Talk:Twelve-step program/Archive 1

message: Added reference to "Big Book" and a paragraph on different ways of interpreting program literature.  morimom
Why is the narcon description even included in a description of the Twelve steps? It has no bearing on the subject.
--------------------
It seems fitting to delete extraneous sections or relocate them to separate article(s); AA pioneered a twelve-step program published in the book Alcoholics Anonymous the Story of How Many Thousands of Men and Women Have Recovered From Alcoholism.Others have adopted it. Perhaps the easiest and most generic book on the subject is <Twelve Steps To Happiness</i> a Hazelden book authored by Joe Klaas.
Is it possible the article improves if sections on Meeting Process, the squabble regarded court-mandated attendance at AA meetings and the unique customs of some groups or locales are deleted? The Twelve Traditions (and the Twelve Concepts) of AA probably belong in the article on Alcoholics Anonymous, as they are not an integral part of the twelve step program. 
AA's program of recovery aims to produce what Dr. Wm. D. Silkworth described as a 'psychic change' in his Doctor's Opinion published in the front material of AA's Big Book. 
The "psychic change" is clarified on p 27 where Dr. Jung said "exceptions to cases such as yours have been occurring since early times. Here and there, once in a while, alcoholics have had what are called vital spiritual experiences. To me these occurrences are phenomena. They appear to be in the nature of huge emotional displacements and rearrangements. Ideas, emotions, and attitudes which were once the guiding forces of the lives of these men are suddenly cast to one side and a completely new set of conceptions and motives begin to dominate them. In fact, I have been trying to produce some such emotional rearrangement within you. With many individuals the methods which I employed are successful, but I have never been successful with an alcoholic of your description." 
On p. 569, Appendix II clarifies the expected results that a "spiritual awakening" or a sudden and more rapid "spiritual experience" produce a "personality change sufficient to bring about recovery from alcoholism" and it makes the important point that the poorly-understood phenomena has manifested itself among us in many different ways." 
This latter point is referenced on p. 28; "The distinguished American psychologist, William James, in his book "Varieties of Religious Experience," indicates a multitude of ways in which men have discovered God. We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only one way by which faith can be acquired." 
The issue of religion is addressed in the next paragraph: "We think it no concern of ours what religious bodies our members identify themselves with as individuals. This should be an entirely personal affair which each one decides for himself in the light of past associations, or his present choice. Not all of us join religious bodies, but most of us favor such memberships."
Good dictionaries show the words "spiritual" and "religious" are not synonymous. Spiritual people are not necessarily religious and religious people may emphasize religion, not spirituality. This imbroglio produces similar confusion regarding the words sensual and sexual. An expert massage has no sexual component, but it is extraordinarily sensual. 
//Don K.
216.67.38.28 20:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Book 

message: It's not common for Bible to be uncapitalized.  Should this be changed?
Jdavidb 17:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of Bible 

message: I am currently trying to populate :category:mental health. I thought I would canvas opinion on whether the Twelve-step programme as a mental health promoting model would be seen as appropriate for addition to the category. --Vincej 13:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly agree. DirkK 20:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added :category: twelve-step program to :category:mental health.--Vincej 17:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to category mental health? 

message: It's amazing to see so many people over complicating something as simple as the 12 step program. They coined the term "keep it simple" for this very reason. Too often people try to over analize the simplest things and before you know it their way out in left field. Larquitte 20:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned above Wiki should not take a stand on this issue and should instead focus on building an article that is well supported. That is Wiki policy Mr Christopher 13:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  over complicating 

message: A merge tag has been sat on Acting out for a few weeks now, proposing a merger with this article.  No mergefrom tag was added here though, and the proposal hasn't received any comments.  I don't know the subject so don't have an opinion, I am simply trying to stimulate debate so the proposal can be closed one way or the other.  Kcordina 09:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "Acting Out" 

