Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 5

message: The citation used for this section does not appear to meet WP:V. Since it appears other editors disagree with me, I've posted it on the verifiability noticeboard. -- Craigtalbert 21:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the section has just been deleted with no explanation given.JeffStickney 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Model of a recovered Person 

message: The reference provides a name a date a page!!!  I have researched and cannont find Edwards!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking about Griffith Edwards? PhGustaf 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a footnote with the full reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#_note-31 — DavidMack 19:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Understanding of Alcoholism Who is Edwards??? 

message: At  I see the comment "(Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 24h) to /dev/null.)"  This means that rather than doing its usual weekly archive to the proper place, the archive bot took two threads and threw them on the floor -- they were gone from the talk page and not archived, and available only by going back into the page's history.  One of the threads was, ironically, "Don't Archive Discussions That are Not Finished".  Good Wikipedian that I am, I reverted the change.
It's difficult to imagine a software bug doing this.  It appears to be an action by someone who for some reason disliked the thread. PhGustaf 02:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for adding your humor to Wikipedia, but the talk pages are meant to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious discussion of an article on a talk page might not find absurd paranoia amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive). You might also want to check out Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. -- Craigtalbert 04:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not exactly sabotage, but still it's not a usual template, i.e. you can't "compact" it into one line (that is, not until I write a more sophisticated parsing algorithm). Миша13 07:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What? I can't have a sense of humor? I still think it's funny. - Craigtalbert 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Bot Bug or Sabotage 

message: Note - following broken RfC template has been nowikied - existence of broken template was causing bot log errors. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for Comments - Alcoholics Anonymous 

message: A review of articles published by Stanton Peele in Pschology today and on his website shows much has been omitted from the Vaillant study.
eg:http://www.peele.net/lib/allornothing.html
Studies of alcohol abusers in community settings show that they frequently outgrow their drinking problems on their own. Psychiatrist George Vaillant was part of a Harvard study that followed a group of men for four decades, beginning in adolescence. In his 1983 book The Natural History of Alcoholism, Dr. Vaillant reported that over 60 percent of those who overcame their alcoholism didn't enter any kind of treatment, including AA. 
Later in the decade, research by Kaye Fillmore, Ph.D., of the University of California, San Francisco, found that from 60 to 80 percent of problem drinkers stopped abusing alcohol, usually without treatment. 
Canadian addiction research investigators Linda Sobell, Ph.D., and Mark Sobell, Ph.D., recently reported that more than three-quarters of randomly selected adults in a national study who had recovered from alcohol problems for a year or more did so without formal help or treatment. 
According to Helzer and the ECA study, over half of all problem drinkers who stop abusing alcohol do so within five years of the start of their problem—usually by reducing their drinking, not quitting altogether. 
America's alcohol treatment industry attacks the idea of self-cure, saying people who believe they've recovered on their own are in denial.
http://www.peele.net/lib/vaillant.html
The natural history of the title refers to the course of drinking habits over an individual's lifetime. The book is based on a 40-year study of about 600 men from two research populations — an upper middle class college group and an inner city group. In addition, Dr. Vaillant reports on the results of treatment over eight years of 100 men and women at a Cambridge, Mass. clinic of which he is the codirector. Dr. Vaillant used the natural history approach before with good success in "Adaptation to Life" (1977). Unfortunately, in contrast to that earlier book, his analysis here is dense, contradictory and weighed down by issues that he has not fully resolved in his own mind.
Dr. Vaillant reports that 95 percent of the patients treated at his clinic, where A.A. attendance was compulsory, relapsed following treatment. After two and eight years, they showed no greater progress than comparable groups of untreated alcoholics. In acknowledging this, Dr. Vaillant confronts the dilemma of how to justify his faith in the efficacy of therapy. His resolution is to encourage the therapist not to interfere with the natural healing process.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 13, once again, have you read Vaillant? Otherwise you are reporting on one person's quotations of another person's research on AA. Vaillant did indeed report that many alcoholics grow out of their drinking problem on their own. He also reported that AA was involved in a significant number of successful returns to sobriety, in great detail — which Peele somehow forgets to mention. Anyway, these self-healing figures may be more relevant the the article Alcoholism. The 95% "failure" figure is not a rating of AA, it is a note on relapse rates of a system of hospital treatment followed by referral to AA. In this study AA attendance was associated with eventual sobriety, again not mentioned by Peele. Peele is a strong supporter of natural healing, but he only quotes information that supports his cause. If you can get hold of a copy of The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited, it is a very tough read, but there is a summary of the results at the end, or you can use the footnotes in Wiki articles to find the most relevant sections. Another book that gives a survey rather than a one-sided argument is Alcohol, the World's Favourite Drug by Griffith Edwards, which is a much easier read and you can focus on the chapters of interest. — DavidMack 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Depends if you want to push your own agenda or contribute to a quality article. As I explained above, Peele misrepresented the results. — DavidMack 19:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David, once again, I respect the work that you have done on this article.  My opinion is that Peeles opinion comes from the POV of an established addiction expert, who has analysed the statistical results of Valliants study and come up with different conclusions to Valliant.  Clearly, Peele has an agenda, but so does Valliant.  Surely, in a contentious study, such as this one, we need to have some balance added in so that we can allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusions, based on all published information?  213.235.24.138 10:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peele simply ignored or did not comment on Vaillant's research, results and discussion on AA — just take a glance at the book. Peele's factual statements of what was in the book were contradicted by other reviewers. I argue that Peele's views do not provide balance. If we add Peele's comments on Vaillant, then we'll have to add other reviewers' comments as well, which do not belong in this article. Like I said, do you want to argue technicalities of who's an expert, or do you want to build a quality article? — DavidMack 19:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with George Vaillant Research 

message: I have lodged a complaint about this user due to disruptive editing. — DavidMack 20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have been nice if you had contributed. — DavidMack 19:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As always, relevant information from reliable sources is welcome. — DavidMack 14:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User [[User talk:207.232.97.13|13]] / [[User talk:207.194.108.93|93]] 

message: Information that needs clarifying.</br>
1. Date or year  at which BillW. joined the Oxford Group.</br>
:May 1933
2. Was Bob Smith was a member of the Oxford Group when he met Bill? When did he join?</br>
:Yes, Bob was a member when he met Bill.
3. Date or year  Roland Hazard Joined the Oxford Group?</br>
4. What was the Date Bill and his group of Alcholics left the Oxford Group.  Were they asked to leave and if so why?  Was AA a result of this separation?</br>
:There was rising tension. Oxford Group leaders did not approve of special meetings for alcoholics. Bill W. and the others disagreed with some Oxford Group values. The split was final in 1939.
5. When and where  did they set up their own meetings?</br>
6. What did they call themselves immediately after the separation from the Oxford Group?</br>
:They didn't get a name until the release of the "Big Book.' They took the book title as their name.
7. What exactly is Jung's conversion cure?</br>
:Jung didn't have a spiritual cure. Jung could not cure Hazard, and all Jung could do was suggest that some type of a spiritual experience might lead to a cure.
207.232.97.13Fred207.232.97.13 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article is missing this part of the history. You could find the dates in any book on AA history. — DavidMack 14:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like it was done. — DavidMack 21:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll try to look that up. Thanks for your helpful and articulate request. I'm curious: is there more than one person using this account? — DavidMack 21:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, many people have a spiritual experience or awakening that helps them find a new path, away from the drink. The spiritual awakening is specifically mentioned in the 12th step as being the result of working the steps. — DavidMack 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You are correct that there's a big gap in the article on this period in AA history -- the time of AA separation from the Oxford Group and early growth. The basic story has to be written, and then there might be room for the less commonly known aspects. Can you dig up a reliable source for this material that is not original research? — DavidMack 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA early history 

message: For example, alcoholics and their families all attended together as
was the Oxford Group practice. That didn't stop until Al-Anon was founded in
the 1950s   Or were all the meetings secretive and closed?
When did the  concept or wording  of a "spirtural experience " become  a "spirtual awakening". (207.232.97.13Fred207.232.97.13)
:As I understand it, many people have a spiritual experience or awakening that helps them find a new path, away from the drink. The spiritual awakening is specifically mentioned in the 12th step as being the result of working the steps. — DavidMack 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in the Organization through Time 

message: The original founder of AA.  I think we have to make room for Clarence Synder either in the history section or under criticism and controvesy
http://www.aabibliography.com/aapioneers/clarencesnyder.htm
Letter from AA to Synder concerning Big Book royalities:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cleve1944.html
from Henrietta to Synder:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Henrietta_Seiberling.html
I realize Orange is not considered a reference but in this he does have copies of the letters online.
"Clarence started the first A.A. group in Cleveland in 1939, in part because
some Roman Catholic priests in Cleveland were refusing to let Catholics
attend the Oxford Group meeting in Akron. " 
Both Synder and Henrietta  Sieberling (who introduced Dr. Bob to Bill) considered BillW a usurper.
Separting from the Oxford Group:
"Another thing is that _after_ founding a separate meeting from Calvary
Chapel, Wilson was in Ohio with Dr. Bob both attending Oxford Group
meetings, study Oxford Group literature, and converting new members to
OG with Dr. Bob in the old OG method of sequestering them away in a
hospital room for "oxfordizing."
:You are correct that there's a big gap in the article on this period in AA history -- the time of AA separation from the Oxford Group and early growth. The basic story has to be written, and then there might be room for the less commonly known aspects. Can you dig up a reliable source for this material that is not original research? — DavidMack 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarence Synder 

message: The fallout at Midtown was bigger than one woman being told to quit her medication and  pressured to have sex and that she went to another group and life  was hunky dory. iT IS A COMPLETE MINIMIZATON OF THE REAL STORY!
The follow up story in the Washington Post identifies other issues, it as a very large group 400. There was more than one woman here.  The police investigated  the stories of a number of women who have come forward. . FACT:  Maryland's Laws are different than other parts of the country.  Sexual relations  with a 16 or 17 year old girls by men decades older  would is SEX WITH A MINOR in many parts of the world however in Maryland it is not.  In Maryland the person has to be under 15 of age to be a minor.    A pschologist has gone on record in regards to this group and it has detrimently affected two of her patients.   Other members of the health community have come forward. .  People in the health industry were aware of problems.
The story of abuse within a group also identifies how AA as a whole deals with this. it is a story of how the traditions work, when it comes to dealing  with very , very, serious issues involving an individual group—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk • contribs) 03:55, Oct 9, 2007 (UTC)
:I agree that this story shows how things can go horrifyingly wrong in AA, so it's worth including. The articles condemned the abuse but also discussed the flip side that this group is not typical and should not even be calling itself AA. Both views should be represented in the wiki article. — DavidMack 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The traditions, including 10 through 12, also ensure that no one person tries to take the public spotlight. The negative aspect could be included, if it is from a reliable source. Also it might be more relevant in the article Twelve traditions. — DavidMack 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues of Abuse 

message: Quote:
:"AA undertakes no external restriction or vetting of its members, and the long-form version of Tradition 3 (the basis of AA policy) states that "Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an AA group..."http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_appendiceI.cfm
This sentence has been added and subtracted dozens of times. Before making changes, please discuss this sentence here and vote 'keep' or 'remove'.
:Remove. My view is that the above sentence is redundant now that the journalist's quotes were added explaining AA's policy on not controlling or policing groups. — DavidMack 14:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war over tradition 3 quote

message: There is an edit war going on ("two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to a page"). There are so many reversions it's impossible to keep track of the article. The recommendation is revert only once, and then take it to talk. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary suggests that "High-frequency reversion wars make the page history less useful, waste space in the database, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists."
:Issue # 1: see above: Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous#Edit war over tradition 3 quote. — DavidMack 14:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please halt the edit war 

message: *At 18:45 on 12 October 2007, User:207.232.97.13 added copyright material from http://aa-history.com/dickb16.html
**When references were requested for this material, at 04:08, 16 October 2007 the user added a false reference to another book.
**The actual copyright source (Dick B.) has been previously discussed and disallowed  due to unreliability. .
*Added unsourced material.
*Added unsourced material.
*Removal, without discussion, of material that had been amended as per talk page discussion.
Fred, I finally see what you're doing. You want to show that the Oxford Group and AA overlapped in Bill's life. And you believe that AA pretty much stole material from the Oxford Group and remained the Oxford Group just under a different name. You don't read books, so you're taking material from the only source you can find on this — Dick B. — and putting it in without reference. Jeez, you could have said so and I could have helped you — I also would like to add material on this. In the meantime, I will remove your unsourced material about the religious connection until we can get some reliable sources. Kapiche? — DavidMack 02:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with David on this one. Fred/207.232.97.13/207.194.108.93, stop with the edit warring and the uncited material, etc. -- Craigtalbert 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the explanation. Those insights are interesting. If you can include it in the article with proper references and maybe with a little less disruptive tactics that would be great. (BTW, am I talking to two people at the same acccount? You have distinctive styles.) — DavidMack 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I went through the "conversions of Thacher and Wilson" section and found that many of the references to Pass it On were false -- likely, again, material from Dick B. I think it was interesting material, but we need to find a good source for it. — DavidMack 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It does seem to be pov-pushing and I don't feel it adds much to the article. -- Craigtalbert 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing 

message: :I went through the "conversions of Thacher and Wilson" section and found that many of the references to Pass it On were false -- likely, again, material from Dick B. I think it was interesting material, but we need to find a good source for it. — DavidMack 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need some references

message: Fred, what's with the negative material you added, supposedly from the Big Book? It looks like you did not try to summarise the material, but instead extracted just the parts that support your views. — DavidMack 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to be pov-pushing and I don't feel it adds much to the article. -- Craigtalbert 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV additions

message: I know this isn't a "proper source", but http://www.morerevealed.com/articles/match.jsp seems to imply that project match was never a test of AA, per se, but was actually a test of TSF (something quite differnt from AA...).  SHould this article be up there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.206.215 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TSF = Twelve-Step Facilitation therapy , as it currently says in the section on project MATCH. At any rate, Schaler's essay you linked too is arguing that TSF is very much like AA. -- Craigtalbert 01:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: MATCH simply concludes that TSF is as effective as other methods — an important conclusion. MATCH is quoted in some texts on AA. It was a high-quality study. 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. — DavidMack 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with David on this one. A neutral result is still a result. Adding something to explain the difference between TSF and AA would be fine. -- Craigtalbert 21:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project match 

message: How It works has been vandalized and removed.  it appears a user is an editing war.one user has decided to eliminate some posts without disussion.  Ph Gustaf take note. 
207.232.97.13Fred207.232.97.13 19:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you add this information to the article? -- Craigtalbert 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for clarifying. I thought you were trying to over-emphasize the religious nature of the program, and I was right. As you have admitted to your POV pushing, I'm going to delete the section. -- Craigtalbert 23:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you think it's so crucial to have a summary of this chapter in the article, and in particular your summary, and only your summary? -- Craigtalbert 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And, while we're discussing the topic, why don't you take a little more care when editing? Like this: . Why did you leave the spurious <ref in the citation? Even when you moved the information around, you still didn't fix it: . Even this, what's with the "IBSN" ? You sign your comments maybe one out of four times. It's like you just don't care. Do you take any pride in your work? -- Craigtalbert 04:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You seem to be in a hurry nearly every time you edit. Do you only have sporadic access to the internet? Why not edit when you have time to review your work and correct mistakes (e.g. preveiws, knowledgable, suprised, rigouress, religous, lenghthy)? Do you know PHGustaf?  At any rate, I'm having a hard time following what you're saying here. I'm not saying that your summary is inaccurate, but rather that it's selective in what it summarizes, out of place in the article, and (I'm not alone here) I don't see the "common sense" in having it in the article. Common sense implies that people sense there's a common understanding that whatever you're saying is true. It doesn't seem other editors agree it is the case that it should be in the article. Can you make another argument for including it? -- Craigtalbert 05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred's summary of How It Works 

message: Someone should say what these might be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhGustaf (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point in this section. There is a risk of patients breaking confidentiality in any therapy group, professional or non-professional. — DavidMack 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's true, but the legal circumstances are different. There is legally guaranteed doctor-patient privilege, for example. This is saying that there are no similar laws enforcing the Twelve Promises, confidentiality and anonymity in twelve-step programs. This may seem obvious, but is worth saying. -- Craigtalbert 06:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptional Circumstances 

message: New evidence has come to light on this matter I refer you to some web pages regarding Jung and Rowland Hazard. This source is well referenced: http://www.stellarfire.org
Read the Article here is something interesting.
:According to Richard Dubiel, (in The Road to Fellowship p 66-67) the first indication that Rowland was to be seeing Courtenay Baylor appeared in a letter from his mother to his brother written 24 July 1933. This was about two weeks after the resolution of the standoff between Allied Chemical and the Stock Exchange. Courtenay Baylor billed the family (there was a fund set aside for such expenses) a substantial amount of money over the next few months and then smaller amounts through the fall of 1934. 
:Early in 1933, Rowland had turned over the management of his businesses, including those in New Mexico, to other family members. My guess is that during the first six months of 1933, the reason Rowland was not involved in his usual business concerns was the crisis at Allied Chemical and Dye. In late 1933 and early 1934 he was probably recovering from a relapse. 
:The specific reason for chosing Baylor is not known, although Baylor had a good reputation as a lay therapist who worked with alcoholics. Interestingly, he was not the first person to treat Rowland who had Emmanuel movement connections. Dr. Edward Cowles had worked with the Emmanuel groups while completing a fellowship in psychiatry/neurology at Harvard in 1907-09. Beginning in 1922, Cowles directed a "Body and Soul Clinic," on the Emmanuel pattern, at St. Mark's-in-the-Bowerie Church in New York City. 
207.232.97.13 20:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred/13: Hindsfoot.org claims that Hazard's meeting with Jung was legit, it just took place a little earlier (1932). Your thoughts on this? — DavidMack 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA story on Jung may not be accurate 

message: I don't think the Emmanuel movement is relevant here. All the current material says is that Bill W. owned a copy of Peabody's book. Hindsfoot.org has one sentence: "Bill W. was also influenced by Richard R. Peabody, author of The Common Sense of Drinking." That should be all we need in this article. — DavidMack 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emmanuel movement irrelevant 

message: Please don't rip out chunks of texts leaving spaces and incorrect punctuation as with criticisms, or throw them in out of context with what's being discussed (in this case Bill's development of the steps, nothing to do with meeting attendance). A couple of people here are trying to clean up this article to make it a presentable and reliable source for research. Thanks. -Bikinibomb 19:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy editing 

message: Please do not remove this information, which is based on a reliable source from a world-renowned expert. The statement is that "Edwards conjectures ...etc.", which is a true fact of interest to all readers, especially given that AA is a difficult organisation to research. — DavidMack 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd further add that it is appropriate to cite someone's published POV. It's not appropriate for Wikipedians to embellish cites or insert their own points of view into an article. There's a difference. -Bikinibomb 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Edwards book is not a peer reviewed journal, as has been repeatedly stated should be required for this article, especially this section of the article for which there are numerous studies.  Edwards conjecture does not warrant inclusion.  We all know what happens when we start citing someones published POV (I hear Stanton P calling....)  213.235.24.138 14:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edwards' book without doubt meets the criteria. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. — DavidMack 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwards' estimate of AA effectiveness 

message: For example, citing a source that states Oxford and AA are similar is appropriate. On the other hand, a Wikipedian comparing two different sources of research and then stating in an article that one study discounts the other is original research and POV, thus inappropriate. Thanks. -Bikinibomb 05:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, in the instance I'm referring to: if a wiki article cites Study A and Study B, but Study A never specifically refers to Study B...if a Wikipedian inserts a statement that "Study A counters Study B," the reality is that Study A is not countering Study B, the Wikipedian is using Study A to counter Study B, which is original research and POV. Hope that makes sense. -Bikinibomb 06:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Bikinibomb, thanks for your hard clean-up work; it reads much better now. — DavidMack 20:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, thanks. -Bikinibomb 20:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: I put a sentence (which sums it up adequately) about it back in Criticism, then readers can go to Twelve-step program criticism to read the rest. -Bikinibomb 23:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confidentiality 

message: Frank Buchman on sanity "The only sane people in an insane world are those controlled by God"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanity 

message: There's a lot of tentative language in this article. All of these sentence that being with "some" and "many" suck the life out of anything the sentence might say, like a weasel. More over, if you have a citation for what you're saying, there's no reason to say "according to," as it's obvious who/what is arguing it. There should rarely be cases where this makes sense. it gives the article a tone like "this guy, who may or may not be completely fucking dumb argued this thing, and I want you to know it's just this guy saying and it's not like something generated from a universal truth machine or something like that, and this is what this guy who may be nuts said." This will be a citation, people can look at it.  State what the article/book/whatever says, don't use this language like you're dancing around the truth of what's said. -- Craigtalbert 16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point -- now that Bikini Bomb has removed the "according to"s it reads much better — DavidMack 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Some, many, according to -- gone, except when quoted in cites. -Bikinibomb 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is such a contentious article that we can't just write "AA is effective X% of the time <ref>" we have to write "Expert John Doe says AA is effective X% of the time." It certainly reduces the quality of the writing. For comparison, check out the unreadability of Cult. — DavidMack 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In some cases, that is true, when clarifying contentious information. But even in this article, those these cases are in the minority -- and probably a sign that the article is degenerating in to something like a Vaillant v. Peele pissing match anyway. -- Craigtalbert 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the trick is to try and improve the article while some people are pissing. Peele isn't really in Vaillant's league. Sounds like you need a break, mate. — DavidMack 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good on you. :) -- Craigtalbert 03:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words, according too, and this person argues 

message: I made the split, AA history is now at History of AA. -Bikinibomb 02:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Twelve Step development in the Big Book is back in there now too. -Bikinibomb 02:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Great thanks. -Bikinibomb 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA history has own article now 

message: I removed that bit yet again and mentioned it more in sponsorship. The story of one guy who couldn't get sober but helped others doesn't need its own section, any more than "one alcoholic helped people even though he cheated on his taxes and didn't maintain rigorous honesty like AA suggests." So again the line has to be drawn somewhere so the article doesn't get bogged down by fixating on pet issues. -Bikinibomb 21:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. — DavidMack 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: For some alcoholics, stopping drinking is just the first step — they work the program to learn how to enjoy life sober. Some need life-long support, and work the program to remain sober. For some the program is like a healthy diet — you wouldn't say "My health is better so I'll go back to Big Macs." And in spiritual terms, there is no graduation in life, you go on learning till the day you die. Just my opinion. — DavidMack 00:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carrying the message 

message: Fred/13, the material you added on Brandsma is unacceptable.
*much of it copied and pasted without reference from Resisting 12-Step Coercion by Peele (see text p 47 in Google books). You even included a line break from the book: "tradi- tional".
*personal opinions added with a false reference ("As we saw in Chapter 1, this assertion is not true...")
*partial reference to material with no title and page number which you obviously did not read.
I am removing this copyright material and reporting you for disruptive editing. — DavidMack 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing 

message: Had he any particular credentials or documented experience that justify his being quoted here? 
PhGustaf 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Silkworth was a medical doctor who specialised in the treatment of alcoholics. In this article he is notable mainly for his influence on AA. — DavidMack 15:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of that, and I'm aware of his importance within the AA canon.  But his letter is more a tract than a thesis (and presents more a hypothesis than a theory) and his ideas deserve the same scrutiny as any others.  I see no medical notabily to his idea. -- PhGustaf (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Silkworth's time, the disease theory had fallen out of favour and was rarely heard. I actually don't believe he was a very good doctor. His ideas on obsession and allergy are not scientifically based, as far as I know, they are just used by AA as a helpful concept. I modified the text to make it clear that he was an influence, not a modern-day authority. — DavidMack (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that addresses my concern.  I was considering doing it myself, but I've decided to tread lightly here till I learn a little more. -- PhGustaf (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Silkworth 

message: Idle threads on this talk page are automatically archived.  This is good; it keeps the page to a decent size.  Craig recently shortened the archive interval from 14 days to 7, and I changed it back.  I don't think the current size of the page is oppressive, and I think it's helpful to new editors to have easy access to recent discussion.
The autoarchive interval probably isn't something an individual should change without discussion.  Of course, the discussion could make the size of the file oppressive, and ... PhGustaf (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would keep with the established trend of fighting over every change made to this article, no matter how insignificant. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble is, one person's "insignificant" is another's "essential". Your 10-day compromise is fine with me. PhGustaf (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's about being able to see the forest for the trees. There are editors like Bikinibomb who contribute a ton to the article and put work in to making the content coherent. Then there are editors who shit all over the article accompanied by a vanguard who defend them. You can argue subjectivity all you want, but in reality it's easy to tell when someone is being pedantic and/or obstructionist and someone who really wants to improve the article. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrivia: Autoarchive 

message: 80.194.237.22: "A TV show doesn't hack it as a Reliable Source. Need Reliables Sources for 1. The AA report and 2. The stats for self-motivated abstinence.)"
Refer to cite episode. "Serious" and "any good at research" are POV, we can't determine for the reader who is most accurate, we just report it if it's notable. Research claims from AA or a television show are notable. -Bikinibomb 15:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Research claims from AA or a television show are notable." True, however the TV clip cited doesn't contain research. In the video Penn & Teller hold up (if you look closely) a photocopy of the document from [OrangePapers], it's very recognisable. Orange Papers is not a Reliable Source, Agent Orange cites, Alcoholics Anonymous, Cult or Cure? by Charles Bufe as the source of that document, but his citations are not necessarily to be trusted. If you (or someone) can check the book Cult or Cure to make sure it's actually there then I guess it can go in, provided Bufe's book is by a reputable publisher. Would prefer a link to the original (AA) source though, particularly on this controversial topic. Incidentally, even if correct, the graph IS retention date, not sobriety data - I've changed the article to reflect that. 80.194.237.22 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Could you please check that agent orange link? It doesn't work for me. Thanks, DavidMack 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe I'll email AA HQ to see what they say, you'd think they would address that on aa.org or in the press if it was entirely fabricated but I don't see anything. In the meantime I don't care if it stays or not since the first paragraph of Effectiveness implies determining it is little more than educated guesswork anyway. Just trying to head off another revert war and present all sides without bias. -Bikinibomb 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I'm not sure AA HQ address anything in the press! Point of interest, the idea to compare that 5% retention figure and the 5% natural recovery rate for alcoholics is from OP I think and not Cult or Cure, kind of depressing that Penn & Teller don't dig much deeper in their 'research', guess they just want ratings. 80.194.237.22 16:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AA survey used to be at http://thearidsite.tripod.com/AACOMMPR.PDF, but now I get no access and a spyware warning from that site. I do have the pdf at work, which I'll dig up tomorrow. Vaillant's actual success rate was not 5% — see summary at The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited#Alcoholics Anonymous. Agent Orange criticises AA for the low retention rate, however his argument is equivalent to saying that gymns have a low retention rate, therefore excercise does not work. Anyway, the low retention rate is eye-opening and a cause for concern by AA. — DavidMack 19:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Found a copy here: http://thearidsite.tripod.com/AACOMMPR.PDF (2 MB) (warning: i got a spyware warning from the root site). According to the site (google archive here), document is "Comments On A.A. Triennial Surveys", Dec. 1990, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services (internal document), AA document identification number 5M/12-90/TC. — DavidMack 22:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it's legit since I can't find any denials from AA about the BS! show. -Bikinibomb 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Penn and Teller are just another "external issue" that they wouldn't comment on. — DavidMack 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Uuuuhh... which newspaper accounts would you be referring to? — DavidMack 14:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1989 AA report 

message: ::MisterAlbert, I'm very glad to hear you're acquiring Vaillant, then we'll be able to discuss it directly, without referring to other websites.
::The one-sentence description of Vaillant's Clinic study in the article is, as best as I see, concise, complete, and NPOV. At the end of 8 years of treatment of severely alcoholic patients, 29 had achieved stable remission, 24 had intermittent alcoholism, and 47 were still chronic alcoholics. (These poor results were in fact congruent with other clinical studies on severe alcoholics.) The patients were initially in hospital for 1 to 11 days for a mean of 5 days (Vaillant p 189). Daily treatment included counselling, films, and group discussions. AA meetings were required twice weekly while in hospital, which means that most patients likely saw at least one AA meeting. Once released, the patients were encouraged to attend the twice-weekly outpatient meetings, which in turn encouraged AA attendance. For 8 years, the patients had unlimited, free access to the entire local network of halfway houses, drop-in centres, detox units, and integrated mental health facilities. At the end of the 8 year study, 68 patients had attended AA for 99 meetings or less, and 32 had attended 100 or more, giving a good basis to examine if AA attendance was associated with improved outcomes. The article as it stands now states one of the key results (out of 4 pages of discussion that include two tables - p 194-7).
::Is this all relevant to the article article on AA? Not really. It's relevant only if you've read Agent Orange et al. and been fed distorted, one-sided, incomplete information.
::— DavidMack (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments above were to clarify why Agent Orange is an unreliable source. Please don't make inflammatory comments, it's considered trolling. — DavidMack (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that anything that I wrote above was "trolling" or inflamatory.  213.235.24.138 (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sorry. I misunderstood. — DavidMack (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More details on Vaillant's Clinic Sample

message: Dick B. is a very reliable source on AA but the Pro AA'ers keep him off because of his Christian agenda.  Though if you read his web cite it is loaded with AA history.207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Call us pro-wikipedians. — DavidMack 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: um..Dick B. distorts and leaves out relevent facts to promote that christian agenda...its kinda like citing Michal Moor...he may know alot but you can't trust what he said.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: He publishes his own books under the name Paradise Research Publications, Inc.. See WP:SELFPUB. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that Dick B is pretty accurate, but not a valid source, which is a shame for the AA history article.  213.235.24.138 (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, all information posted on this website must be based on a certain type of source. — DavidMack 22:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dick B 

message: This title refers to editors throwing in information without regard to quality or source, to see if others will let it stay in.
===Peele vs. Vaillant===
A little bird added some criticisms of Vaillant by Peele. FYI Peele attacked Vaillant in book reviews and in his book Diseasing of America. Peele's book reviews stated basic facts that were strangely opposite to what others observed. Vaillant actually took account of Peele's criticisms and did follow-up research on the subjects mentioned by Peele. The follow-up research found that controlled drinking was a dismal failure in that instance. So I am going to remove the Peele material. If someone insists on adding it back in then I guess I'll have to put in the whole controversy, which really wouldn't benefit the article, or Peele, very much. — DavidMack 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did most of the material on Vaillant. He tends to discuss every issue from both points of view, so you get a good objective opinion from him. I believe he was an AA trustee, but he still seems to be able to give a good list of pros and cons. — DavidMack 18:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Throwing spaghetti against the wall 

message: A little bird added some criticisms of Vaillant by Peele. FYI Peele attacked Vaillant in book reviews and in his book Diseasing of America. Peele's book reviews stated basic facts that were strangely opposite to what others observed. Vaillant actually took account of Peele's criticisms and did follow-up research on the subjects mentioned by Peele. The follow-up research found that controlled drinking was a dismal failure in that instance. So I am going to remove the Peele material. If someone insists on adding it back in then I guess I'll have to put in the whole controversy, which really wouldn't benefit the article, or Peele, very much. — DavidMack 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peele vs. Vaillant

message: Can someone confirm that Dr. Vaillant was an AA Trustee? If so, it seems he sympathized with the 12 Step Program of Recovery. The quotes in the article seem to suggest the opposite. Is it possible that someone on a crusade had a heavy hand in writing portions of this article? 
//DK
216.67.26.77 09:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did most of the material on Vaillant. He tends to discuss every issue from both points of view, so you get a good objective opinion from him. I believe he was an AA trustee, but he still seems to be able to give a good list of pros and cons. — DavidMack 18:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was Vaillant saying? Wae he quoted improperly? 

message: This may be good faith, but it is also spaghetti: 
. -- Craigtalbert 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity