Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2

message: "AA's heavy reliance on numerous slogans [11] [12], including ones used to defer criticisms brought up during meetings, such as "Take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth!""
This whole section needs serious revision. The heading leads me to believe that it will tell me about doctors or other professionals who have criticized AA. Instead it is a list of opinions and interpretations of AA. This does not have a place in Wikipedia. I am going to be bold and change it.--Connor K. 01:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do most encyclopedias leave out things like AA? Because people feel quite strongly. Unless a reasonably good source states something, then the rest is original research.-- ¢² Connor K.   21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've moved this section to the top because it needs the most attention. Personally, I would have tagged the article with a fansite template because it reads like it was written by someone that loves A.A.  It is completely biased containing practically nothing bad about the organization. There is PLENTY of valid sourced information out there on the bad points of A.A. This whole article may need a rewrite but for now the critics section should be looked at and seriously added to.--Joshua4 08:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA Critics? 

message: There is strong independent research evidence supporting the effectiveness of A.A.  I don't think this is fairly represented in the current article (an I'm no partisan).  The research abstract below could be referenced.  It's a well-designed study of over 2,000 men which shows a positive effect of A.A. attendance,
Title 
Alcoholics Anonymous involvement and positive alcohol-related outcomes: Cause, consequence, or just a correlate? A prospective 2-year study of 2,319 alcohol-dependent men.  
Abstract 
A positive correlation between Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) involvement and better alcohol-related outcomes has been identified in research studies, but whether this correlation reflects a causal relationship remains a subject of meaningful debate. The present study evaluated the question of whether AA affiliation appears causally related to positive alcohol-related outcomes in a sample of 2,319 male alcohol-dependent patients. An initial structural equation model indicated that 1-year posttreatment levels of AA affiliation predicted lower alcohol-related problems at 2-year follow-up, whereas level of alcohol-related problems at 1-year did not predict AA affiliation at 2-year follow-up. Additional models found that these effects were not attributable to motivation or psychopathology. The findings are consistent with the hypothesis that AA participation has a positive effect on alcohol-related outcomes. 
(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved) 
  
Authors 
McKellar, John; Stewart, Eric; Humphreys, Keith   
Affiliations 
McKellar, John: Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Ctr for Health Care Evaluation, Menlo Park, CA, US
Stewart, Eric: Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Ctr for Health Care Evaluation, Menlo Park, CA, US
Humphreys, Keith: Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Ctr for Health Care Evaluation, Menlo Park, CA, US 
  
Source 
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 71(2), Apr 2003, 302-308. 
HypnoSynthesis 09:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Research

message: Anyone who doubts whether AA is indeed a cult need look no further than the archived discussion page. The defenders of AA are so *clearly* cult-like in their anti-intellectual defense of their Holy Big Book, so helplessly knee-jerk in their responses to relatively innocuous criticisms, that the "cult" charge seems self-evident just from the behavior of AA members. Read the discussion - and tell me it's not a cult. I double dog dare you.(no signature)
As I have previously stated, this charge of a "cult" needs a deffenition.  if your deffinition of a cult is a group of like minded individuals who follow a common set of beliefs (which appears to be the case in your attack) than every orgonization at all is a cult.  any buisness with a mission statement, every church or spiritual orgonization, even the posting of american flags after the 9/11 attacks falls into this deffinition of cult like activities.  however, if you follow what the sociological deffinition of what a cult is, that being 1. has a single central authoraty with complete arbitrary controll of members, 2. engages in falce pretences to gain membership, 3. controlls the members life and finatual situation, 4. issolates the member from all other sorces of influence than you find that AA does not fall into any of these catagories.  some people just believe any orgonization that uses the word "spiritual" without their express permition are by defalt a cult...gee lets see, they believe that they are the central leadership with the word spiritual...interesting.Coffeepusher 17:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. To clarify the debate on this page, a good secular definition of a harmful cult is at Cult#Definition of 'cult' according to secular opposition. There are tons more at Cult checklist. — DavidMack 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is AA a cult?

message: Very little of this article has any cites, which is unfortunate.  I just added some referenced material to the section on AA's views including a quote by Bill Wilson.  I added it to the begining because it quotes Bill Wilson (a leading expert on AA, I mean he co-founded it afterall) and Ernest Kurtz, PhD, the author of many books and articles about AA history, methods and ideas. Mr Christopher 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears the "Beliefs about Alcoholism" have very little to do with AA's actual beliefs about alcoholism.  Hardly anything in that entire section addresses what the header suggests. Entries in that section should only include AA's beliefs about alcoholism and other views on alcoholism would be more appropriate in the alcoholism article, no? Mr Christopher 17:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice work and you're right.  As I mentioned that whole section needs alot of work and I'm glad you've got some time to clean it up. Mr Christopher 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AA's views of alcoholism

message: I believe without A.A.'s Twelves Steps this article is incomplete. I am not very active in this article so I'm not sure where they should go but those steps belong here indeed.  I don't think the Twelve Traditions have to be spelled out but a clear link to them would be appropriate. Mr Christopher 17:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Twelve Steps

message: First of all, this contribution must be prefaced by the statement that there are excellent meetings of AA in Ireland, even in remote villages, and every effort is made to welcome the visitor.
However, I attend meetings of English-speaking (as opposed to local-language) Alcoholics Anonymous in a major European City. Often, Americans will begin to speak with the phrase, "I'm Irish," which they clearly are not, although their ancestors may have been. Thus they "explain" their alcoholism, drawing agreement and sympathy from other Americans at the meeting.
Three incidents may cast some light on the attitude of these people:
1) At a Yuletide "monster meeting," the lead speaker was an American lady, approaching early middle age (i.e. old enough to know better). As she always does when she speaks, she evoked her "drunken Irish uncles," and their reaction to a family crisis. This, one might argue, was a statement of fact. But, it could also be argued that she might now leave these uncles to rest in peace in the early graves into which they presumably drank themselves.
However, she continued, saying, that in the middle of this domestic crisis, her uncles were "keeping up the Irish front"--whatever that means. It is, nonetheless clear, that were she to make such a statement about Jews, Gays or African-Americans, her remark would have been greeted with outrage. Not that I entirely blame the speaker in question; she obviously has an IQ appropriate to one who would embrace such racism. But I do blame the person who chaired the meeting (another American lady), as she should have interjected or commented--which she did not do. It is my personal belief that anyone who condones racism, sexism, anti-Semitism or homophobia should not be elected to chair an AA meeting.
2) At a small meeting (about 15 or 20 persons) a visiting American gentleman was invited to be lead-speaker and he graciosly accepted. He began to describe his childhood love of alcohol, and then he told us that, at age 16, he had been sent to boarding school in Ireland. He proceeded, "I don't know if any of you know anything about Ireland; but in Ireland, the pub is everything. Everything." At this point, an Irishman stood up and said, "I am leaving in protest at this racial stereotyping." The speaker protested, "But, I'm Irish," to which the Irishman replied, "You are not Irish. You're American." The Irishman then left the meeting.
3) In the chat that preceded the formal opening of the meeting, an American gentleman said that he was going back for a while to Ireland, where for some time, he had lived--and drunk. He laughed as he said that he wanted to see how purple were the faces of his former drinking-comrades. These are people he describes as his friends. So much for the 12th Step of Alcoholics Anonymous.
It would appear that there is a tacit belief among WASP, or worse, would-be WASP Americans that America was the virgin soil of the Mayfair Pilgrims and the Founding Father before the Irish arrived to introduce the original sin of alcohol-abuse into this Garden of Eden. This view is certainly not borne out by the stories in the "Big Book," Alcoholics Anonymous." It was, however, expressed, albeit in a Canadian context, in a late 19th century sermon, at a time when "polical correctness" had not yet forbidden the expression of such views in public:
:::O Lord we approach thee this morning in an attitude of prayer and likewise of complaint. When we came to Canada we expected to find a land flowing with milk and honey, but instead we find a land peopled by the ungodly Irish. O Lord, in thy mercy drive them to the uttermost parts of Canada...If ye have any favours to bestow, or any good land to give away, give it to thine own peculiar people, the Scots...for the ungodly Irish, take them by the heels and shake them over the pit of hell. (1) --Cosmocrator 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Nicolson, M. W. "The Other Toronto: Irish Catholics in a Victorian City,1850-1900." POlyphony, Summer 1984, p.20.--Cosmocrator 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know that this belongs in the article -- too much like original research til you publish elsewhere -- but it was interesting to read.  Thanks.  Subsolar 06:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA and Anti-Irish Racism 

message: I'm very new to wikipedia, but am tracking this page.  There is a box at the top saying cleanup is needed.  I am willing to do the work if someone will explain to me what is needed.
--Homden 10:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup/quality standards 

message: I noted some confusion in an earlier posting regarding who publishes the book Alcoholics Anonymous.  I contacted AA's General Service Office. They contacted Amazon.com, and Amazon has now fixed their error and properly attributes the book to AA World Services, Inc.--Homden 19:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publisher of the book Alcoholics Anonymous 

message: Do meetings have coffee, tea, cookies, muffins etc? Just curious. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 17:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some do, some don't. It all depends where.-- ¢² Connor K.   21:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food at meetings? 

message: I have added two tags for cleanup and rewriting to this article, as it is a massive unreadable blob of text that far exceeds Wikipedia's maximum recommended size of 32KB for articles.  It needs either serious formatting cleanup or a complete rewrite. Lumbergh 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started on that. A few things that are tripping me up: Is it OK to refer to members of Alcoholics Anonymous as "AAs"?  Finding and citing sources for a lot of these statements.  This article has a lot of unsourced statements, and when sources are there, there's no page number listed.  Help!  RedRollerskate 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Unreadable 

message: The title of this section does not make sense and that may be one of the reasons one editor feels the information is out of place or irrelevant.   The section is about court mandated/forced AA attendance and the Establishment Clause.  As I mentioned there has been numerous court cases regarding this issue, the results had profound implications, the information is clearly relevant and belongs here yet some improving could be done. I propose we change the name of the title to best reflect the actual content.  Here is what I suggest:
*Court Mandated AA Participation and the Establishment Clause
Any opinions? Mr Christopher 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coffeepusher, I think the court mandated section specific to the Establishment Clasue does not belong in a pro or con section.  It is not a criticism, it is a fact.  That section describes court cases that challenged the legality of forcing people to attend AA and AA inspired treatment programs by the courts.  The end result of those cases.  We should treat it as a historical and political fact and not as a pro or con piece.  Those cases changed the way courts and probabation/parole officers handle people who have been convicted of alcohol related crimes.  This is a historical and legal issue and not a pro and con issue.  I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this and I think it only merits about as much space as it does now.  Mr Christopher 19:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else have an opinion on what title we use for the Court Mandated AA/Establishment Clause section?  I'll wait a day or so before changing it to see if anyone has a better idea or a concern for that matter.  Indeed "AA, Religion and the Law" seems misleading at worst and unclear at best. Mr Christopher 20:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AA Religion and the Law part II

message: "AA's heavy reliance on numerous slogans [11] [12], including ones used to defer criticisms brought up during meetings, such as "Take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth!""
This whole section needs serious revision. The heading leads me to believe that it will tell me about doctors or other professionals who have criticized AA. Instead it is a list of opinions and interpretations of AA. This does not have a place in Wikipedia. I am going to be bold and change it.--Connor K. 01:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do most encyclopedias leave out things like AA? Because people feel quite strongly. Unless a reasonably good source states something, then the rest is original research.-- ¢² Connor K.   21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA Critics? 

message: I find this article to be biased.  It is clearly written by those within the AA institution, who believe it is the best/most effective treatment available, which is empirically wrong.  I think wikipedia has an obligation to protect the objectivity of  this article, as alcoholics' lives are at stake.
::Yes I think most people would agree the article is in need of help.  Not everyone who has (and is) contributing to it are members of AA and AA members are free and encouraged to contribute. One of the issues is much of the article seems to be written by folks who are unfamilair with WIKI policies and standards, so there are many "experts" writing about AA but very few people are actually researching and citing/supporting what they write or taking the time to understand Wiki standards.  That is what makes it appear as if a handful of AA members slapped it together or copied it from AA brochures.  And much of the article reads as if it were a book about AA and not a simple encyclopedia article.  There is a lot of hype as well.
::I want to make a point about your comment: 
as alcoholics' lives are at stake.
::Wikipedia has no moral obligation to alcoholics and neither do Wiki editors.  This article should not be confused with a treatment brochure, an AA pamphlet or an "alcoholism"  diagnostic tool.  Wiki could care less about people's alcohol problems meaning that Wiki is an encyclopedia and not a means of "alcoholism" intervention.  If someone's life is dependent on a Wikipedia article I can assure you that they are doomed.  Wikipedia serves as an online encyclopedia, it's purpose is to inform its readership on a given subject.  The obligation is to its readers and there is no special consideration for its alcoholic readers.  We're here to inform, not reach out or direct people to treatment or AA or help them get sober.  So, we're not trying to improve the article to help alcoholics, we're trying to improve the article so it abides by Wiki quality standards and is therefore deemed a quality article.  
::The best way for us to write a very biased article would be for us to think we have a responsibility to save lives.  We do not.
::Finally, you're welcome to help us improve it. Get yourself and account and start signing your comments on the Talk pages!  Mr Christopher 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An additional point about the comment above. You say, "It is clearly written by those within the AA institution, who believe it is the best/most effective treatment available, which is empirically wrong."  If, as you suggest, there is conclusive empirical evidence that AA is not the "best/most effective treatment available," then that evidence belongs in the article, appropriately cited, probably in the "criticisms" section.   --Cmichael 05:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  objectivity 

message: I am going to combine the page into one type of reference.-- ¢² Connor K.   21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that I am going to make the "Notes" and the "references" sections into one. Instead of having the "references" being a bunch of citations that lead to websites, and "notes" being the citations that link to the bottom of the page, I've made it so that the heading "references" are the citations, and anything I couldn't find in the article, I made it into "further reading". If it isn't good, or was better the way it was, feel free to revert. I am sorry for the mass edits, I couldn't look at it while editing. It just made it easier for me.-- ¢² Connor K.   00:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the feedback. It helps me.-- ¢² Connor K.   17:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: Check out the peer review for stuff we need to work on: Wikipedia:Peer review/Alcoholics Anonymous/archive1--Twintone 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things that need work 

message: The following text was removed from "a typical program of recovery" portion of "How the AA program works":
"Doing a geographical', where the sufferer makes a major change, usually geographical, in the hopes of escaping from circumstances that lead him or her into addictive behaviour.  The change can be of various nature, including a job or profession change, moving to another town or country, changing regular partner and friends, etc. Often the deep reason behind it is the belief that it will remove or mitigate certain addictive personal patterns or behaviours."
"Geographic cures" are generally among those unsuccessful strategies alcoholics and other addicts pursue prior to finding AA, NA, etc.  They are NOT part of the program.  In fact, in general, newcomers to AA, NA, etc. are strongly advised to make no major changes in their lives, such as moving, divorcing, etc., during their first year of recovery.  Instead of simply deleting the above, I placed it here for incorporation elsewhere in the article, in another, more appropriate place.  --Midnite Critic 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic cure 

message: It looks like it's been cleaned up before. Did it get messier somehow? Or were edits reverted? I started trying to clean up the references in the History section but gave up, I'm too tired. And beyond the references, it's just very hard to read. I didn't get past the History section, it made my brain hurt too much. If anyone can clean it up please do; otherwise I'll try to come back and clean it up.Xzqx 02:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs cleanup 

message: As far as I know AA gave up the rights to its logo a number of years back to avoid the controversy over fighting a court battle over it.  Hence the logo depicted, although commonly used by AA's is not "AA's logo".  It no longer appears on any literature. 24.199.159.196 18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Logo 