message: == This Wikipedia article on 12 Step Programs is An Opinion Piece and is Not An Encyclopedic Description-- Very Innapropriate for an Online Encyclopedia. 
Feedback-- this is an overly harsh and overly poltically-correct interpretation of the 12 Steps.
This Wikipedia article is not a description of the 12 Steps, it is a critique of the 12 steps.
Thus it far oversteps the stated mission of wikipedia as being an online encyclopedia and instead reads like a thesis paper attacking the 12 steps. Thesis papers by definition do not describe, they take positions, they take sides.
That would be fine for a thesis paper but has nothing to do with describing something in an encyclopedic sense.
This article is all opinion from start to finish. Rather than providing an encyclopedic description, it instead becomes a polemical opinion piece on the 12 steps. All it does is promote the authors opinions rather than simply describing what 12 step programs are. Very politically motivated and very manipulative!
If opinion is all that Wikipedia wants-- here are some of my opinions on the subject of the 12 steps--
Although I too am critical of 12 Step programs and aware of their flaws, I nevertheless balance that criticism with appreciation that 12 Step Programs saved my life. 
Wikipedia should get politics out of the process here and find a more neutral writer or editor-- this writer clearly has political biases that saturate the writing here with the political agenda of wanting to oppose or overly-criticise A.A. and other 12 Step Programs because of the higher power concept.
An appropriate wikipedia writer (and article) for this subject would be descriptive rather than evaluative. Describing rather than evaluating the 12 steps and 12 step programs. 
But since the main article is heavily laced with opinion, here are some more opinions from me--
I do agree with one main thrust of the writers argument however-- that A.A. (and the 12 Steps in general) are not the only way to get better. 
Additionally I agree that Court-mandated attendence at 12 Step meetings forces spirituality on those who may not want it or may not be predisposed to benefiting from it. Courts and also State and Federal governments have no place getting involved in 12 Step programs in this way and participation should never be forced on anyone. 
It should however be noted that 12 Step programs have a stated (and written) policy of "attraction not promotion". So don't blame 12 Step programs for what the courts are doing.
Implying that Bill Wilson and Bob Smith were allegedly struck sober by their own personal spiritual experiences crosses an editorial line here and shows the writer to have an awful lot of bias.
It would be fine to say that Bill Wilson and Doctor Bob 'reported' or 'related' that they had spiritual experiences which lifted their desire to drink--
But instead this Wikipedia article snidely describes their experiences as "unusual cures".
Most telling is the fact that the writer attacks the A.A./12 Step seperation of the concept of religion from the concept of spirituality-- and essentially claims that all spirituality is religious--
"The 'spirituality' idea was originally defined by Wilson as reliance on the Creator — truly a religious idea."
In fact belief in some kind of God is a different matter than defining that God or codifying the dictates of that God. One need go no further than a dictionary to find the definitions of 'spirituality' and 'religion' as being quite different. Spirituality is defined as a general sense of God or transcendent reality, whereas religion dictates who God is, what 
God says etc. So contrary to the authors argued opinion (which has no place in an online encylopedic reference anyway) there is a significant difference between spirituality and religion.
Furthermore--
I have attended 12 step meetings for 18 years and I can tell you that 1) people in 12 step programs don't have to believe in God at all, and 2) people in 12 steps programs are also free to define their concept of God in any they want personally want.
I have heard, thousands of times in A.A. meetings, "You can make a chair your higher power if you like, just as long as you develop trust that something can help you". 
The author also expresses a huge bias by repeatedly attacking the disease concept of alcoholism and even putting the labeling of alcoholism as a "problem" in quotes, as if the very idea that drinking compulsively being a 'problem' is somehow suspect.
This smacks of a writer who is so intellectually driven that reality simply becomes a canvas that one paints over with ones own ideas.
Sorry, but the reality is that compulsive drinking (and other compulsive addictions)are serious illness that have destroyed and damaged countless lives and no amount of intellectual 're-thinking' can paint over that objective fact.
The reality also remains that A.A, and other 12 Step programs have helped millions of people to stop drinking, drugging and other compulsive patterns of behavior (and I am one of those people).
It is also true that the 12 Steps do not work for a lot of people-- that courts and governments should never force participation in them-- and that other treatment approaches work as well (and more progress in the area of treatment is needed).
It would be nice if wikipeda would find an author that was less academic, less looking down upon reality from an ivory tower, and more someone from the front lines of real life experience to comment on the 12 Steps and what they can and can't do for people.
One could easily have written an article that was reflective of the flaws and limitations of the 12 Step programs (as well as their great contribution to the recovery of milions of people) without producing something that is so soaked in gross political bias.
Sincerely,
Phil M. Recovered from crippling OCD for 18 years thanks to the 12 Step programs.
Also 80% recovered from crippling social anxiety disorder thanks to 12 step programs.
(I have attended A.A.meetings for many years in order to learn and use the 12 steps, and as parallel 12 step programs for OCD and social anxiety disorder emerged, I attended them as well for years. I know the steps don't help everyone, but they have sure helped me).
Please find a new author and start over from scratch. This article is so extremely biased that it is not even worth editing--
P.S. It is telling and almost humorous that the author writes the phrase at one point "crictics of 12 step programs" while it is so obvious that the author is a critic of 12 Step Programs and this whole article is not an encyclopoedic description, but is nothing more than a critique.
Very sloppy and irresponsible! You can't tweak an op-ed column and make it into an encyclopedic reference. You need to trash it and start from scratch.
Sean7phil 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was told in (and saved) a Wikipedia personal message from Mr. Christopher that I could post this here. 

message: Clearly this Wikipedia article on the 12 Step Programs violates Wikipedias policy of not being a soapbox. 
See below-- Sean7phil 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is Not a Soapbox 

message: If you look in the footnotes of this article in Critics and Supporters Sections, this Article Lists Sources From 9 Critics of 12 Step Program and Only References 1 Supporter. 
9 critics books are cited but only the book of one supporter?!!
That shows a huge bias of the author of this article (or the net article) against 12 Step programs.
This article is not fixable and should be removed and a truley neutral author should be found to write a description of 12 Step Programs rather than a critique of them. 
Wikipedia is not a soapbox-- it is not a place to critique things-- it is an online encyclopedia designed to describe things.  
Dear Wikipedia admins--   
The 12 Step Programs aren't perfect but they have saved millions of lives. Please make it a priority to clear the way for a more fair article to describe them here. 
  
Phil M. 
Still no action on this grossly biased article? Where is Wikipeda when you need them?
I encourage people to email Wikipedia to protest the extreme anti-12 Step bias of this article. 
Sean7phil 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Lists Sources From 9 Critics of 12 Step Programs and Only References 1 (one) Supporter: Very Biased  

message: Does anyone have a rough number, please?
I dont know but a national and professional study showed that in 2003, 90% of alcoholics were dying of alcoholism. That same year Alcoholics Anonymous membership world-wide was over 2 million, and America hosted the biggest AA fellowship.. just some numbers to crunch...
::Roughly 10-15% of the US population suffers from alcoholism. Obviously, a percentage of these folks are in recovery, another group of them are in places where they can't access alcohol easily (prison, residential programs, etc.), and some are simply abstinent at the moment. A reasonable estimate would be that 7-10% of the population suffers from current physiologic addiction to alcohol. Drgitlow 02:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many people (in the US) are addicted to alcohol? 

message: I hear many arguments to defend NOT believeing in God or "higher power" and that AA IS a religious organization. Why don't many of you go lookup religion in the wiki? You DON'T see AA listed. AA is a social organization with a foundation in spiritual beliefs. I see it very similar to freemasonary, which too believes in a "higher power" but refer to it as a "Supreme Being". If you take the time to look at the wiki definition of freemasonary there is no ongoing debate about freemasonary as a religion. It's ridiculous to think that there should be a debate about AA in this way. In particular, read the section about freemasonary and religion. Notice the entry gives a unbiased description of the relationship of religion within freemasonary. Why is there such nonsense about this in the AA entry. I have never seen religious rites, ceremonies, or the like at an AA meeting. Yes there is discussion of spirtiual principles, and prayer. But no more or less than visting a friends house and praying over dinner. Or that of the Masonic lodge. In fact the Masonic lodge is much more organized and ahere's to a stricter requirement of belief in God than AA, but yet the entry for Freemasonary specifically says that it is not a religion. And I quote...."However, those Grand Lodges in amity with UGLE explicitly and adhere to the principle that Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion; There is no separate "Masonic god", and there is no separate proper name for a deity in Freemasonry. [70] Freemasonry is non-dogmatic and constitutionally governed."
Using this context for desciption, there is NO AA deity, nor does it profess that there is a requirement to believe in one, merely the "desire to stop drinking...". Legal evidence is not scientific or necessarily factual. Hence, circumstantial evidence. 
I would ask that a truely unbiased description be presented. One that includes no debate about whether it's religious program. Or at least both views - for and against.
:I'm pretty sure the concern here is based on legal cases in the U.S., in which AA has been found to be a religious organization or practice within the meaning of U.S. law. This doesn't mean that AA is bad, or that it discriminates against atheists, or anything of the sort. But it is relevant in U.S. law, for the specific reason that it is illegal for the government to sponsor or require people to follow a religious practice. To use your analogy, it would likewise be illegal for the government to sponsor a Masonic lodge. --FOo 04:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The courts disagree with you on the claim that "AA shares no affiliation with religion". I suggest you read up on the the cited case, Griffin v. Coughlin, 88 N.Y. 2d. 674. Here is a very readable summary (low on the legal jargon) by the Cornell University law school: . --FOo 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous? 

message: I don't know much about AA, that's why I'm reading up on it here at Wikipedia.
But it seemed strange to me that the 12 Steps were not listed here in the Twelve-step program entry.  Or the AA entry.
I think they should be included, even if someone feels that they should be framed by a qualifying statement that their wording varies for specific programs, or in different circles.
But I think readers shouldn't have to go elsewhere to find out what they are.
--cbelz
I agree with you completely.  Someone who is unfamiliar with both copyright law, scholarship, and media in general went through every article that had the 12 steps listed and removed them all.  I am not kidding you.  I objected (and they responded) but they proclaimed themselves as the authority on the subject and did not revert their follishness.  I have other priorities right now so I have not revisited the subject (or repaired the foolishness).  
Not listing the 12 steps in this article (and others) does our readers a real disservice.  It borders criminal (just kidding as they say).  And allowing someone to remove something that vital from an article like this gives creedence to their foolishness.  No law is broken when you quote a source (like Alcoholics Anonymous) about what their freakin' steps are.  Every single quote in every single article is probably copyrighted material, yet every media on Earth quotes copyrighted material every single day.  The Twelve Steps are no exception.  The question is what are the twelve steps the reliable, source on that subject is Alcoholics Anonymous, of course we can quote them.  Please feel free to quote any Twelve Step program on what their steps are add them back to the artcle (prominantly I might add, after all,  this is what the entire article is grounded in) and if someone feels the need to remove it again then we'll consider it vandalism.  Be sure and cite your source for the steps you use in the article Mr Christopher 05:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it myself, I should have done it a long time ago. Mr Christopher 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List the 12 Steps 

message: There was a request for the number of people impacted by alcoholism. The following information comes from: NSDUH, 2004; NESARC Study: Grant et al., Arch Gen Psychiatry 61:807-816, 2004. The numbers refer to the US Population. There are about 150K people treated with medications for alcoholism. This is compared with the 2.7 Million in any form of treatment. About 900K are in specialty medical/clinical treatment, with the rest doing AA/Other only. In any year there are about 8 Million with alcohol dependence. So those treated are a small percentage of those with the diagnosis, and the number on meds is miniscule. Drgitlow 05:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of people with alcoholism 

message: I read throught the entire article and this talk page, and did not spot a single reference to the Bullshit! episode regarding 12-step programs. Not sure how acceptable the episode itself is as a reference, but it could certainly be used as a guide for criticism if other references can be found. It certainly seems to at least deserve a mention. This episode does not seem to have found its way on to google video or youtube. I don't feel comfortable editing the article myself as my view of religion, "spirituality" and anything related is rather... deeply bitter. 71.87.55.36 09:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penn & Teller: [[Bullshit!]] 

message: Does this read right?
"Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films"
Is it "we need to" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Victuallers (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar error? 

message: Hi.  I'm not a Wikipedian, just a guy who was reading and stumbled onto this article.  Then I came and read this discussion.  Here is my feedback:
I don't think the article is biased.  It is true, as someone pointed out, that there are many more critical than lauditory references.  But as far
as I can tell, that's not bias, that's just an indication of the state of things.  What I can't help but notice is that, despite all the anecdotal praise for AA on this page, nobody that *I* see has done a thing to rebutt the damning claim that research shows that AA isn't actually broadly effective.  The critics have court rulings that AA is indeed religious, again the supports only offer anecdotal evidence.  If there is actual contrary *evidence* to these criticisms, then they should be included in the article, but I haven't even seen them here in the Vehement Arguing section.  And lacking that, *of course* an objective article on the 12 steps is going to look pretty negative.  Just like an article about "spontaneous generation" or "divine right of kings" or "manifest destiny" is going to look pretty negative, because actual, factual, supporting arguments are going to be few and far between.  You think I'm being unfair?  I had no opinion at ALL about the effectiveness of AA, pro or con, before I came and read all this stuff, particularly this arguing page.  Now I'm convinced that it's nonsense, *because the supporters have FAILED to rebutt*.
In any case, having both sides of the controversy represented in the article is important.  I came looking this stuff up precisely BECAUSE I was interested in learning more about the religion controversy.  So don't be taking that stuff out.  If more actual support can be found for the pro side, by all means put that in.  But it better be of better quality than lots of what I read here, where people are trying to cleaim that "God" doesn't mean "God".  "God", with a capital G, undeniably means The Judeo-Christian Jehova of the Bible.  Trying to claim that it could refer to Krishna or Zeus or your family or something is as ridiculous as claiming that "Mozart" could mean "Beethoven" or "Paul McCartney" or myself (who also writes music).  "God" is explicitly mentioned in 4 out of 12 steps, plus "Him" in a fifth (where as the broader "Power greater than ourselves" appears in only one).  This is prima facie evidence that AA is religious (not a "religion"!).  The simple, obvious truth is, if AA weren't religious, if the higher power truly could be *anything*, then it wouldn't say "God".  There are a million non-religious ways to talk about a higher power, and AA has chosen to eschew them.  I don't deny that certain AA *members* believe that they can rationalize the "God" out of "God", but that doesn't change what the 12 steps actually say, right there in black and white.
So to summarize:  the article is good as it is.  If pro-AA people can come up with better quality support for why AA is effective, it should be added, but the caliber of argument I'm seeing here on this page doesn't make me feel like it's out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.201.182 (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a lot of research showing the effectiveness of AA: , , , , , , , . You can find more if you do something as simple as a Google Scholar search on Alcoholics Anonymous. The article isn't good as it is, it's missing citations and full of original research. Each section is biased to one side.  The only question is, why am I not doing something about it? Mostly because I don't have the energy to jump in to an article that I know is going to be full of controversy and edit wars. When I do, I will try to scratch it off my TODO list. :) -- Craigtalbert 21:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Customer Comment 

message: article lacks many citations for alleged factual claims —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Und1sk0 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation(s) needed 

message: the psychology of twelve-steps can be studied, but the 12 steps are not a psychological endeavor or process. lumping this into psychology is like lumping a recipe in the chemistry section -- the discursive analysis that psychology brings is an outside endeavor to a particular code of life embodied in the 12 steps. i believe a fundamental failure to realize this distinction is the reason why the quality of this article is so poor, despite its widely-edited history. separating a methodological analysis of a way of life from a descriptive experience of a way of life is vital to this article being useful for anyone. such a psychological perspective belongs as a descriptive response to the actual content of the encyclopediac information but does not comprise a complete compendium of information of the topic of the 12 steps. Please refer to What_Wikipedia_is_not for more clarification. Pozcircuitboy 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  does not belong in psychology section 

message: These programs share a few things in common, most obviously their emphasis on addiction or alcoholism as an illness that mere abstinance will not cure. In theory within the twelve-step environment, it is thought that the illness of addiction or alcoholism is attributed to a physical allergy that creates uncontrollable cravings coupled with a psychological obsession that keeps finding rationalizations for relapse. Recovery from the illness can occur by taking individual responsibility for one's own recovery by relying on the will of a power not controlled by such cravings. True to the Twelve Traditions, twelve-step programs do not take positions on outside issues, including medicine.
I don't like that paragraph much, it reeks of what some therapist would think as an outsider. it is interesting and i don't object to it being in the article, but there is no clear place for it right now. i will add it later elsewhere if i get around to it before someone else does. Pozcircuitboy 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ok where does this go 

message: I just removed the section labelled "the 12 promises". I wanted to explain why. I do understand that some AA groups refer to the 9th step promises from the big book with great emphasis. I understand they are important to many AA'ers. However, I don't think that it is a 12-step issue in itself - i think that it is probably specific to AA only. Please include this in the AA article!! It's good stuff!! But I do not believe that it belongs here lumped in with all 12 step fellowships. Pozcircuitboy 23:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the Twelve Promises are not used word for word by all groups in the same way that the steps and traditions are. I'm pretty sure AA, NA, Al-Anon/Alateen, and Nar-Anon all use the Twelve Promises as they came from the Big Book. Many other groups use "Twelve Promises" but have modified them somewhat: Emotions Anonymous, ACOA, Co-Dependants Anonymous, Debtors Anonymous, and some of the 'S's groups. What would you think about keeping them in this article with a caution that they're not used by all groups? -- Craigtalbert 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm....  You know, that's a good argument. I'll remove them. — Craigtalbert 23:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Twelve Promises 

message: Substituted at 20:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment