Talk:Twelve-step program/Archive 2

message: I don't believe this section, as it's currently written, keeps with WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I'm not sure if it's relevant in this article to being with. - Craigtalbert 01:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewing the sources of this section, I don't see much that's worth keeping. The only purpose for this information is to imply if a court sees twelve step groups and unequivocally religious, then it contradicts statements made by the groups to the contrary (e.g. twelve Step groups are spiritual, not religious). In other words, would be documenting instances of courts saying that twelve step groups incorrectly describe themselves. This is, however, mixing legal definitions of religion and spirituality with colloquial definitions. It seems like it serves no other purpose than ammunition in a POV semantics debate. Other than that, it's all about constitutional law, judges, parole officers, etc, which is not relevant to this article. -- Craigtalbert 09:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks to me as if you just removed a section containing notable, cited facts, chiefly that the State of New York has found that AA-style twelve-step programs are religious. Please consider returning this fact to the article if you expect your edit to stand; as removing cited facts from Wikipedia articles is not usually considered legitimate conduct here. --FOo 01:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then maybe you should have another look. I removed a section that cited an obviously biased source (e.g. Resisting 12-Step Coercion: How to Fight Forced Participation in AA, NA Or 12-Step Treatment), went in to excruciating detail on unrelated constitutional law issues, was on a topic that has questionable relevance to this article (do you really think a treatment on the difference between spirituality and religion is within the scope of this article?), and was laced with POV language.  Removing it was well within the guidelines of every wikipedia policy I've read. -- Craigtalbert 02:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please mind WP:FORUM. I don't disagree with you. The problem with it, as I stated previously, are the relevance of constitutional law and the "religion vs. spirituality" discussion to this article. Even if we were to included it, what you've written gives it undue weight. -- Craigtalbert 00:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "undue weight" policies have to do with fringe opinions. The finding of a state court of appeals is not a fringe opinion. It is the law (within that court's jurisdiction, of course). --FOo 02:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see much in the undue weight section about fringe opinions. I do see a lot of discussion about prominence. Originally I didn't believe this article advanced the idea that Twelve-step programs were "spiritual, not religious." I was wrong, it did in an uncited/OR section that I just removed. There are at least two different opinions on the subject: (1) that twelve step groups are spiritual, not religious (2) that despite what they claim they are religious. If you include one opinion, you have to include the other. Having an entire section dedicated to one opinion, and a sentence embedded in a POV section about the other, I'd say is undue weight. As it stands now, they both have equal weight. -- Craigtalbert 04:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally liked the one-sentence line as it was previously in the intro: a simple statement that some jurisdictions obligate the accused to attend meetings, which is a controversial practice. it's worth acknowleding this practice. plenty of people show up at aa meetings thru this, and it's controversial both among individual 12-steppers and among the accused.  Pozcircuitboy 19:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't merely a controversial practice, which suggests merely that some people don't like it. It is, in some jurisdictions, an illegal practice. --FOo 02:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agreed that the amount of information was becoming excessive. I don't think it needs to be cut, but rather we-written according to wiki guidelines with a link to a new article withall of this info. it is important info to some people, and deserves its own article. if anyone has the willingness to write it, go for it. but all of that info about court-mandation is irrelevant to the topic at hand. very similar to the issue with AA history awhile back - the extra info was just overwhelming the general purpose of the article. Pozcircuitboy 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fine with this as long as it gives reasonable weight to both opinions, otherwise it's a "POV fork." Also mentioned this in the AA talk page section on the same subject. -- Craigtalbert 20:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court-mandated Twelve-step attendance 

message: Please be aware of the guidelines on Help:Reverting.  One such is that, except in cases of obvious vandalism, reversion is a last rather than a first resort.
In particular:
* Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
* Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Reverting an edit with no justification save an armwave of WIKI:WL is itself vandalism.
PhGustaf 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 207.194.108.93 has been warned about these kind of edits. This is also not an article about SMART Recovery, the information doesn't belong here to begin with. -- Craigtalbert 23:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if 207.194.108.93 came back and cited it with the most immaculate peer-reviewed and reliable source in the universe, this article is not about SMART recovery - that's a fact, not my opinion. This is why there's warning templates for things like Addition of unsourced material without proper citations and Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. The only thing I might have done wrong was not adding another to the lost list of template warnings on 207.194.108.93's talk page, he/she has been around long enough that I decided against it. -- Craigtalbert 00:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And, look, this is the problem with not only this article, but also the AA article - everyone wants to run to the talk page to fight about the smallest change. Every time I make a perfectly reasonable change, there has to be a three page discussion about. It's a waste of everyone's time. I've been talking about this with 82.19.66.37. Instead of stretching the rules and fighting tooth and nail to keep not-so-great content in articles from not-so-great sources (that is, if there's one provided at all), and quoting wikipedia policy, why not just spend time finding good sources? -- Craigtalbert 00:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting Good Faith Changes 

message: The writing someone just added about court mandated 12 step stuff is unclear, stolen from another source (plagarized), and incorrectly-punctuated. We should revert the old stuff if people are going to put this stuff in the article. at least the previous version was well-written. thoughts?: Pozcircuitboy 21:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court-Manadation 

message: I completely disagree with this paragraph as a problem. I've never heard someone tell me that I can say anything in a meeting and expect to never hear about it again. That seems the *opposite* of 12 step work - steps 8 and 9 specifically are all about facing what i've done and being willing to walk through the consequences. My understanding of anonymity of the 12th tradition is that it refers to how 12 steppers interract with public media and how i treat OTHER people's shares, not fear about my own. cf http://www.adozensteps.com/the-twelfth-tradition/ http://draonline.org/trad12-a.html the AA 12 and 12, NA "It Works: How and Why" and anything else on 12 steps. maybe i'll figure out how to rewrite this at some point. Pozcircuitboy 22:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph isn't really about anonymity -- it's about confidentiality.  It's often said at meetings that "What's said here stays here", and the graf just says there's no legal assurance of this. PhGustaf 02:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph on Anonymity 

message: While researching/checking some of the references for this article, I came across this page, that either pulled information and references EXACTLY as they were in previous versions, or editors had pulled information from that page. 
I believe the article is different enough now that it doesn't constitute a copyright violation. But, everybody, if you're a guilty party here, please don't do this in the future. -- Craigtalbert 07:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this article previously a copyright violation? 

message: I did some copyediting on the court mandated attendance and confidentiality sections, and replaced them with the not-copyedited versions in the Alcoholics Anonymous article. Unless there are criticisms made that apply equally to all twelve step programs, we should avoid putting redundant information in this section and link to criticisms of programs in existing articles. -- Craigtalbert 07:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Criticism Section 

message: I did some copyediting, removed some weasel wording, and moved two paragraphs from the meeting process section putting one in the "Process" section, and the other in the "Criticism" section. -- Craigtalbert 03:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Meeting Process section 

message: If it doesn't broadly apply to all twelve-step groups, it really should be in the specific articles. E.g. the journal of legal medicine article was about addiction recovery twelve step groups, and the the court mandated attendance was about AA/NA. Doesn't belong here. -- Craigtalbert 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks. -Bikinibomb 18:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving criticism back to AA 

message: A bit out of theme, probably on a "Trivia" section, should there be a reference to Dream Theater's Alcoholics Anonymous suite? 
Its being written by DT's drummer Mike Portnoy based on these twelve steps. --Undiente 09:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dream Theater's "Alcoholics Anonymous suite" 

message: The word "atheists" should be removed from the following phrase:
Anyone—atheists, agnostics, people of any religion or demonation—are able to participate.[28]
While it is true that atheists can go to 12-step meetings, they cannont enbrace any higher power (even a chair or "the group").  If they do, then they are not atheists.  I would eliminate the sentence altogether if noone objects, since obviously no body has checked to se if "people of any religion" are able to participate in anything.Desoto10 (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it lists atheists in the article cited, but I will double check. I think there's a poster version of it linked, if you want to have a look. FYI: I'm an atheist. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Identity 

message: In this section of the article there is no reference to the effectiveness of the sponsorship idea, either for the sponsor or the sponsoree.  There is a reference:
Crape, BL, Latkin, CA, Laris, AS, Knowlton, AR.  2002.  The effects of sponsorship in 12-step treatment of injection drug users.  Drug Alcohol Depend.  1;65(3):291-301.
that concludes:
"Our investigation suggests that, for NA/AA sponsors in this study population, providing direction and support to other addicts is associated with improved success in sustained abstinence for the sponsors but does little to improve the short-term success of the persons being sponsored."
Should this reference and a sentence for it be included?Desoto10 (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should be bold and add it. :) -- Craigtalbert (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sponsorship 

message: I changed the crippled grammar in this section with my own crippled grammar.  I think it is improved. Desoto10 (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-twelve-step addiction recovery groups 

message: I think that AA is based on your relationship with God, so I think that the wiki page should talk more about God and recovery and not just recovery.16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with God 

message: For many years the biggest problem with scientific studies of 12 Step programs has been that these studies include people who have only been to a few meetings. 
These studies have also counted people who have never worked the 12 Steps. 
Most such studies do not zero-in on long-term attendees (and the 12 Steps were designed to work over a longer period of time). 
Furthermore-- even within the population of long-term group attendees, there is a smaller group of people whyo have actually worked 5 or more of the 12 Steps. People who have worked the 12 Steps are the valid study population since these are the only people who are actually working the Steps on a long-term basis. Yet most studies don't make these distinctions. 
Consequently 'scientific' studies of 12 Step program effectiveness are often poorly constructed and don't even measure the application of the 12 Steps in one's daily life.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.84.101 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems With 12 Step Program Studies and Assesments-- Most Studies include people who have attended less than 10 meetings / and also people who have never worked the Steps 

message: The paragraph in the effectiveness section kind of bothers me as it's mostly focused on AA and NA, things is this article should apply broadly to all twelve-step programs, while AA and NA may be the largest, they're just a fraction of the whole. For now, I'm going to move that information to the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous article. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops it's all ready in there. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness 

message: Any of you have input on this? -- Scarpy (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008_March_15#Guidelines_on_length_of_Further_Reading_sections|Guidelines on length of Further Reading sections]] 

message: We should be systematically removing information that focuses specifically on one fellowship. This is not the article for stuff that doesn't quite fit in the AA article -- Scarpy (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness and article focus 

message: I understand that the American Psychological Association is a reliable published source, but their summary of what is involved in the 12-step process is incomplete.
* admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion;  (step 1)
* recognizing a greater power that can give strength;  (step 2,3 & 11)
* examining past errors with the help of a sponsor (experienced member);  (step 8)
* making amends for these errors;  (step 9)
* learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior;  (step 10)
* helping others that suffer from the same addictions or compulsions.  (step 12)
The list omits the inventory/admission/defect removal process of steps 4 to 7, isn't there a better source for a summary?
Mr Miles (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Their summary is accurate, "examing past errors with the help of a sponsor" is steps 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of skims several processes there but okay. Mr Miles (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is based on the principle of verifiability, the APA source is used because it meets (and exceeds) wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable reliable source 

message: The further reading list is over half the page! It makes it unwieldy and I imagine unlikely to be of much use to the reader. I don't think we should be listing every single somewhat reliable source we come across under further reading. Anbody got suggestions for reading list criteria? Dakinijones (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually just one person who added it. I asked for input on the talk page and over at the help desk, but apparently there are no specific guidelines on the issue. I've been meaning to kind of go through and prune it, but it's hurting anybody at the moment. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So no worries then if I do the odd bit of pruning myself? Don't plan on a major sudden change... just move one or two at a time to more appropriate sounding articles within the 12 Step articles. I'd leave deletions to you as I'm not familiar with most of this literature Dakinijones (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not at all, that would be a good idea. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: too vague: "One review of twelve-step programs warned . . ."  What review, when was it published. Need to cite source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.193.98 (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read all of the way to the end of the sentence, you'll see a little number in superscript. That is a footnote for the citation. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Except for the first sentence, the section on Effectiveness does not seem to have anything to do with the section title.  It seems to be more related to the prevalence of drug and alcohol addiction-related programs in 12-step groups.Desoto10 (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous effectiveness section was misleading as it only cited a information about a NA group at a particular treatment center, and by no means was reflexive of the effectiveness of all twelve-step treatment programs (most of which are not for treating substance abuse). The point it illustrates is that having a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of twelve-step programs overall needs to evaluate how they operate on various pathologies, and directs readers to the effectiveness sections for particular twelve-step articles. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness 

