Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 1

message: I can see you don't want the truth told about Bill Wilson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.15.138.125 (talk • contribs) .
:Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy.  If you want to criticize the subject of any article on Wikipedia, you must back it up with facts and cite your sources.  Personally, I'm not a member of AA and if you don't like them it's no skin off my nose.  However, Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions - not mine, not yours, not even Jimbo Wales'.  See WP:NOT for more on this.  Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes. RedRollerskate 23:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above cult comment was left by 64.136.49.229 who has a long history of vandalizing various articles.  The user has warings on his/her talk pages that at least go back to September so this is not new.  They have been warned repeatedly.  Franky I have no tollerance for this.  Can someone ban him/her from editing this article? Mr Christopher 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (untitled)

message: I was curious to see what wikipedia would have under "spiritual experience" - but I was redirected to this page.  I am utterly confused...Why would I be redirected from "spiritual experience" to AA?  Doesn't make sense - can someone explain it to me? 75.30.176.51 04:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spiritual Experience

message: I have made an *addition* to the section on supporters of AA. I have not removed or edited any material. Here is a paste of my item:
(start paste) 
* AA believes that members cannot "control people places or things." In other words, an AA member cannot control *outcomes*. It is possible to manage one's life, but one cannot force a desired outcome. One *can* work toward an outcome, set goals, make plans, pursue desired ends, and so forth. The results of those efforts, however, are not determinable. An AA member learns to change the things that can be changed, as has been noted. 
(end paste)  
I made this addition to make more explicit the distinction between "managing" and "controlling." The previous item talks about "footwork," and how footwork is different from results, and that's fine. But I wanted to more clearly lay out the AA concept of "accepting what I cannot change" while making it clear that goals, plans and so forth are encouraged. Ned 10:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "/Merits of AA/Supporters" Section

message: I have changed the first sentence because of a recent edit that said that AA was designed to get people sober.  In fact, AA is simply the messenger of the Twelve Steps, and exists to put forward that message.  Its only reason for existence is that.  It so happens that in creating a fellowship to carry the message of the Twelve Steps, it also creates fellowship and support, but the Twelve Steps are the essence of what AA is about.  Cherns
:Cherns: Fine, I changed it, but on reflection, your approach is perhaps better. Marcus.
::Nevertheless, historically, the fellowship predated the Twelve Steps. "[AA's] Primary Purpose", as the AA Preamble says, is not "to carry the message of the Twelve Steps" but "to stay sober, and to help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety". (Of course, the main texts of AA literature were not written with the goal of internal verbal/literal consistency.) --Haruo 21:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First Sentence

message: The version of 22:03 Jun 14, 2002 has completely different material.
Should it be restored?
:In my opinion, no.  I think the history of this page is a good example of how wikipedia works.  It covers a controversial subject on which many people hold strong views - the page has swung back and forth and now gets pretty close to my idea of NPOV.  I think that the so-called "atheist's critique" of AA is actually more of a critique of the court system that insists convicted criminals attend AA meetings as part of their sentence than of AA itself, but I don't see any reason to remove it.  In my experience, AA only works for people when they are ready and truly have the desire to stop drinking (that's the only membership requirement after all) not when a court or other authority figure decides it's time for them to stop drinking.
----
On moderation, I used the first relevant link I found on Google; the article may be biased in one direction or the other but I skimmed it and it looked fine. --Calieber 14:19, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect and all my passion for history, an enyclopedic article on AA should first and foremost provide information on AA as it is today, an international organization which has evolved significantly since its clearly Christian roots. Furthermore those early (1940-s) reported success rates are pretty much AA legend, no? Do you have any evidence for recovery rates between 75% and 93%, other than stated by those early AA members themselves? What exactly do you mean by 'documented'? Tribute2jimmyk 19:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and Misc.

message: The controversy area of the AA topic on Wikipedia is way beyond what it
merits. There is actually little controversy about A.A. compared to
other organizations of its size and influence. It is certainly valid to
mention detractors, but giving so much space to the issue is wrong.
-----
I agree very strongly. It is important to retain proportionality, if Wikipedia is to continue to be useful and respected. That means that the amount of space given to a subtopic should relate, at least in a very broad way, to its RELATIVE importance IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LARGER SUBJECT. This is not about limiting criticism but about not letting the tail wag the dog. Ned 09:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Even calling it controversy

message: Repaired 68.38.123.88's vandalism to the "Critical Links" section.--Midnite Critic 22:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link vandalism 

message: the history and development is leaning towards the view of the organization. It seems like something taken from their site or something. Does anyone else have a problem with the pov?Blueaster 02:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is very POV. --Icarus 02:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Everything in the History and Development section is factual.  What I find biased is your opposition to what is factual, along with the biased language that you use as you express that opposition.  AA is not an "organization" and does not have a "view" that has been reproduced in the History and Development section.  4.246.120.48 04:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History and Development

message: Clearly, it is highly disingenous for Icarus and others to respond to critiques of their arguments with charges of "ad hominem," deriding "personal attacks" at the same time that they are doing everything possible, through addition of links, edits to the article, and proposals for new articles, to conduct a long series of ad hominem attacks against members of AA.  This is the sheerest hypocrisy.  If you people want to add link after link after link that contain anti-AA ad hominem attacks, you have lost all credibility when you then turn around and accuse someone else of an ad hominem attack simply for pointing out your obvious bias.  If you really deplore ad hominem as much as you claim, I'd like to know how you justify all of the name-calling that occurs in the links you've added to the article.  If you believe those links should remain, then you need to explain why you think "ad hominem" should never be allowed on an article's talk page, but is just fine on the article page itself.  Your "reasoning" is completely twisted here. August11 16:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If those websites were wikis, I would try to remove the nasty and unproductive insults on them.  They are not wikis, though, so I cannot.  I do not approve of insults, no matter which side is using them.  If someone here started insulting you, I'd tell them to cool it.  I'm not telling you to stop offering critiques of arguments that you believe have flaws.  I'm just saying that little insults stuck in them unproductive, and as I try to assume good faith, I'm sure that you do not want to intentionally be unproductive.  You're free, welcome even, to provide critiques.  Just be civil. It would be wrong for me or anyone else to attempt to silence you just because we disagree, just as it would be wrong for you to attempt to silence someone just because you disagreed with them. --Icarus 17:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad Hominem Attacks/Hypocrisy

message: I took the liberty of changing a sentence which was clearly, and I hope uncontroversially, a sentence with a strong POV. 
"Many alcoholics arrive at A.A. with a strong disbelief or resentment towards spiritual ideas. For some this may change over time."
The main problem I have is with the word "resentment", clearly a athiest or agnoststic would not describe themselves as holding a "resentment" against spirituality, only someone writing from a religous standpoint would project "resentment" as a source of an athiests or agnostic's disbelief, as it deny's that their disbelief comes from reflection, which it does just as much as religous beliefs do. You would not say "Bob converted to Catholicism because he holds a resentment towards reason" and claim it to be NPOV. This is precisely the language used by the Alcoholics Anonymous book and was obviously written by somebody who adheres to the party line. 
I kept the information not having to do with the POV in, and put a little information about the feeling of athiests and agnostics, and why they find A.A. attitudes towards them offensive. Someone with a strong AA POV may automatically judge the following as POV, but I urge them to look close and notice I did not phrase it in such a way to suggest any particular view, I merely am poining out a view that is widespread amongst athiests and agnostics who have attended A.A., and nothing I say abou the "attitudes" is untrue, and can be found in the We Agnostics chapter of the A.A. book. Nowhere did I even suggest that it is the correct interpretation of the A.A. book, just that it is a view held by many athiests and agnostics and that it is the source of much discontent with A.A. whether right or wrong. I tried hard to get across this important aspect of the controversey in a NPOV way, and I am confident I did, please don't get rid of this line just because you don't agree with the athiests and agnostics mentioned. This article's purpose is to present information about AA, including controversies, in a NPOV way, not to dismiss the controversey because you think that the contentious people are wrong. 
--Brentt 05:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AA and Religion edit

message: Sentence three:
"A.A. is thought to be the most successful treatment for alcoholism ever devised."
is framed in the passive voice, which any trained linguist can tell you tends to be misleading, as the subject is unspecified.  Unspecified subjects carry the implicature of unversal quantification, which is clearly not the case as there remains controversy concerning the effectiveness of AA vis a vis other approaches.
Hence, I am making an edit to sentence three and am citing references. Pork Chop Tze 04:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence Three 

message: The AA article says, "One factor that complicates research into AA effectiveness is the difficulty of gathering statistical information on groups that protect the anonymity of members."
It may be that the groups protect the anonymity of members. But this certainly is not what the "anonymous" in the "alcoholics anonymous" meant to the founders of AA.
   