message: As of today 03/06/2007 01:22am EST, the "AA's Critics" section includes this hack:  "The Treasonous NY Times ^ | July 25, 2006 | NICHOLAS BAKALAR".
If you search the NYT Archives for "July 25, 2006 NICHOLAS BAKALAR", one of the hits is this article: "Review Sees No Advantage in 12-Step Programs".
The link for this article is http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/health/25drin.html?ex=1173330000&en=10dcf1ee6a6a6368&ei=5070
Someone has evidently replaced the reference to "The New York Times" with "The Treasonous New York Times".
Big Al Mintaka 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the "treasonous" out and moved the reference to follow the paragraph.  Not sure I marked up the reference properly...I'm new at this...but it is, at least, better than I found it.  Cmichael 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What the heck, I also went back and rewrote the paragraph, which was all cut and paste from the 'Times' article, then added a final sentance from lower in the article to provide a little balance.  Really, we should go back and cite the original article, rather than the Time's review of it, but I don't have the energy to do that right now.  Cmichael 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Cmichael.  I haven't figured out the editing thing yet.  There are a lot of good paragraphs in earlier versions of this page that really should be restored - such as the one saying something about the Big Book's "patronizing" and/or "condescending" attitudes towards Agnostics and Atheists.  Excelsior, Big Al Mintaka 04:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Took some time tonight and tracked down the primary source (at least the summary).  Rewrote the paragraph leaving out the NY Times, and citing the Cochrane Library's summary of the original article.  Cmichael 00:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA's Critics include "The Treasonous NY Times July 25, 2006 NICHOLAS BAKALAR" ?? 

message: I removed the spookroom reference. While completely comical what purpose does this really serve.
"Bill Wilson and company then moved into the occult.  He kept a room in his basement called the "Spookroom"..  AA has now sealed the Spookfiles from public scrutinity."
Also removed:
"When he wrote the essays on each of the twelve steps, he sent some to Ed Dowling, a Roman Catholic priest, to evaluate. In his accompanying letter of July 17, 1952, Wilson says, "But I have good help - of that I am certain. Both over here and over there" [Robert Fitzgerald, S.J., The Soul of Sponsorship: The Friendship of Fr. Ed Dowling, S.J. and Bill Wilson in Letters, Center City, MN.: Hazelden Pittman Archives Press, 1995, p. 59]. Then he explains that one spirit from "over there" that helped him called himself Boniface. Wilson says:
"One turned up the other day calling himself Boniface. Said he was a Benedictine missionary and English. Had been a man of learning, knew missionary work and a lot about structures. I think he said this all the more modestly but that was the gist of it. I'd never heard of this gentleman but he checked out pretty well in the Encyclopedia. If this one is who he says he is--and of course there is no certain way of knowing--would this be licit contact in your book?" [Ibid., p. 59].
Dowling responds in his letter of July 24, 1952:
"Boniface sounds like the Apostle of Germany. I still feel, like Macbeth, that these folks tell us truth in small matters in order to fool us in larger. I suppose that is my lazy orthodoxy" (Ibid., p. 59].
One can see the stretch of years during which Wilson received messages from disembodied spirits. The official biography of Bill Wilson says, "One of Bill's persistent fascinations and involvements was with psychic phenomena." It speaks of his "belief in clairvoyance and other extrasensory manifestations" and in his own psychic ability [Pass It On., op. cit., p. 275]. This was not a mere past-time. It was a passion directly related to AA [Ibid., p. 280]. The manner in which Wilson would receive messages not of his own making was definitely channeling [Ibid., pp. 278,279]. The records of these sessions, referred to as "Spook Files," have been closed to public inspection [Ernest Kurtz, Not God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous, Center City, MN.: Hazelden Educational Materials, 1979, p. 344]."
Many Christians see 12 steps as a conflict of between belief in Jesus , the one true god, and the steps concept that god can be anything you want him to be.
Again, while the "Soul of Sponsorship: The Friendship of Fr. Ed Dowling, S.J. and Bill Wilson in Letters" maybe accurate, it truly makes no sense on this page, as this is an encyclopedic definition of A.A. in the generic. Specific spirtual practices by Bill Wilson (only illustrate the need for some to demonize A.A., Bill Wilson, et.al ) while strange and down right goofy, make a world of sense if you rather not die from alcoholism. So please lets stay to the topic at hand and answear "What is A. A."?  I won't even go into the flame baiting "Many Chritsians quote..." -cre8tif--71.57.124.153 18:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from History Section 

message: This reference to a blog seems inappropriate. The blog is a commentary on a book. (Rodger Garrett, the author of the blog, has marked his comments with "RG", interspersed with the original text which is marked "EK".) Garrett states that he and his acquaintance have noticed that "antisocial participants" are predominating in AA and are either driving out or creating "toxic bonds" with the more vulnerable or dependent members. This paragraph was placed in Alcoholics Anonymous by "Rajah524", which is the same as the author's email address at the end of the blog. This is not a peer-reviewed article, nor does it come from an authoritative source, so I removed it. -- DavidMack 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed reference to Garrett

message: Does the cited book Games Alcoholics Play actually mention AA? If not, this new entry should perhaps be in Alcoholism. Citations are also needed for the weasel words "Cases have been reported ..." etc. — DavidMack 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has no business in the article, I removed it.  Mr Christopher 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transactional analysis paragraphs relevant?

message: For a factual history of AA, instead of opinion, refer to the books "AA Comes of Age" and "Bill Wilson and the AA Message".  There the full account of Ebby's failure to stay sober and Bill Wilson's breaking away from the Oxford Group is recounted. The birth of a non-religious organisation called AA is described.
AA Comes of Age - AA World Services 
Bill Wilson and the AA Message - AA World Services
198.54.202.250 11:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual AA History 

message: I tried to log in twice to edit the article on AA, was told I would get sent a new password which I never received, and when I tried to create a new account, was told I already existed.
Needless to say, I don't think my inability to understand this technology precludes me from acting in good faith.
The personal opinions, gossip, controversy and quotes that were used out of context and therefore misleading, were harmfull and detrimental to the recovery of alcoholics in AA, in my opinion. 
So yes, I take responsibility for "vandalising" the text and removing it all. I will accept any and all "punishment" for that.  I did it because I care more about the health of any potential or recovering alcoholics than I do about personal opinions regarding religions etc that has nothing to do with AA.
Instead I included a brief definition of AA that is World Services approved, as well as a link to their website.
Kerry Somers
email: kerry at somers dot co dot za —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.250 (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back.  I agree that this article is less than perfect, particularly the history section.  I also agree that a lot of the religious stuff is useless and has nothing to do with a "higher power" as I conceive of it.  This does not need to be a Christian tract.  On the other hand, there is a lot of good work in this article, and a number of editors have been working toward consensus on it.  If you want to work on paring down and improving the sections that need rework, particularly history, then I would be totally supportive. But, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Thanks.  Cmichael 14:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am responsible 

message: External links to avoid include:
* Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.
* Links mainly intended to promote a website. 
* Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
Many of the external links look like people's "favourite sites", rather than authoritative sources. If a site _is_ authoritative its contents should generally be discussed or summarised in the article with appropriate references. A purge is needed.
— DavidMack 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link purge desperately needed

message: 207.232.97.13 (talk) has added back a bunch of stuff that was removed. S/he added back some paragraphs on Bill W.'s post-AA spiritual, occult, and drug experiments, which have nothing to do with AA and should go in Bill W. if anywhere. S/he also added back some personal opinions on transactional analysis that were discussed earlier (Transactional analysis paragraphs relevant?) and removed. S/he also made of mess of the references section. I have reverted all these changes. — DavidMack 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. 207.232.97.13 put the changes back again, without discussion. Does anyone know how to proceed here? — DavidMack 00:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Placed templates on his/her talk page on neutral point of view and unsourced material. — DavidMack 19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ...13 just did it again. I reverted it this time.  I think I inadvertently went back on revision too far, and apologize for that...I'm just learning to use popups.  I agree with DavidMack about this, but don't know how to proceed.  I don't want to be in a revert war, but wish ...13 would come here and talk over this stuff before making any more changes.  Cmichael 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a level 2 warning template to 13's talk page. Cmichael 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the vandalism and nonsense seems to be from various anonymous IPs.  Perhaps we should request the article be locked from anonymous edits. Mr Christopher 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just reverted some more unsourced spook stuff by ...93.  I would really be grateful if ...13 and ...93 would discuss changes here on the talk page before making them in the article.  This is a pretty active and controversial topic, and we need to work toward consensus before making changes Cmichael 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper changes

message: Quotes from above:
 
Obviously this implies to me  you attend meetings, hence how can your edits be neutral Mr.Chrtisopher???
Mine posts are designed to expand the history.  I agree the Orange Papers hold a particular viewpoint but then again so does  Susan Cheevers.  Cheevers in the camp that says it works , Orange is in the camp that says it doesn't.   What the Orange Papers had on file were the letters.  I included references from Cheevers {which I have read} and Orange { which I have read}.  I could further expand on it by including references from Dick B.  {who is in the camp that it is Christianity that works }.
If the letters are factual, then they are of importance and need to be addressed on Wikapedia.
I have put Bills spook sessions, in the Bill Section and someone has taken it upon themselves to edit.
I agree there are pro AA people on this board that are doing their best to squelch history.  If the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions are handed out today and were inspired by contact with the supernatural then do we not have a right to know????
I also found a pro christian bias on Dick B.s website , do I throw the information he has gleaned on  that basis only.
I have to add I am new at this and so my inexperience in posting do show up,  I make many mistakes , but the intent is to bring to light information.
It disturbs me that AA has sealed the Spook Files, I am sure there is much in them .
The fact is that Bill's Spook Sessions make him a more interesting a likable guy, on my part , however I am not allowed my opinion.</br>
— 207.194.108.93, 18:47, 30 March 2007 diff
:Nice, attack fellow editors because we won't go along with your POV.  Sweet.  If the author of the orange paopers is not prminantly displayed on the articles cited it should not be a source.  How about you spend a little time learning about Wikipedia and less time trying side track this arfticle for a while? Mr Christopher 18:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT WE  SEE At Meetings!!!! 

message: I like rading that site and don't have an issue with any of it but as long as the author is anonymous ("special Agent Orange") we cannot use it here.  I'll dig up a Wiki policy after lunch.  Mr Christopher 18:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can "use" Orange's work directly. From what I've seen, Orange picks out parts of books that are of most interest to him and ignores the rest. His references are very helpful, though. — DavidMack 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I've found most of the edits and research done by AO are opportunistic and out of context. This article is the the busiest thing on my watch list, and it's mostly the anonymous editors trying to turn this article in to a mirror of orange papers and/or morerevealed. All and all it's really just been obstructing any progress on this article.  -- Craigtalbert 16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, a lot of referenced material that our "edit warriors" pasted in from the orange papers site has already been incorporated. For example there is now a more complete description of Vaillant's results (of which Agent Orange only discussed one table that supported his own argument). AO's reference that suggested some of Bill W.'s writing was influenced by his spiritualism is now mentioned in Bill W.—Life After AA. I did check AO's other references on this topic and found that they were not relevant to his claims (see section "Closed sources and conspiracy theories" below). There is still some more material critical of AA that I would like to put in the Research critical of AA section – in neutral language, of course. — DavidMack 20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Orange Papers

message: As I am new to this I suggest someone with more experience could clean this up and insert in the appropriate place.
Check the References: Another source had the same information as Orange , I did not see him citing the Orange papers.
Other links supports the letters... search AA and the occult
The Occult
Much has been written on the evolvement of Alcoholics Anonymous from Frank Buchmans's evangelical Christian Oxford Group but what has been overlooked is the importance of the Occult.
This clears up a misunderstanding that Bill was inspired by soley by a christian god. 
 
Bill Wilson kept a "Spookroom" in his home where he and others participated , over a number of years, in group seances,  the use of the ouiji board and automatic writing. [Susan Cheever, My Name is Bill. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004. , pages 201-209.]
AA has sealed the "spookfiles," so what exists on this topic are found in the Letters to Sam Shoemaker and Father Dowling  that verify Bill's sincere convictions in his spirtual quest of the supernatural.  The letters draw attention to the  inspiration he received from the "otherside" by contact with  a dead monk named Boniface in his writing of The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, a book still in use today.
 
In a letter to Rev. Sam Shoemaker in 1958, Bill wrote: 
Throughout A.A., we find a large amount of psychic phenomena, nearly all of it spontaneous. Alcoholic after alcoholic tells me of such experiences and asks if these denote lunacy -- or do they have real meaning? These psychic experiences have run nearly the full gamut of everything we see in the books. In addition to my original mystical experience, I've had a lot of such phenomenalism myself. [Pass it on: The story of Bill Wilson and how the A.A. message reached the world, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, page 374.]
Bill  wrote to his Catholic Priest friend, Father Ed Dowling, telling about the help and guidance he was receiving from spirits of the dead while writing his second book, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions (July 17, 1952): [The Soul of Sponsorship: The Friendship of Fr. Ed Dowling, S.J. and Bill Wilson in Letters, edited by Robert Fitzgerald, S.J., pages 59 and 116 (footnote). Hazelden Pittman Archives Press, Center City, MN, 1995.]
 
The "over there" refers to the spirit world.  It was, he said, the voice of Boniface, an apostle from England to Germany, Bavaria, and France, who reformed old church structures, and as bishop with powers from Rome, set up new monasteries and bishoprics.  Bill ended this letter by saying that he is "coming back to earth" (from Boniface) and that Harper was interested in publishing the book. [The Soul of Sponsorship pages 59 and 116.] (footnote).
The Spook Sessions
In the official A.A. history book Pass It On, Bill Wilson described the "spook sessions" this way: 
 "The ouija board got moving in earnest. What followed was the fairly usual experience -- it was a strange mélange of Aristotle, St. Francis, diverse archangels with odd names, deceased friends -- some in purgatory and others doing nicely, thank you! There were malign and mischievous ones of all descriptions, telling of vices quite beyond my ken, even as former alcoholics. Then, the seemingly virtuous entities would elbow them out with messages of comfort, information, advice -- and sometimes just sheer nonsense." 
Bill would lie on the couch in the living room, semi-withdrawn, but not in a trance, and "receive" messages, sometimes a word at a time, sometimes a letter at a time. Anne B., neighbor and "spook" circle regular, would write the material on a pad. Lois describes one of the more dramatic of these sessions: 
Bill would lie down on the couch. He would 'get' these things. He kept doing it every week or so. Each time, certain people would 'come in.' Sometimes, it would be new ones, and they'd carry on some story. There would be long sentences; word by word would come through. This time, instead of word by word, it was letter by letter. Anne put them down letter by letter. [Pass it on, pages 278-279.)
--Anonymous User--
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.108.93 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello 93. Thanks for the contribution. I'm making an effort to reply because I don't want you to feel like you're being ganged up on. These quotes do show that Bill was involved in some pretty strange practices. What we really need is a reference for the crucial point you have been determined to make, which is that Bill's spiritualism influenced AA literature. Do you or Mr. Orange have a reference for that? That would be important. Thanks. — DavidMack 21:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Spook files"  References 

message: This is an encyclopedic definition of A.A. Not Bill W. and spooks, not Dick B. and his self-promotion, not Orange-Papers and their axe. Those of you who feel the reference should be included have been invited to add your research to the Bill W. page. I doubt you'll do that largely because your axe is with A.A. Why? None of us knows. What is known is that in a matter of a few paragraphs A.A. is either Occult or Christian and Bill W. is your target. I don't think anyone should have to be too understanding of your POV if all you seek to do is derail a simple definition of A.A. You obstruct more than you enlighten. Say "Hi!" to Orange while your at it.
--Cre8tif 00:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the occult should not get any mention at all 

message: Here is the policy on external links, note probably 95% of the links in this article conflict with Wiki policy found here.
I still don't see reason why Orange Papers should be removed (other than a lot of AA people don't like it.  Can anyone provide me with a solid reason why it shouldn't be listed as a link, at the very least?  
Also, those wishing to reference the Orange Papers could look at the rather exstensive referencing in almost every article on that site, and could there fore circumnavigate the "no anonymous researchers" policy in an above board manner.
Lastly, I don't see any reference to Stanton Peeles work in any of the criticism sections.  Peele is a widely and highly regarded expert on addiction, and has written extensively on the pitfalls of AA treatment.  I can see no reason (apart from pro AA bias) why he is not referenced more in this articles criticism section.
Personally, I would like to see a section on the "anti AA" movement, and maybe an article on the orange papers.  Don't have the time or knowledge to do it, but think it could be useful....  62.6.180.130 14:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Orange Papers is a very good resource for those wanting a critical look at AA.  The problem with using them as a source is I believe they fail the reliable category.  The author is anonymous.  Someone should probably look closely at the reliable source policy.  And Stanton Peele's opinion would be good to add but we want to avoid going over board.  Finally, a seperate article on the "Anti-AA movement" is a good idea I think.  Mr Christopher 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Some contributurs have been copying the references from Orange Papers without reading the actual source material. — DavidMack 15:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why probably 90% of the links should be deleted

message: OK, I went to the library last night. Could have stayed at home and watched TV, but this is important. To recap, The Orange papers site says, citing Ernest Kurtz, (1) that Bill W.'s interest in spiritualism influenced his AA work and writing, and (2) that AA has sealed the records on the spook sessions. The evidence is that (1) is not true and that (2) was partially true, at least in the 70s when Kurtz was doing his research. The following are quotes from Ernest Kurtz, Not-God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous, Hazelden Educational Foundation, Center City, MN, 1979:
* "Before the present project, never had any researcher been granted the access to materials that I requested as necessary to this endeavour. Yet, over several meetings I felt not so much screened as welcomed into a sharing of their responsibility. For such trust I am grateful." (Preface, p xi.)
* "The Wilson correspondence is closed under three degrees of restriction. The present research was the first scholarly access to the first two of these degrees." (Closed sources and their status to scholars, p 344.)
* "Some of the more timorous among A.A.'s trustees ... [and Bill] carefully shielded from public scrutiny three areas among the co-founder's many activities: ... Wilson's interest in spiritualism, his experimentation with LSD, and his promotion of the Vitamin B-3 therapy." (p 136) "It is under this sensitivity that the only archive restriction ... was imposed by A.A. on this research, and it is a restriction this book shall respect. An evaluation of this restriction... [appears] in the dissertation from which this book is derived. (Footnote to the first sentence, p 302.) [In other words, for detailed discussion of the restrictions, go read Kurtz's original PhD thesis.]
* "Wilson's main efforts outside A.A. in the final fifteen years of his life were attempts to remove the mental or psychological and physical obstacles that impeded some persons from openness to the spiritual." (p 137)
* "... despite his conviction that he had evidence for the reality of 'the spiritual' and so — in his logic — of the actual existence of a 'higher Power,' Wilson chose not to share, much less to proclaim or to impose, this foundation for faith either with, to, or upon Alcoholics Anonymous." (p 136)
To summarize, AA did not grant access to all their documents, but Kurtz was not too worried about it. Kurtz emphatically stated that Bill W.'s extracurricular activities remained outside AA.
And I have to hand it to Agent Orange and his sensitive nose for a conspiracy. In a book of 300+ pages of a detailed history of AA, he ignores all but the footnotes describing what documents were accessible.
— DavidMack 15:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed sources and conspiracy theories 

message: I started following this wiki after someone had vandalised the wiki entry describing my place of employment a year ago. I thought at the time I wonder what the A.A. one looks like. Agent Orange and his ilk like to come in here every couple of months and insert there "sourced materials", which then in turn sends everyone into a froth, to which he/they bemoan how we're biast and unreasonable for reminding them that this is an encyclopedic definition A.A. and that:
A. Unsourced, single sourced, original research just really is not a good idea. 
B. No this is not personal. 
C. We really mean A. and B. 
--Cre8tif 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observation 

message: As others have mentioned, the external link section for this article was out of control.  I've taken a critical eye to it and have removed many links, with an eye to adhering to WP:EL while also attempting to be bold yet not reckless.
Originally, I was going to give rationale for each link removal - but there ended up being far too many to handle  this way.  For those interested, I give rationale for the links I removed from the section, 'Unofficial AA Sites on the Internet' below. 
I removed a great number of links under the subcategory 'External Links'.  My main guideline: Wikipedia is not intended to be a mere directory of links.  Most of the links in the 'External links' subsection were links to sites critical of AA.  I don't take issue with that, but I've whittled them down, boldly, and kept it to three links which I believe offer the most resources, without suffering from original research.  I know that this edit is going to peeve people - may I suggest that rather than adding another link to a site critical of AA you instead find resourced material and work that into the article itself.  Or: consider starting a 'Criticisms of AA' article.  (Take a look, for example, at this article.)
Seeing an opportunity to upset people on both sides of the issue, I've removed the 'Testimonial' section.  I can't honestly think of a good reason for this to be included.  Do we really want to link everyone's blog who sobered up 'through AA'?  You know, aspirin works wonders for my headaches.  Should I write a blog about it and then link it from the Aspirin article?  (No offense.)
And finally, I've removed the 'AA alternatives' section.  What is this doing in this article?  No, seriously.  Put it in the main article about alcoholism, or one about recovery.  Should we add an 'Alternatives to Christianity' section to that article (try paganism!), or maybe an 'Alternatives to English' section to that article (some people speak French!), etc.
Here are the reasons I've removed specific links from the 'Unofficial Sites...' section:
www.alcoholicsanonymous.org/ 
The Unofficial Website for AA Related Information
There is very little here in terms of additional resources or information not already included in the article. 
www.dickb.com/index.shtml (Early AA History)
www.dickb-blog.com (articles, audio, resources)  
These seem to suffer from NOR: the central idea of these sites is that AA began as a Christian organization.  Fine...but the central theme seems to be that it was more effective as such, which violates NOR, IMHO.  
www.thebigbook.org 
There is already an official link to the book included.
alcoholism.about.com/ 
This link is about alcoholism, not AA.  Perhaps this link would be better suited in the article about alcoholism?
'''
www.aa-francite.org 
Online group in French.  Links to avoid include foreign language links.  Perhaps better suited for the French entry on AA?
www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/7372/brainwashed.html 
An anonymous blogger’s defense against the charge of AA ‘brainwashing.’ 
www.ballina.net/aa 
Example of Regional Unofficial Site
Is an example necessary?  
www.aahistory.com/
Again, little in the way of additional resources, information, etc., that is not available from official sites.
www.aa-uk.org.uk/ 
How to find AA in the UK, Wales, etc.    Is including separate links on how to find AA meetings in every region of the globe necessary?  This information can be found from the official main AA site.
aajustfortoday.org 
A daily alcoholism podcast about personal rehabilitation.  Are we supposed to start linking every podcast available on AA, alcoholism, etc.? 
www.recoveryrealm.com/ 
www.pluginthejug.com/ 
stayingcyber.org/ 
Online AA meetings.  I suppose these could be considered good additional resources, BUT there are also numerous online AA meetings, so the question becomes is there anything about these that makes them unique resources.  I’m proposing that we cut the links to individual online AA meetings and keep the link to www.aa-intergroup.org/index.html instead.  It’s a list of the numerous meetings available online. 
Snackycakes 17:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your careful work and good contribution to the quality of this article. — DavidMack 22:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work!  Mr Christopher 14:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will take an effort on all our part to keep the "see also" and other sections from becoming a useless link farm again.  At this point I think less is more, and the few links should be very good ones (as we see now) Mr Christopher 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link cleanup 

message: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/may23/12step.html -- 128.138.212.206 08:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — DavidMack 15:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting study, if someone wanted to integrate it 

message: After reading it about a dozen times to make sure I wasn't overlooking anything, I just deleted this whole section that said virtually nothing (except a plug for a private website).  AA has a website, this is noted in the article already.  AA members are anonymous, already noted, AA has traditions, that too had been noted.  I cannot see dedicating an entire section of the article to the fact that AA has a web site, and they are anonymous, and they have tradititions, etc.  And I think people have enought brain matter to know not every single 12 step web site in the entire universe is the offical AA one and we already link to the official one.  Mr Christopher 22:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: online aa recovery

message: What next we start quoting anonymous former AA members who hate AA?  Good lord this is not an aa brochure, we need to avoid quoting anonymous sources and these confessions and such. Mr Christopher 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Christopher, I strongly disagree. These are not anonymous confessions, they are referenced excerpts from authoritative sources, including academic articles and national news magazines. They give insight into the inner workings of AA, which is valuable information in an encyclopedic piece. There should certainly be some cases that illustrate that AA does not work, which I will dig up since I put one in that was very severe and unrepresentative. Would you please consider putting the erased section back? — DavidMack 15:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DavidMack, with all due respect let's chat on the subject.  So what do we do when we have other well sourced anonymous people who have all sorts of nasty things to say about their AA experience?  "Bob M credits AA with saving his life, Susie L says AA ruined her life"  This is my point, I cannot see where it serves any purpose.  And these emotional confessions smacks of trying to sell something to readers.  I mean if people want to read emotional confessions about their AA exprience wouldn't it seem more appropriate to link to the AA site or something than put it all here?  It's not worth arguing over, but if we put the happy AA confessions in this article then we'd better plan to quote people who cannot stand AA (to show the whole inner workings of AA because most people cannot stand AA).  This is exactly what I think the article needs to stay away from.  I mean in the christianity section do we have these heartfelt confessions where people tell how christ has saved them and/or quotes of people who said they tried christianity and found it unhelpful?  Tell me your thoughts.  Mr Christopher 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For this controversial subject, my intent was to present authoritative information that would establish that AA sometimes helps and sometimes hinders. I was trying to achieve a flow to the article by starting with these referenced personal statements, then proceeding to the larger studies. I did put in a statement from someone who had experienced harm from AA, but someone removed that at one point. The statements may be 'heartfelt', as you say, but the psychological fact is that some perceived that AA was helpful and some otherwise. If I dig up a more appropriate negative personal statement, would you go along with this section? (Just have to get that frikken book back from the library.) Bear in mind that you removed fully referenced, relevant information placed there in good faith. — DavidMack 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous confessions?

message: In your text you state it  is a program that offers suggestion yet the language in  the texts of books used in AA  contains a lot "musts" and "obeys"  in order to obtain a sober lifestlye.  Look at the opening preamble .
In otherwords in the program of suggestions strict adhearance to its doctrines must be followed and obeyed to obtain the sober life stlye promised.
That only those incapable of self honesty will not get the simple program.  Hence the person's character is queston  and not the doctrine of the program. 
Also offered up by Charolette Kasl is the fact that in her examination of AA and alnon literature in here paper Zen Reovery and Feminism addresses the fact there is not an example of a fully recovered person: she states " a search of approved addiction literature of A.A. and Al-Anon provided me with no definition of a healthy, mature,” recovered” person. One is always an addict, dependent on groups. and always at the brink of relapse if he or she doesn’t follow certain directives and trust external authority. It is heresy to say I am recovered, I don’t need a group. Personal power, competence, self-reliance, intellect, and happiness are also suspect. Most of all there is no room for questioning — the bedrock of expanding one’s mind and developing a set of internalized values that provide an inner sanctuary of personal strength."
Kasl in her book "many paths one journey " discusse how the program is held up to be perfect and the fact there is no questioning or discussing its doctrines.  Now to me that sounds more like a cult or a specific religion.
In fact it was Bill Wilson that stated once an alcoholic always an alcoholic, another fact in the rooms you will hear there are "no graduates' and only an alcoholic can understand an alcoholic.
{anonymous author} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Can you put all of this in clear, neutral language, with references? This is a public encyclopedia. — DavidMack 01:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcoholics anonymous loaded language 

message: A confidential report was leaked to the London Guardian newspaper July 2000. (Source: AAdeprogramming.org; click "Non-Organizational Resources" in "AA deprogramming".) Article "Drink advice service confronts sex abuse: AA acts on rising reports of attacks by volunteers." Gerard Seenan. Guardian. Wednesday July 5, 2000. Quote:
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA and sexual harrasement 

message: Much evidence has been produced (citations freely available) to suggest that men have been approaching women in bars, with the sole intention of obtaining sex. These bars, which are unregulated and self-supporting through the contributions of those in attendance, are frequented by predatory, 'old-timers' - men who have been hanging around in these places and plying unsuspecting and vulnerable women with alcohol for many years. Many of these vulnerable women going to bars are lonely and seeking companionship, many are suffering from low self-esteem, and some are alcoholics. It's important for people to realise that this kind of abuse has been going on for years and it beggars belief that nothing has been done to protect these women. Some so-called liberals have argued that adults have free-will and that people who experience harassment of this kind should confront the abuser in front of the rest of the drunks or else find another bar to frequent. That of course is insane, these places are evil and all should be closed down.
It's also been argued that other environments in our society are infected with the same kind of problems and behaviours. Examples include: night-clubs, gyms, parks, restaurants, libraries and even our places of work. This harassment is an outrage and must be stopped by closing down these places too. — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Miles (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. To translate it into wiki terms, AA groups are open to all comers and have all the benefits and risks of any community: mutual support and abuse are both possible. — DavidMack 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (Thank you. DavidMack 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual harassment in bars 

message: David Mack...the 90 meetings in 90 days is from the multi million dollar treatment industry and not AA.
It has been adopted and heard in many AA meetings, however it was never part of the original program.
It implies that the Treatment industry does not work.
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing.html
Treatment doesn't work.
http://www.baldwinresearch.com/treatmentdoesnt2004.cfm
:Two more anti-AA rant sites. What is the attraction of these websites? Obviously it's easier to point the finger at AA than look at yourself, but surely people suffering from alcoholism would be better off spending their time looking for recovery (if not in AA then elsewhere) than spending hundreds of hours writing and looking at this stuff.
::If it doesn't work it doesn't work.   "Two more Anti AA sites. "  It would be nice to see a signature posted under those emotional  rants. ( signed Freddy 2 shoes.)
::The fact is much of what is being promoted in AA is not from the original program, it comes from the treatment industry.
::Your suggesting that Mister Christopher didn't know that the VERY BRIEF description of the sexual abuse R. Fransway endured as a result of engaging in 12 step meetings was Critical?
::Hard to believe!!  {signed Freddy 2 shoes}
:I would like to put the testimonials back in, but with a more representative, less extreme 'negative experience' ... when i get the Fransway book back from the library. — DavidMack 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  90 meetings in 90 days came of the $$$$ treatment rehab industry 

message: Well if you want to explore the abuse issues Stanton Peele has a page regarding Rebecca Fransway.
http://www.peele.net/lib/twelve.html <
{signed Freddy 2 shoes}
Yes I agree with Stanton Peele when he talks about the "incredible bravery of Rebecca Fransway". I don't find it credible either.
It seems surprising to me that there are no Police reports or newspaper reports for Stanton to reference, particularly the story of the wheelchair lady's rape, or the other story of: "Another woman, who repeatedly attempted to gain support in dealing with her rape by AA members". AA members? So it was a gang-rape? Or did she go back after the first rape for more?
I've never heard of such a thing - not even on my recent trip to the center of the Earth, or whilst holidaying with my oldest friend Ghandi!
Mr Miles 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on The abuse suffered in AA , step programs 

message: *Remember to discuss improvements to the article, not AA itself.
*Please sign your posts by typing four tildes: "~~~~". (What if someone else signed 'Freddy 2 shoes'?)
*You can indent a paragraph by starting it with ":" or further with "::"
*Article needs to clarify, with references:
**if AA presents a 'compulsory' or 'suggested' program.
**if AA sees itself as the only way (note that things have changed since the early days when AA was pretty much the only hope for many alcoholics.)
**if AA sees its program as open for discussion, and whether this harmful narrow-mindedness or a life-saver.
**If AA blames the alcoholic when the program doesn't work.
**if the AA program helps or hinders (a lot of info on that is in already)
— DavidMack 00:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input, Mr Miles. OK, I'll take yours and everyone else's advice and not push the personal testimonials any further. I will continue to add material based on discussions, if you haven't already. I seem to be hooked on this — DavidMack 21:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on recent discussion 

message: David Mack further exploration could be undertaken regarding the idea of anonymous and the purpose it served.
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_14.jsp
"The Oxford Group, through the Firestone publicity, presented itself as having a “program” explicitly for drunks in addition to sinners in general. The meeting left behind at T. Henry Williams' in 1933 was an Oxford Group meeting and was to stay that way for several more years."
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_24.jsp "While these events had their effects on the development of Alcoholics Anonymous, probably none affected their doctrine so greatly as the continued public drunkenness of the Firestone heir converted to God-control. One of Oxford Group's biggest public relations coups became, if not for Oxford Group as a whole, certainly an embarrassment to their contingent of ex-drunks.
To prevent this embarrassing situation from happening again, AA's public relations were built upon the “spiritual principle” of “anonymity.” While “God” had told the Oxford Group it was everyone's duty to give public testimony, God seems to have told the early AA's, very pragmatically, that if people were one night swayed by testimony on the radio, and the next heard how the speaker had gotten drunk, it would hurt His program.
The idea of “anonymity at the media level” springs from Wilson's vision of a chain of alcoholics. AA literature tells of how the founder of AA in Boston drank himself to death but during periods on the wagon managed to carry the message to others. As they tell it,"
Sorry but I don't have tilda's  signed " child of the universe15 May 2007 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk)
:My tilde is left of the "1" key. — DavidMack 01:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Anonymity came to be  

message: Message to 207.194.108.93</br>
93, you added a reference to a Reader's Digest article that was basically a personal rant critical of AA. BUT, in that same issue of RD was a scientifically-based article that stated that AA was just as effective as cognitive behavioral therapy. Why did you only put in the negative article? Do you know how much work we're trying to do to get this article encyclopedia-neutral???</br> — DavidMack 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The back and forth on the talk page with 207.194.108.93 and 207.232.97.13 is getting ridiculous. I think it might be worth it to see some intervention from an admin. -- Craigtalbert 04:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm mad at 93 

message: http://newrecovery.blogspot.com/2007/03/brief-skills-training-is-effective-to.html
"Thursday, March 01, 2007
Brief skills training is effective to curb college drinking 
A study in Swedish colleges, where over-use of alcohol is widespread, showed that a Brief Skills Training Program was effective in reducing alcohol consumption over a two-year period.
Students were randomly assigned to a brief skills training program (BSTP) with interactive lectures and discussions, a twelve-step–influenced (TSI) program with didactic lectures by therapists trained in the 12-step approach, and a control group. More than three quarters of the students were rated "high risk" on an alcohol consumption score.
At follow-up two years later, the high-risk students who had received the BSTP program showed significantly better outcomes than high-risk students who had undergone TSI. The TSI students did no better than the control group. 
The study results are in the March issue of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. Abstract."
P.S. I didn't wait for you to post it, I have already done so.  I don't want to leave it here unposted and cry foul when Mr. Miles or others of you fail to post it for me. </br>
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.108.93 (talk)
:Interesting, this piece will be a welcome addition to the Wiki article on Alcoholism.
:Mr Miles 22:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish study twelve steps vs alternative on  college students 

message: User 86.1.101.146, thank you for reverting what you saw as vandalism. However, those changes were intended as improvements to the article. I removed the Saturday Evening Post articles and put them as references to the appropriate point in the text. I removed the title "AA literature" because the further reading section should include all types of books, not just "AA literature". I included some books critical of AA to provide a balanced list. — DavidMack 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted reversion

message: I just did a wiki on the Catholic Church, I did note that the recent sexual abuse cases have been discussed however what was lacking was the Catholic Church in popular culture.
For example  The Catholic Church  in movies and entetainment:
*There is Sally Field star of  The Flying Nun
*There is the Exorcist (1973)
*The Exorcism of Emily Rose
*Rosemary's Baby
*1959 A Nuns Story
*The Omen....and the list goes on
Why were these not added to the wiki?</BR>
What is the point of AA in popular culture????</BR>
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2007
:There's a debate about "In popular culture" articles. Some people make a hobby of putting in a ton of tiny references, mainly for fun. I believe "in popular culture" sections are only helpful if they improve understanding of the subject and it's impact. — DavidMack 17:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anybody be opposed to my adding Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace to the Pop Culture section? One of the main characters is in AA and the entire novel is about addiction. It's over 1000 pages and I'll bet a good 200-300 pages (or more) are devoted to AA. Tudwell 04:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That whole section should be removed. There's no way to establish the notability of the various shows it's been mentioned on. If it's so subjective, there's no point in including it. -- Craigtalbert 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AA in popular culture 

message: Any overall ideas about how we can make this article better? It's already had a peer review, I don't think all of the suggestions from that were implemented (or they have since been lost). Have a look.
It seems generally over-long to me, some points are over labored too, for example the piece about Bill and Ebby's conversion, is huge, there is a reference to the history book 'Comes of Age' in further reading. I would propose condensing that part at least.
Any thoughts?
Mr Miles 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article was originally written by AA adherents, and it still carries a tone of the legendary, miraculous beginning of AA. It needs some tightening up to make it encyclopedic. And yes, I agree that the conversion passage is too long. — DavidMack 15:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further editing 

message: Addiction Information:
http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/94/1/Zen-Feminism-and-Recovery/Page1.html
http://www.counselormagazine.com/content/view/152/63/
Kasl had spent a number of years in AA , before leaving.
Her book Many Paths One Journey addresses a  number of issues, one being the program is held up a perfect and the individual is at at fault.   
Ken Ragge
From his Book More Revealed 
Vaillant wrote of his project in his book, “The Natural History of Alcoholism,”
“It seemed perfectly clear...by turning to recovering alcoholics [AA members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients...into the treatment system of AA, I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
But then came the rub. [We] tried to prove our efficacy. ...
Stanton Peele, an investigator independent of Vaillant's study, after examining some of Vaillant's unpublished data found,
“Of those who quit drinking on their own, none of the twenty-one men followed up since the end of the study were abusing alcohol. ...Relapse was more common for the AA group: 81 percent of those who quit on their own either had abstained for ten or more years or drank infrequently, compared with the 32 percent of those who relied on AA who fall in these categories.”64
Footnote: 64. Peele (1989):194 Peele S, The Diseasing of America: Addiction Treatment Out of Control Lexington, Mass.:Lexington Books, 1989
ON Vaillant:
One possibility is that George Vaillant is “God-controlled.” He gives indications that this may be so. In attempting to explain the division between those (like himself) who believe that AA works and those who don't, he offers, “[F]or AA to work, one must be a believer.”66
Footnote: 66. Vaillant (1983a):298 Vaillant GE, 1983a. The Natural History of Alcoholism. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1983
“Clinicians and relatives alike need to take the first ‘step’ of Al-Anon seriously: they must admit their own ‘powerlessness over alcohol.’”67*
Footnote: 67. Vaillant (1983a):303 Vaillant GE, 1983a. The Natural History of Alcoholism. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1983
Sooner or later, and preferably sooner, the alcoholic should be induced to attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous.”68
Footnote 68. Vaillant (1983b) Vaillant GE, 1983b. Can Alcoholics Go Back to “Social” Drinking?. Harvard Medical School Health Letter Oct(1983):3-5
Another Point in The Book:
One study of many which indicate how AA works in hospitalized patients brings to mind “Oxfordizing” and the five C's. In a Texas hospital69 35 men of various lengths of hospitalization in an AA-based program underwent psychological testing. It was found that the longer a patient was in the program the higher he scored on responses indicating defeat, guilt and fear. Perhaps most important, as the patients became more indoctrinated in AA, their self-concept became progressively more negative than when they first sought help for their drinking problems. As the Oxford Group before them, Alcoholics Anonymous uses guilt to bring about conversion to membership. Alcoholics Anonymous has the added benefit of manipulation through fear. With these tools at its disposal, indoctrination
Footnote:69. White and Porter (1966) White FW and Porter TL, Self Concept Reports among Hospitalized Alcoholics during Early Periods of Sobriety. Journal of Counseling Psychology 13(1966):352-355
:All interesting, and should be included as objections to Vaillant's research. You realise someone has to read all the referenced material, though? I would like to have a shot at it, if no one else has, but it'll take me a while. — DavidMack 16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Vaillant , Zen etc 

message: Your reasoning for taking down the online library is not justified.  If it is promoting a web page then the page to Alcholics Anonymous which is a direct link will have to go.
Readers are not children,  your claim to 93 , " I am working with you" is not the case.  When you look at the AA section, every reference to an outside link has been deleted with the exception of Alcoholics Anonymous, now I wasn't aware that the Wiki was here to endorse AA, and delete those sites that question or criticize it.
:The external link cleanup was done by Snackycakes, discussed in detail in the section above entitled "External link cleanup". — DavidMack 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are trying to keep the number of links to a minimum, in accordance with Wiki policy. If there is a good book on the topic of AA, especially if you have actually read it, maybe you could consider putting it under further reading. Links to book lists are not much help to the reader. All links should be to reliable sources, especially in a controversial article like this one. The AA site is official information, so the links belongs in the article. For more guidance see Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Reliable sources — DavidMack 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed the Paradise / Dick B. books as a follow up to the removal of the Sharp Press books. The Paradise books focus on promoting AA as miraculous and divinely-inspired, and as such should not be part of an authoritative list of further reading. They could be referenced in the article as giving a perspective on AA. — DavidMack 00:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding bias in Removing the Link  Ken Ragges  online library which allows direct access to read the books 

message: AA is an organization that heavily emphasises the responsibility of the alcoholic in achieving sobriety, unlike, for instance, a doctor-administered antibiotic that does its work with minimal commitment from the patient.[52] Research has indicated that alcoholics reporting a lack of motivation reverted to their drinking levels soon after leaving clinical treatment.[53] It appears that AA shows its advantage over other treatments in the long term because, as a cheap, community-based fellowship it is easy for people to keep coming back. Vaillant argues that "AA is the most effective means of long-term relapse prevention in the physician’s armamentarium."[54]
Anyways, on the wikipedia page on AA critics, shouldn't that
information be moved down under "The Effective or Not?" area. The
editiors seem to only cited material that agree with AA in the
"Effective or Not?" The First two sentences in my mind of that section
have nothing to do with AA efficacy. The last sentence where they cite
George Vaillant, is the only information provided that is relevant,
but biased. As it is just one source of information on the Efficacy of AA.
:—Yes, I agree. I'll get to it in a coupla days if no one else has. — DavidMack 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the "effectiveness" word should be removed because it inflames so many emotions. How about just "Research on AA", which may encourage a more balanced outline. "Effective or not" was supposed to be the final summary, but it can be shifted back into the section on Vaillant. — DavidMack 02:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the word "effectiveness" should be removed, it seems to of caused a conflict amongst the anonymous posters, and others. Changing it to "Research on AA" would fit better and make more sense. I think the Brandsma Study and Ditman study should be placed in their own sub-section, instead of under "The Veterans Study." "The Veterans Study" section doesn't make much sense right now. Also, it's probably best to move the last paragraph of the section, citing Vaillent research, into the "George Vaillent" section. 146 or 93 changed it without discussing it. Those are my thoughts. --Amerikasend 03:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Going to try this again. Under "Researching AA's effectiveness." I think the sub-section labeled "Effectiveness" should be removed and have the Brandsma Study and Ditman study in their own sub-sections under "Researching AA's effectiveness." It doesn't seem right, to have a sub-section underneath "Researching AA's effectiveness," labeled "effectiveness." Just a thought. --Amerikasend 21:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effective or not   Deceptive headline... Based on Vaillant the Wiki has decided that AA is effective 

message: A warning to User: IP 207.232.97.13.
Any further additions of Original Research, Synthesis and outright vandalism on this article, adding for example under the section G Valiant:
"he also stated AA certainly functions as a cult and systemically indoctrinates its members in ways common to cults the world over"
And I will suggest to Wiki that your IP is blocked. Please grow up.
:Also, 13, how come you never sign your posts, even after repeated requests? Other pages would have started to erase your posts on the basis of no signature, no input. — DavidMack 02:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued vandalism on this article 

message: I attempter to change the second sentence in the very beginning of Alcoholics Anonymous. There is no evidence that gives proof to AA having a global community and/or over 2 million members. That's hear-say, since there are no figures to prove that claim. Now I attempted to edit it, but when I look at the history page, it says my name, but right after my name it doesn't say what I edited. Sorry If i messed anything up.--Amerikasend 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think I made an error editing page 

message: I posted stating that I would add it.  No one objected, so I put it in.  It most certainly adds to the balance of this (hugely unbalanced) article, as well as conforming to Wiki's external links policy.  I put my thoughts in this section.  I thought the idea was that you discussed before making changes? </br>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous#Why_probably_90.25_of_the_links_should_be_deleted </br>
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.6.180.130 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2007
:I don't know why 86.1.101.146 removed the link, but s/he has been removing links that s/he judges to be unauthoritative and anti-AA. Has Stanton Peele written any scholarly papers? If his work can be considered authoritative, perhaps you could summarise it in the article. — DavidMack 15:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that links to Stanton Peele (and 'More Revealed') are no use to the reader. Instead, someone needs to read the material and briefly explain it, with references, in the article. — DavidMack 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have reported you for violation of the three revert rule — DavidMack 22:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you. An edit war is when "two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article," and we want to avoid this. Wikipedia:External links says that "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." So instead of replacing the link every chance you get, could you please read the material and give a neutral summary in the article, of appropriate length, with citations? It takes a bit of extra work, and what you insert is still up for debate, but a lot of us have put in quite a bit of reading time to improve this article. I am willing to do that chore; it just may take me a while to get to it. — DavidMack 15:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Why did someone delete the Stanton Peele Link?  

message: The current events appear to research undertaken by two sociologists in the mid eighties. 
More controversy Police officers wife comes forward. , , . Quote:
Videos: , 
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2007
:I'm sorry, how is this relevant? Can you sign in please? Mr Miles
::It identifies issues that are a result of the anonimity principal.  That is why it is so difficult to place charges against perpatraitors in the alcoholics anonymous venue. It is a result of  people wanting  to guard their own anonimity or not be identified as a member of the organization.  Have you noticed in the articles that people are not willing to be identified and thus the paper is protecting their anonomity by giving only a first name. {signed anonymous} — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2007
:Message to 207.232.97.13. Thanks for the news items. I have included them in the article. A couple of requests. Please sign your comments with "~~~~". Also, there is no need to paste in long quotes from the news in this area. Finally, please keep to reliable sources like academic articles and news magazines. It is no help for you to paste in quotes from amateur websites; we can't use that material in an encyclopedia. Remember, we'll work with you if you can try to understand how Wiki works and follow the guidlines. Thanks. — DavidMack 16:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. Yes I believe the agenda of the person who found the links is suspect, but my intention was just to indicate that abuse can happen, with reference to reliable sources. You asked my personal view? I think abuse in AA is rare, but by definition AA is for the emotionally unwell, so it's not surprising that AA attracts the odd predator. I disagree that it's a minority view; it's just a rare occurence which I believe should be mentioned. It doesn't hurt alcoholics to know that some people they might encounter in AA may not have the healthiest motives. — DavidMack 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems within Step Groups  Midtown AA Banned from third church 

message: You guys have nothing for the person who comes to you looking for help, to figure out what is going on in the persons life and what is the best way to go about fixing this persons life. 
You have a resume but no path. No assesment to go about? what do I do now? How do I get started on which course to take?  Am I asking to much?
                       Johnny   sighbrrdude@yahoo.com
Hi Johnny, this is an encyclopedic article, the subject being AA as an organization, as such it should neither promote AA as a treatment for alcoholism, nor should it be a forum for anti-AA groups and their agenda. The aim here is, I guess, to describe AA with accuracy and neutrality. A person looking for a way to 'fix' their life would probably not be best served by Wikipedia. Are you going to stay and contribute? Mr Miles 10:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey what's next and what do I do? 

message: http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php/type/doc/id/993
That is a list of studies on self-help and mutual aid groups (including AA, and substance abuse groups) showing their effectiveness. All studies are either longitudinal and/or compare self-help participants to non-participants. I would integrate them but I'm currently busy working on other articles, and the intense rancor and disorganization of discussion in this one turn me off. — Craigtalbert 05:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good studies on the value of self-help groups