message: I'm assuming that note about illegal plagiarism, in addition to having incorrect spelling, is inappropriate where it is. I'm going to remove it, but given my unfamiliarity with editing wikis, even my fix will probably need polishing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.245.143 (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, out of curiosity, is it plagiarism? The passages from the AA manual were correctly cited, so to me, that indicates all is good, but what is the legality surrounding reprinting of passages on wikis?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.245.143 (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's cited correctly and is within the fair use guidelines. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal Plagiarism 

message: The sentence:
"Behavioral issues such as compulsion and/or addiction with sex, food, and gambling were found to be solved with the daily application of the Twelve Steps in such fellowships as Gamblers Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous and Sexual Compulsives Anonymous."
suggests effectiveness without a citation that that any of these groups solve anything.  I am going to neutralize it.
Desoto10 (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: There has no current US copyright on the text of Alcoholics Anonymous.  It is in the public domain.  
The 1986 General Service Conference Final Report admits as much:
The copyright on the first edition of the Big Book lapsed in 1967, and the copyright on the new material in the second edition lapsed in 1983-both because of a failure to renew them in a timely fashion. There was a mistaken belief that registering the copyright on the second edition in 1956 served to revive the copyright on the first edition; the misconception continued, with respect to the second edition, when the third edition was copyrighted in 1976. (From page 15)
See a more detailed discussion at http://aagso.de/1939/uslaw.htm, which claims that AA World Services has admitted that the original manuscript was distributed without copyright notice.  This would indicate that under the copyright law at the time, it was within the public domain from the start. Also within that page are copies of AA literature from the 10th World Service Conference that explicitly states that AA acknowledges that the copyright of the original text has expired. --Advocate (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, it's within fair use. I asked for clarification at the helpdesk. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm removing the template now as the information is in the public domain. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright of Big Book 

message: I don't know where the material should go in this article, but it seems the most relevant discussion in this article is at the end of the History section where it discusses addicts not being welcome at closed meetings. After reviewing the guidelines closer, it seems that the lengthy quotes from Bill W. out of the Grapevine should be removed and generally described. Is this something to work on now, or should it wait until a decision as to the deletion of the Singleness of Purpose page be rendered? Advocate 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singleness of Purpose 

message: We discussed this awhile back in relation to the List of twelve-step groups article and decided that any group not following a reasonably close variation of the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions would be listed as "partially patterned after Alcoholics Anonymous." For instance Celebrate Recovery and LDS Family Services both follow the Twelve Steps, but not the Twelve Traditions. I'll will put this in a foot-note in this article. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programs that do and don't follow the Twelve Traditions 

message: Don K. - there is a wikipedia article conveniently titled History of Alcoholics Anonymous. Your recent contributions (, ) would be better off somewhere in that article. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcoholics Anonymous History 

message: I don't have any of the sources listed in the Further Reading section.  If anyone has any of these, and can turn them into actual references to the text of the article, it would improve the article quite a bit and probably go a long way toward getting the class rating improved.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently we've been waiting for a review for awhile. User:Dakinijones seemed interested in working on it, but I think she (he?) tries to avoid me now. :) -- Scarpy (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I've tried to make a dent in this. My apologies for any confusing edits, I was working pretty quickly. I've moved the articles on this list to the pages for the groups they study or the topics (many we're related to twelve-step effectiveness for substance abuse, dual diagnosis, and sex addiction, etc). Hopefully this will be helpful for people who would like to "beef-up" those articles.    
I moved the books and dissertations to the talk page as I was running the citation bot to get DOIs as quickly as possible for as many of the articles as I could. I'm okay leaving them here for now, but if any of you would like to move them back -- that's okay. The DOIs should at least link interested readers to abstracts and will help further sort out which wikipedia articles could benefit from the research. 
I will work on this in fits and starts. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: A Google Scholar search on the two shows quite a bit of overlap, as you would expect . There are also at least a few books published by Al-Anon that use the word . 
More than that, the spurious reference confuses what source the information in the paragraph comes from. So, I'm going to remove it. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Anon and codependence 

message: The gay group affinity is not for "socialization" per se, but for selection of a sponsor that a member/sponsor won't get emotionally involved with. Unlike heterosexual groups where men have men sponsors, etc. In gay groups, men normally have women sponsors and vice-versa. A gay group can easily provide this which a heterosexual group could not. A bit hard to explain since the article doesn't go into sponsorship that much. Student7 (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay 

message: I had thought this respected media documentary to be relevant to the article.
*"The Spirituality of Addiction and Recovery", Speaking of Faith, Public Radio program, May 15, 2008, American Public Media
However, User:Scarpy, without discussion, reverted it out under WP:EL. I still think it deserves merit. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: its placement alone under a subsection provides undue weight of a non-notable documentary (that has not produced any secondary sources).  why is this link so important to you?  you have placed the same link under numerous articles in 3 different formats without modifying the content of the article otherwise. That radio show originally aired in 2006, more than enough time for secondary sources to pick it up, however since that time it has not been referenced by any scholar in the addiction community.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We disagree, although I read your points. The documentary is -- as you queried "why is this link so important to you?" -- in my opinion, is an excellent, useful, encompassing, conscientious, and from well-respected sources. But there is other work to do. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have responded to this on my talk page. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aversion to Reversion 

message: all the criticism links seem to link in circles goin back to nothing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.160.202 (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: The list of links is arbitrary. The only way to make it NPOV way would be to link to all notable groups, meaning there would be about 30 links. Any other method is giving undue weight to groups chosen to be linked (as it is now). Linking all ~30 groups, would be redundant as we already have a list for this purpose. Give this discussion a read. -- Scarpy (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you but for different reasons. Wikipedia has articles on the links that were edited. The links may (or may not) belong in those articles. This is too high a level for these links. But yes, there would be far too many to be of any value. People will simply skip long lists of links. Student7 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

text: 30 links is silly.  We're here to write encyclopedic content, not to draft up link directories.  No thank you.  Kuru talk 22:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one item that makes an external link section unnecessary on this page--List of twelve-step groups.  But how you convey that information to the reader may be difficult, as everyone who uses Wikipedia looks for an external link section--at least I do.  Perhaps a way accomplish this would be to have a external link heading on this page with a note, something like: "(Note--External links are presented on individual sites included in the following list: List of twelve-step groups.)"  Maybe there are more creative ways to accomplish this, but unless some explanation is made, editors will constantly be trying to add external links to this page.  Pinethicket (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: In the 1930s when 12-step was originated, the word "psychological" was not in common usage except among educated people. Psychology was a relatively new science. People used the word mental then and sometimes do today to signify that someone has psychological issues. "Mental case" is still occasionally used today. Whatever "mental" meant then, it has been supplanted by "psychological" in common usage.
Within 12-step, "emotional" is quite frankly used. In the 1930s, women (only) "got emotional." Men never did. This has definitely changed so that 12-steppers, if not the world at large, now refers to psychological issues as "emotional." All groups refer openly and in print to addressing problems at the "physical, emotional and spiritual" level. None say anything about "mental", because the word is, today, devoid of meaning, or open to misinterpretation. There are still some quotes around from the 1930s wording, which is included in the quotes in the article. But the word "mental" is no longer used by anyone. Student7 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mental 

message: I just removed a large section tracing the 12-step program back 1500 years or so.  A little poking turns up http://the-twelve-steps.com/quotes-book-c.html , which describes a book written by a William Booth, presumably the same one who made the wikipedia donation.  If you're reading, William, read some of  out many policies, including WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and especially WP:COI.  It would be very interesting (and valuable) if you could find something to support these assertions that was not founded on your own research.  Cheers, PhGustaf (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1500 Years of 12 Steps? 

message: The link for reference #11 is broken. Should be replaced or removed as a citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjwood (talk • contribs) 00:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: First of all, there is no empirical data that this process actually works.  Facilities that use this program do not usually keep success rates and when they do, they are not usually very impressive.  Also, they never keep in contact with the patient; they don't know how many actually stay clean.  Furthermore, a 2005 article in the journal Addiction, Deborah A. Dawson and her colleagues calculated a natural recovery rate for alcoholism of 24.4 percent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.209.71 (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't really a necessary point to make unless you are trying to add a "counter-argument" section, a section on the effectiveness of the program, or you are trying to add to other sections with arguments against the tenants outlined in the article itself. As-is the article is about the organization and its operating procedures, beliefs, and tenants, etc. rather than its effectiveness. It's a very accurate representation of this, as far as I am able to tell, and has no obvious spin to it. Pretty much all of this is straight out of the "Big Book" itself, and though I have no personal investment in defending it, its necessary for Wikipedia to have factual information for one article without extraneous information that could be placed elsewhere, or added to a sub-section. Your point on its effectiveness is valid if a new sub-section was added about this topic and represented on all sides.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by  67.177.199.219  (talk • contribs)   01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it work? 

message: As best I can tell, the following text:
“After a transcendent experience while under the influence of LSD, Bill Wilson considered adding an additional, thirteenth step which incorporated maintenance usage of LSD. However, he was dissuaded from doing so by Aldous Huxley”
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twelve-step_program&diff=518867880&oldid=517958511
appears not to be supported by the three references cited (Francis Hartigan Bill Wilson p. 177-179; Pass It On': The Story of Bill Wilson and How the A. A. Message Reached the World. p. 370-371; Bill Wilson "The Best of Bill: Reflections on Faith, Fear, Honesty, Humility, and Love" p. 94-95.)
Bill Wilson was a spiritual explorer, corresponded with Aldous Huxley, did argue for the potential utility of LSD in treatment of alcoholics, and experimented with LSD himself. However, I can find no reference to a potential thirteenth step from which he was dissuaded by Huxley. A fairly extensive discussion of some of this material (including excerpts from archival letters) can be found in: Don Lattin (September 2012) Distilled Spirits -- Getting High, Then Sober, with a Famous Writer, a Forgotten Philosopher, and a Hopeless Drunk University of California Press. 
If an appropriate citation for the “thirteenth step” claim exists, please provide a link or source plus relevant corroborating excerpt on this talk page. Thanks. Eurytemora (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently erroneous claim that Bill W. considered adding LSD thirteenth step 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous#The_Oxford_Group
http://www.12step.com/oxfordgroup.html
http://www.aabibliography.com/aa_principles.html
http://www.barefootsworld.net/askbillw.html#7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twelve-step_program/Archive_2#History
I really feel a brief mention of the Oxford group as a part of the origin of the twelve steps is warranted in this article. I understand a the more extensive treatment of the subject would likely go in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous. Any objections?Tjc (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 steps as derived from or influenced by Oxford Group 

message: The study referenced to justify the claim that being sponsored may not help with abstinence (reference 37,38) is a small and limited study.  This makes it difficult to generalize as to whether this holds true for a larger population.  Additionally, it is a study, specifically, of injection drug users participating in AA and NA and therefore is highly non-correlational to alcoholics. The effect of the paragraph and the references is to suggest something (sponsorship doesn't improve abstinence) that has no real basis in research. This is not to say that it might not be true, but the reference is far to weak to support such a broad inference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.72.5 (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness of being sponsored 

message: Before someone can be a sponsor, they have to complete the 12 steps and be clean for at least one year, is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.217.49 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's a little bit different for some of the fellowships, but that's a guideline I've heard repeated often. Any particular reason why you ask? - Scarpy (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  sponsorship 