If you actually read the "Big Book", you'll find that the clear intention of the word "anonymous" is that public figures who want to tell others about the program should not make theirs a "celebrity endorsement".  Rather, each should ask that the audience regard him or her as just another drunk, just another "anonymous alcoholic".
This, of course, has nothing to do with the silliness of those in a tiny AA group in a small village avoiding using one another's last names to maintain "anonymity".  And what it actually does proscribe is exactly that which has become all the rage in recent decades.
Is it surprising that those who claim to be the staunchest advocates of some religion may actually misrepresent its basic tenets?  No.  But it can be a real disservice to those who trust these “leaders”.
68.34.12.242 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear - the anonymity issue I was referring to at the end of my post was consistent with the quotes you offer - lest anyone think that I was trying to speak for AA by identifying myself as a member and then offering my views.  
That was not my intention, but some people are more sensitive to the whole issue than  I am, and I am not unmindful of that.
On the other hand, maybe your quotes have nothing to do with my post.
?
UncleCheese 22:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anonymity 

message: I am not very familiar with this format. Bill's so-called failures or defects of character have been addressed ad nauseum. There are several books and articles outlining his drug taking, affairs with women, and many other areas. Virtually all areas of Bill's life have been exposed, discussed and continue to be discussed. If you wish iconoclastic references, I would invite you to visit orange-papers on the net where you will find a multitude of articles, documents, opinions, theories and facts not only about Bill but AA in general. Orange-Papers is an anti-AA site which I totally recommend anyone interested in AA history to read. It is well done and despite the fact that I am an old-time AA person, many materials I have made public appear on that site. Mitchell K.
In this iconoclastic age, public figures--both living and dead--are subjected to the most intense scrutiny, often to the point of the absurd. However, there is one secular saint whose life and work one analyzes at one's peril: Bill Wilson: his misogyny; his possible, though (as yet) unproven financial improprieties; his sexual harassment of young female recruits; his drug-taking (LSD); and the purported vision of God, probably induced by prescribed hallucinogenic drugs! Is it not time that we began to look at his failures as well as his achievements in the light of historical and textual analysis?
Cosmocrator
"AA-Speak" is usually a term used by AA bashers. The practice of some AA members telling people on psychotropic (or other) medications that they are not sober has significantly diminished over the past several years. This practice was not limited to so-called old-timers (people with long-term continuous sobriety). There are a few 12-Step fellowships out there such as Double Trouble in Recovery (DTR) and Dual Recovery Anonymous (DRA) which address the taking of medications and psychiatric diagnoses and are used by people who may feel safer there than at a mainstream meeting. I have noticed however, as people who exhibit co-occurring psychiatric and addictive disorders become more and more the norm rather than the exception, tolerance for medication taking grows. Unfortunately, it still happens that a newcomer is told not to take medications but not as often as in the past. MitchellK.
Psychotropic medication ("mood-changing drugs" in AA-speak) is often prescribed by reputable psychiatrists for members of AA suffering from depression, anxiety, psychosis etc. Any person with half a brain will distinguish between this and the abuse of such drugs--often in conjunction with alcohol. However, many "old-timers" make no distinction between the taking of prescription medication and the abuse of "mood-changing drugs." Sponsors often tell newcomers to avoid all "mood-changers" and rely on "the program"--AA-speak for the 12 steps). I, who am an alcoholic, have seen this lead to newcomers relapsing into depression, anxiety etc., often leading to another drink or drug-binge. In one case, it led to a newcomer taking his own life. Will someone please tell these "old-timers" that they are not doctors, much less psychiatrists, and that perhaps they would like to stop playing God!
:Two points:  first, as Bill W. himself wrote:  "We ARE NOT SAINTS.  The point is, that we are willing to grow along spiritual lines....We claim spiritual progress rather than spiritual perfection."  (BB, 4th ed. pg. 60) (Emphasis added)  This, of course, has given risen to one of A.A.'s slogans, "Progress not perfection," which is a welcome antidote for a group of people who often tend to think, "If I can't do something perfectly, I'm not gonna do it at all."  With that attitude, many of us found that the only thing we could do perfectly was to get drunk on a regular basis.  Second, as someone who has been in, out, around and now back in A.A. since 1989, and that in three different geographical locations, I have never once heard anyone in A.A. deride necessary psychotropic medication, nor have I encountered anything like this in A.A. literature.  I have heard many critiques of things like "marijuana maintenance," expressed as "this absolutely did not work for me," but none - not one- with regard to prescribed psychiatric medication.  Indeed, I myself have been on one or another antidepressants for most of my adult life, going back twenty years.  --Just Another Drunk 13:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heard at a meeting from someone with many years' sobriety, relative to the Second Step:  "Working the program of Alcoholics Anonymous has relieved me of the insanity of alcoholism, especially the insanity of taking the first drink.  However, I am still a schizophrenic, and if I don't take my medication every day, soon the Klan will be bugging my house."  --Just Another Drunk 09:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secular Saint--Bill Wilson 

message: Would someone, preferably the main author, tell me why this is so long?  BrianGCrawfordMA 00:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i hate to give a half-sarcastic answer, but it's the truth: getting an infinite number of AAs and nonAAs and formerAAs to agree on this much text is absurd.  N.e.w. 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is way too long

message: I would like to alter the introductory section as follows.  I ended up taking out a lot because much of it was either blatant POV, could not be verified, or simply was not true.  I'm fairly new to this, so please compare this with what's currently on the actual article and provide some feedback.  If there's somewhat of a consensus, I will alter the article accordingly.
Alcoholics Anonymous is an international group of alcoholics whose primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics do the same. A.A. formed the original twelve-step program and has been the source and model for all subsequent recovery groups such as Gamblers Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous,  Sexaholics Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, and Al-Anon/Alateen, among others. 
Until the mid-1930s, alcoholics who did not have the financial means to hire a psychiatrist or admit themselves to a private sanitarium could find help only at state hospitals, in jails, or through street ministriesEncarta Encyclopedia.  The founding of Alcoholics Anonymous marked the first approach to supporting the sustained recovery of  the alcoholic, regardless of their financial standing.
One revolutionary aspect of Alcoholics Anonymous is their definition of alcoholism.  They define it as a progressive disease from which the alcoholic is suffering.  A.A. prescribes that alcoholism, as a disease, can not be cured and as such the recovering alcoholic has no option but to completely abstain from alcoholThe A.A. Fact File, 'The Recovery Program'
Another vital aspect of Alcoholics Anonymous is that it is exclusively run by and peopled by other alcoholics (aside from 7 out of 21 members of the A.A. Board of trustees who are listed as “nonalcoholic friends of the fellowship”The A.A. Fact File, 'The Structure of A.A.').  A.A. believes that the relative success of their program is owed to their opinion that a recovered alcoholic has a special ability to bond and provide insight into the necessity of sobriety to the alcoholic The A.A. Fact Files, 'The Recovery Program'
 
A.A. literature describes a difference between an "alcoholic" and a "problem drinker", claiming that unlike a ‘problem drinker’ who may drink alcohol but retains the ability to stop or moderate his or her drinking, an alcoholic has an incurable disease rendering them unable to moderate their consumption of alcohol.  A.A. states that only the individual themselves can determine weather or not they are in fact an alcoholic The A.A. Fact Files, 'The Recovery Program'.
References
--Alex 00:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: made the change--Alex 22:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes 

message: The section on controversy in this article is far too long.  It implies that AA is highly controversial and fringe.  I would call AA mildly controversial at worst and nearly mainstream nowadays.  I think a small group of highly opinionated detractors is probably responsible for the lack of balance in this article.
:Any group involving religion and spirituality is going to generate controversy, especially if it has a high profile as AA does. 
Although there is no actual "controversy" section, as far as word density goes, about 10% of this article addresses critical commentary of A.A.  The rest reads more like an conferance approved A.A. brochure.  What specifically do you think should be removed from the article, or makes AA appear "fringe"? Mr Christopher 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA is not that controversial 

message: I find this article to be biased in that I see no mention of the horror stories related to AA even though this is a major criticism of the program.  There are links to some sites who describe them in the bottom of the page, but I feel horror stories should also be mentioned in the main body of the text.  And probably a link and a page devoted to horror stories associated with AA should be made in order to make the coverage of AA less biased. The horror story I read was from the 'More revealed' link.  Eincrat 21:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Horror Stories