Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 3

message: I have been browsing this page and saw a few comments that seemed to be conflicting.
It was repeatedly stated that the purpose of including Alcoholics Anonymous on Wikipedia was the same as any other topic; it is merely a subject in the encyclopedia, and has no other motives.
But it seems as though the participants in this discussion are quite passionate about the many details that should or should not be included.
I'm curious as to why the interest started on this subject, and why there seems to be so much controversy.  It seems like all of you are doing a decent job of making the article factual and appropriate.  
I'm just curious - have a family member who I suspect is Alcoholic, and wondered how you all wound up here?
Thank you,
Dinorama 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, and one that is not easy to answer. AA is open to people in crisis and despair, so whether people feel helped or hindered by AA, their feelings are often very intense. Those who have been helped are often fervent supporters of the 12-step program and sometimes see it as the only way to recovery. Opponents often see this fervour as narrow-minded and cult-like. AA is a spiritual program and AA groups are all independent, so it is difficult to obtain hard statistics on how well AA works. As far as the personal background of the contributors to this article, that's private, but it would seem likely that most of us have had some kind of contact, direct or indirect, with AA or the 12 steps. — DavidMack 15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intrigued and Curious 

message: The following, final, paragraph from the named section of the main article, should probably be removed, ASAP.
When defining alcoholism, it is imperative to note the element of choice (or lack thereof) as it relates to the first drink. As the Big Book states on page 24, "Most alcoholics, for reasons obscure, have lost the power of choice in drink. . .We are without defense against the first drink." Bearing this in mind helps the alcoholic new to recovery avoid the false sense of security that may accompany the idea that all he has to do is to avoid the first drink today. The power of choice over the first drink and the idea of being powerless over alcohol (Step One) are incompatible. Success in the program of Alcoholics Anonymous ultimately depends on the extent to which the alcoholic is able to admit his total inability to stop, or once stopped, to stay stopped, on his own.
This paragraph does not site references, is not NPOV, is probably "oringinal research", and sounds very unencyclopedic.  Sounds to me more like something that someone has said in a meeting than something that is generally agreed upon by everyone, even by everyone within the AA community.
In time, I may replace it with a brief discussion of the controversies behind the disease theory (when I have the energy to do proper research).  What does anyone think about the idea of removing this section?  And the idea of a section on controversies behind the disease theory?   82.19.66.37 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA's definition of alcoholism 

message: This may be a rather naive question but, what version of English should this article be written in? It seems a little inconsistent but mainly US English, should it be in International English, presume that is the target audience? Mr Miles 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is partly answered at the Manual of style: National varieties of English and Disputes over style issues. Yes it should be internally consistent, and if AA is considered American-born, then US English might be appropriate. Personnally, I don't know how to write International English. — DavidMack 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: From the Alcoholics Anonymous website..."Non-A.A. individuals and entities may not reprint A.A. copyrighted materials without prior approval granted pursuant to a written request."
Thank you for your contributions and comments.  I have followed them with great interest.  Especially to Mr. David Mack, who is obviously sincere in his dedication to the maintenance of this Wiki.
Dinorama 07:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe it prudent to include... 

message: I hope the addition of a paragraph on the anti-disease-theory-view makes everyone happy. The reference I used by Peele was also referenced in Vaillant: "Alcoholics Anonymous: cult or cure?" Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, June 2005, ref #32, as an example of anti-AA sentiment. — DavidMack 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some balancing context around your disease-theory edit, hopefully that will demonstrate the ratio of opinion between that viewpoint and the prevailing medical viewpoint. However, I'd also like to propose we remove discussion of disease-theory completely from this article. Perhaps we could just state AA's view that alcoholism is an illness and link to the Wiki article on disease-theory. Thanks. Mr Miles 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Make that simple statement and remove all the balancing context material. — DavidMack 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balanced description of anti-AA view

message: I took a look at Ken Ragge's book More Revealed (Alert Publications, November 1992) Online. (I'm not sure of the integrity of the online version, because the title page says it's a "Critical Ananlysis".) Ragge's thesis is that AA methods are based on disease theory (Chapter 3), that disease theory is invalid, and that AA uses guilt, "manipulation through fear", and coercion to indoctrinate new members (pp 18, 28 and 32-33 in the online version). Ragge states that AA members are status-driven gossip-mongers who often hold private meetings to keep out "undesirables" (p 98). The book was reviewed in Addiction (Aug93, Vol. 88 Issue 8, p1150-1152) by Alan Ogborne of the Addiction Research Foundation, London, Ontario, Canada.  Ogborne writes that the book "draws attention to many important issues" such as "AA's uncritical endorsement by many professionals". However, Ogborne summed up his review with the following statement:
 
I would therefore submit that More Revealed does not meet Wiki standards as a reliable source. — DavidMack 17:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It breaches the part where sources are supposed to be reliable. Since the argument in More Revealed has been shown not to to be representative, it would be misleading readers to assert that it is. The only mention it deserves is as being a published argument put forward is cleary biased and opportunisitic. -- Craigtalbert 22:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The progression of Ragge's book is that disease theory is invalid and therefore AA is by definition manipulative—which he seems to take as an open licence for what I see as a barrage of hatred. He does not explain statements like "undesirables... are not invited"—would this be based on observation, survey, personal experience? I conclude that this is a low-quality and unreliable source. — DavidMack 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You can't cite a source that has bogus information as being correct no matter how much you try to twist the language in WP:RS. Time Magazine could publish that the Earth was flat, Time Magazine qualifies as reliable source, you can say that Time Magazine erroneously printed that the Earth was flat, and cite when they did, but you can't present the information like it's true. Do you understand that as an anti-AA zealot, including More Revealed actually hurts your argument? Just as if Time Magazine did print the Earth was flat, the more people citing their mistake, the more it would damage the creditability of their publication? If you want to pluck things out of More Revealed at least pick some of the less ridiculous and less demonstratively wrong ones. This is an encyclopedia, after all. -- Craigtalbert 17:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then you can't site anything that alcoholics anonymous prints, due to the rather huge number of "bogus claims" that are printed, such as the disease concept, or anything about spiritual awakenings.  But, oh, hang on, you can, because this is what AA says.  So you can also quote what other people have said about AA, especially if it is from a reliable source.  And despite your accusations of me "twisting the words", I quoted directly from WP:RS, and have still not had an acceptable explanation of how More Revealed (let alone any of the other books from said website) deviates from that, and therefore is an unreliable source.  I'm not sure that I do want to pluck anything from "more revealed" (I haven't finished it yet...), but if I do, it will be in a "criticism/controversy" section, which would be the most appropriate place for it.213.235.24.138 12:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course I can, it's the article on Alcoholics Anonymous, and that's the position of the organization. The purpose of this article isn't to debate the trueness or falseness of what Alcoholics Anonymous says, it's to give unbiased/balanced information on Alcoholics Anonymous. Now, if I went in to the Disease Theory of Alcoholism and said Alcoholism is a disease because this book published by AA says so, then that would be wrong. — Craigtalbert 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If it does, then you should have no problem finding other reliable sources to support your claim. If not, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. -- Craigtalbert 00:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read up on wiki policies. In the article about AA, we state what AA says about itself, backed up by official AA documents (see What should be linked). For statements about AA, we have to find reliable sources. One characteristic of reliable sources is that they are verifiable, which means "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" etc. On the other hand, wiki says that "Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." In other words, if Joe Blow writes a book of questionable reliability, we may not use that book as a source on AA, but we can use that book in an article on Joe Blow, where we'd say "In his book Joe Blow is very critical of AA ..." etc. Clear? — DavidMack 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To read about "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" click here. I believe that More Revealed not a reliable source because the author is not a recognized authority who has published papers and he does not cite any research or sources as a basis for his attack on AA. The publisher See Sharp Press describes itself as follows: "a cause-driven small press" with a mission "to make available radical books and pamphlets that would otherwise not be published, especially in the areas of anarchism and atheism." I have no problem with See Sharp and I'm glad publishers like them exist; they challenge conventional world-views. However, no one has established that they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as wiki requires. I'm still not sure why you are defending More Revealed. We have also removed references to dubious pro-AA material such as books by "Dick B.". — DavidMack 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. The material from AA should be relevant and non-contentious. I believe a statement like "AA provides a spiritual program for recovery", referenced to AA material, is a valid statement of fact. A statement like "AA's program is the only certain route to recovery" is contentious and should not be in the article. Your contributions and editing that follow wiki policies are welcome. — DavidMack 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More on ''More Revealed''