sould of wit).  Well, that's my take on the situation, anyway. Step13thirteen (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Studies 

message: I tried to clean this up a little.  If I messed it up, please fix it.  I also removed reference to the fact that this study was funded by NIAAA, as virtually all US studies on alcohloism are funded by NIAAA.Desoto10 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brandsma, Welsh, Maultsby 

message: I am tempted to remove this section entirely.  There have been hundreds of studies that either directly or indirectly relate to AA effectiveness.  The studies that have been included here seem to have just been thrown in with no systematic thought.  Many of the descriptions use words that imply causation rather than correlation when the studies themselves could not have demonstrated causation.  To make any sense at all of these studies you have to read them yourself, or at least read the abstract if available.  These descriptions are too short to be of any value and there is no reason for this section to exist at all.  I would like to replace it with a simple summary to the effect that, as we have mentioned earlier, AA study is difficult, but many studies have been undertaken and many reviews of the literature have taken place.  No unequivocal evidence for dramatic success or failure of AA emerges (citation).Desoto10 (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Studies 

message: The following uncited sentence appears:
Others state bona fide medical researchers do not view alcoholism as disease.
I don't know who added that or when, but we need a reference for it.Desoto10 (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disease of Alcoholism 

message: Added a NIAAA study on abstinence vs. moderation.  It is on the alcoholism page.Desoto10 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderation vs. abstinence 

message: Thank you PHGustaf, and yes you are correct, it is frustrating when someone comes along and attacks the page.  However your comments are  appreciated, it opens the board up to discussion, and consensus.
:The preceding had nothing to do with "Autoarchive".  I suppose I could fix the organization better, but this is at least less bad.  PhGustaf (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you and what have you done with Fred? — DavidMack (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Stuff About Vandals 

message: There is an assertion in this section that visitors and non-members are not asked for donations which references this:
Over the years, Alcoholics Anonymous has
affirmed and strengthened a tradition of
being fully self-supporting and of not seeking,
or accepting, contributions from nonmembers.
When outside contributions are
received at the General Service Office, they
are returned with a note explaining A.A.’s
position on the question of self-support.
I don't think that this means that if you show up for a meeting that someone won't hand you the basket, but that AA does not go out and seek external funding.Desoto10 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took that line to mean an announcement is made at the beginning of a meeting to the effect that Visitors and new members should not donate - I believe this only happens at Open meetings. 82.35.59.169 (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, that was my assertion, based on my observations at meetings.  The announcement was one of the standard bits.  But, that's original research, and for all I know it was only a local custom, so it was probably right to whack it out. PhGustaf (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm in the Bay Area.  But my experience is some years old.  Good job taking the line out. PhGustaf (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: If poster 82.35.59.169 had read the book he would realize that the Brandsma study is almost verbatim from the Book. The book is easily obtainable , I have a copy from the university stacks. Any credible institution will have it available.
The findings do show favorable results for other therapies.  The book goes into great detail on the process of follow up for those partipants who dropped out.  AA had more binge drinking and a highest drop out rate.  Then again this may be the very reason this study has been deleted from the page.  Wouldn't you agree?
I noticed that studies from other countries have been  excluded.  The studies which are most current done in Brazil and Sweden have been deleted. Any reason why?
Is the Wiki an American only system. Studies done in other countries are not considered valid?
Why so much emphasis on Vaillant.  He sits on the Board of trustees. Isn't there a conflict of interest within his studies?  Is this open for discussion?  He is certainly in favor of the 12 step approach. Then again, this is probably why he remains and by far better studies have suffered the axe.  Wouldn't you agree?
I put the study regarding Sponsorship in twelve steps where it belongs,  any objections?  I would be interested in hearing why?
--GeorgeLM&LM (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brandsma 

message: Holy crap, I just realized that there is no description of what goes on at an AA meeting!  Does anybody object to adding a section on this?  I can't imagine that this would be controversial (ha ha).Desoto10 (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's been noted before. The Program section would probably be the best place to flesh out the details of what an AA member experiences in the organization. There are plenty of published sources describing the process. 82.35.59.169 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It shouldn't be controversial at all as long as opinion is left out and the Primary Source rule is respected. 82.35.59.169 (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: oops, I've made some edits since then, just condensing mainly, hope that doesn't screw your ref.Mr Miles 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure about that "No group is allowed to exclude any member" bit?  Men's and women's group exist because some members feel more comfortable in single-sex fora, and I've certainly seen women accidentally happening into men's meetings shown straight to the door.  I almost but not quite reverted it, but there's already too much reversion going on.  PhGustaf (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it needs a reference, quite an important point if true though.Mr Miles 01:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: whack it out if you want, i'm not precious - just don't mess with my new subheading sizes!Mr Miles 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your new subheading sizes are just fine. PhGustaf (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA Meetings 

message: I changed the autoarchive interval from 10 to 21 days.  I don't think that this file is oppressively big, and it often happens that it takes more than 10 days for us to resolve a matter.  PhGustaf (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is getting pretty crowded again.  Let's say two weeks instead of three.  -- Scarpy (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autoarchive 

message: Any reason why the edit function has been dismantled?
--207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is semi-protected.  That means it can be edited only by people logged in under usernames, not those posting from anonymous IP addresses.  In addition, the user account has to be at least four days old. PhGustaf (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit function removed from the Main Article 

message: Quote from Mr. Miles
"I 'whacked out' lots of the other studies because that whole section was becoming a mess. The intro to this article ends with: 'there is evidence supporting the effectiveness of AA as a treatment for alcoholism'. Then there was a studies section predominantly finding AA to be ineffective - that is a contradiction which I wanted to correct."
What you did Mr. Miles was edit out any reserch that did not support AA as effective, put up a heading speaking to the effectiveness of AA and then went and edited out the original studies when they were reinserted and then cried fowl and vandalism.  Your personal bias reeks all over this page.  
It certainly was a contradiction of the facts as you wanted them presented,  and how you present is by ommission of any facts that could dispute your world view. 
Other people are very aware of what is going on and one posted has called you on it
--207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Diatribes like this don't help your credibility, nor do they encourage cooperation.  Take a few deep breaths, and Assume Good Faith. PhGustaf (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And for the record, I put the Brandsma article back in, it was removed by someone else. Mr Miles 00:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Editing 

message: Brandsma, Maultsby and Welsh
Other studies
::All the studies you have listed are still linked from the article.
::How many studies have been made of AA? What percentage showed positive results and what percentage negative? Unless you can answer those questions putting studies into the article is always going to be biased. Mr Miles 22:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies removed from this board 

message: All are part of the AA organization and should get mentioned, probably under the Program/Meetings section, not a big one but notable. Mr Miles 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conferences, Telephone offices and Prison services