message: I made a bunch of edits just recently. For one of these edits, there wasn't enough room in the edit summary box to explain why I made it. My edit summary included the words "Please see talk". In case you're curious, here's an explanation of why I made the edit.
At the bottom of our Wikipedia article, there's a section with links to some scholarly journal articles about twelve-step programs. As of yesterday, it was headed "Bibliography", which was an ambiguous section heading. I wondered: Was it full of general references which someone added at the same time that they added otherwise-unsourced text? Or was it simply a list of items for recommended further reading? Well, today, I took a look. It turns out that every single item listed in our section was inserted as part of a February '08 edit by an anonymous IP user who has never added any body text to the main body of our article. So it's clear that they're definitely just recommended further reading.
The original contributor called the section "Further reading". At some point since then, someone renamed it to "Bibliography". WP:LAYOUT doesn't seem to really recommend naming such sections "Bibliography". To avoid ambiguity, I have now renamed the section back to "Further reading".
Regards, TealHill (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Further reading" section 

message: It is repeated in the article that only first names are used, and this leaves the impressions that it is a violation of some rule (or tradition) if someone uses their full name in a meeting.  Based on my experience, this is not the case.  The tradition states that we must maintain anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.  In the "P47 - Understanding Anonymity" pamphlet, in the Question and Answer section, it is suggested to "Use last names within the Fellowship, especially for election of group officers and other service jobs."  Several people at the meetings which I attend use their full names, as do I.  It allows us to more specifically identify one another for group purposes, and there are times when group knowledge of full names makes it possible to contact someone when they are needed for help.  This is up to the individual and is not considered a violation of the eleventh or twelfth traditions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.226.164 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a fair point, the best approach would be to find something meeting WP:RS to use as a source for this. - Scarpy (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymity 

message: I made these updates today, with some slight modifications and removed the dubious tags. - Scarpy (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  rejoinder 

message: I would like to suggest removing the entries for "Courage International" and "Homosexuals Anonymous" from the Twelve-step program page. The reasons are as follow:
1. Twelve Step organizations are based on the premise that members need support in dealing with issues, habits and or other problems that are innately harmful to the individual. This would not include any organization that would be for example, a 12 Step program for "de-Judaizing" or "de-Catholicizing" an invidividual since Jewish or Catholic religions identities are not inherently harmful to the individual and believer.
2. These two organizations are based on the false premise that homosexuality is in any way a mental illness, disorder or in any way by itself contributes to harm. Homosexuality is a normal expression of sexuality. Organizations that purport to help individuals either change their sexual orientation or at least avoid healthy sexual experience actually support and maintain mental illness. This would be comparable to any 12 Step program that sought to support members is never feeling anger. Anger is a healthy emotion. Suppressing angerleads to mental illness. 
3. While homosexuaity is freighted with a history of condemnation, using that history to support a need to avoide one's sexual orientation is based on the fallacy of tradition. The same fallacy used to justify human slavery for centuries.
4. The mental health organizations which are not based on any religious bias removed homosexuality as a disorder decades ago. These two organizations are religion based groups. They are premised on ideas that are contrary to science. They contribute to harming, not helping the individual they purport to help. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779/
5. At the very least, if both organizations are continued in their listing, then they both need caveats stating that these are not in any way based on scientific evidence and that they are based on religious beliefs.
Dale-BandB (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courage International and Homosexuals Anonymous 

message: My intuition is that this article would be more appropriately cited in Drug addiction recovery groups or in Alcoholics_Anonymous#Effectiveness. The Wikipedia Twelve-step program article focuses on twelve-step in general, not just on substance abuse-related groups. I also believe there are WP:MEDRS issues with citing a 2017 review when the 2020 should supersede it. - Scarpy (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My sense looking at the 2017 review is that it's not saying 12-step programs do not work for drug abuse, but that we don't have enough solid evidence to say they work beyond a reasonable doubt. It's similar to where we were with Cochrane in 2006: We couldn't say they don't work, but we couldn't say they work too.  Wherever it goes, it should probably be contrasted with the 2020 Cochrane review showing solid evidence AA works for drinking. SkylabField (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure either study belongs here, but I also don't think we can mention the 2017 study showing no results either way without also mentioning the 2020 study showing that AA almost certainly helps alcoholics get abstinent better than other interventions.  I don't know where to put both together, but they belong together, so this page will do for now. SkylabField (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness