Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alcoholics Anonymous article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Alcoholics Anonymous. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Alcoholics Anonymous at the Reference desk.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Social Work Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Spirituality Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alcoholics Anonymous received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 10, 2004, June 10, 2005, June 10, 2006, June 10, 2007, and June 10, 2008.

As a courtesy, allow me to compliment the fine article, which as a recovering alcoholic I find personally useful, well-informed, and apparently free of bias. Now to the point. Loran Archer's research and criticism of other research relied upon in the article is absent from this article, as well as from all of Wikipedia - at least as I can best reckon from search attempts. Since it challenges data on which the article relies and, furthermore, reports data that is unacknowledged and worth consideration as well as inclusion. His credentials, which are cited in the links I've included, are impressive and recommend his findings as quite possibly consequential.

First, how many may be AA members from Archer's The 95% First Year Dropout Myth The Triennial also has poor membership counts: The most recent "A.A. Fact File" that I received from GSO shows the estimated A. A. membership in the U.S. as 1,168,990 members. This is a significant undercount of members. Using a national representative survey of the U.S., in the NIAAA 1991-1992 National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (NLAES), I found that in 1991-1992, 2.4 million individuals reported attending an A.A. meeting during the last year.

Archer's alluded to NIAAA study of his implies that the Triennial survey has erred significantly, and Archer implies that a 1st year continuation rate of 26% is too low (ratio of 19% of survey respondees being in their 1st month of attendance compared to the 5% who are in their 12th month of AA membership). Though Archer does not have a 1st year only figure, his 1-4 year average of of 36% may indicate that the 1st year figure could be above 40%, if the presumption that 2-4 year atttendance would decline marginally more than the 1st year is entertained. Also, the surveys, as Archer points out, were not meant to measure retention.

Excerpted from Archer's study:

Rate of continued AA attendance was associated

with years since first AA meeting

• 1-4 years since first AA meeting - 36% remained
• 5-9 years since first AA meeting - 30% remained
• 10-19 years since first AA meeting - 29% remained
• 20 years or more since first AA meeting - 32% remained

To be candid, besides hoping for a discussion of Archer's work, I'm am also soliciting for a capable editor to include what may result from the discussion in the article, as I'm sure the above indicates, my modest editorial abilities encourage deference on my part.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately while the research is persuasive, it is self published on a website. Wikipedia does not allow self published materials under reliable source guidelines.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pity, but since he has published very little, despite his impressive credentials, that will have to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Loran Archer has published quite a bit in peer-reviewed journals, but as you might expect, in these he shies away from making conclusions as reported on his website. The estimates you placed above on retention are, of course, gross overestimates, especially the 32% retention after 20 years or more. Do you have any idea how large a room you would need for a meeting is that were the case?! In any case, I will look around in his peer-reviewed work to see if anything that can be included in the article is in there. Thanks for bringing this guy up.Desoto10 (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the follow up. My reading of reliable source guidelines allows for self-published if the author is "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It does not state that "the work cited", but refers to the author's how the author is generally regarded by peers (Maybe somebody should ask Archer why he did not in this case submit his conclusions to peer review?). It seems possible that his findings could again be considered for inclusion.

As for Archer's "gross overestimates", it may not be so. The Triennial studies, for all their faults, and Archer's conlusions would both have to regarded as way off, since the both put retention after the first meeting above 25%. My experience is that very few people :are in the rooms for their very first time - the exact group the studies tried to measure. Many are, in fact, retreads, on spin cycles and such. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that such quantitative analyses as Archer's retention estimatesa are admissible unless they have undergone some kind of peer review. Maybe a statement on the order of "These retention numbers (as are currently in the article) have been contested by Archer", but even then, I don't think we could cite his blogsite for that. I think that, given no peer-reviewed information, we are stuck with AAs own numbers.Desoto10 (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don McIntire's analysis is very good, if anyone wants to give it a second look. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to respectfully note that the number of "members" (just over a million) and the number of people reporting having "attended [an AA meeting] in the last year" do not prove an under count of member, but actually confirms the huge and perhaps not so "mythical" drop out rate and rate of people attending under coercion, who would not consider themselves members by any means, contrasted with "members" who reflect a slow accretion of people over 73+ years of the organization's existence. And I ask, when you have over a million people according to your own GSO, what's the big deal? What does being the biggest prove and is efficacy measured by popularity or sheer media presence? Henrysteinberger (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The major source cited for the section is Kayla E.J. Kirkpatrick, Interpreting AA draws false conclusions or is too broad in eneralizations regarding meeting structure and policies. It is also not certain whether or not the author is an undergrad.

First: Kirpatrick claims that AA attendees introduce themselves saying "My name is ________, and I am an alcoholic" bacause "All people are expected to introduce themselves in this same manner." needs correction. While most introduce themselves in this manner, many will not without reprecussions. Some will say, "I'm______ and I am grateful to be here." And others will say "I'm_____ and I am powerless over alcohol." These are just two expamples among many others Saying they are "expected to do so" is an unfortunate choice of wording, since "expected" suggests that a member has been commanded or is required to do so. A better descriptive would be to say that a member will "often observe the informal tradition of saying..." Because there is no suggested method of introduction in the first 164 pages of the Big Book, "informal" fits well. But since this would misrepresent the citation, an edit would require another source to cite.

Second: "Crosstalk" (the source and dictionaries spell it as "cross-talk", though the editor omitted the hypen) is incompletely and poorly explained by Kirpatrick which describes it as "talking while another is talking or asking direct, expansion questions" A better definition of cross-talk would be at group level the directing of comments or criticism, interrupting them, directing questions at, or giving advice to another member at group level towards another member. Cross-talk is also having a side conversation while others speak. Kirpatrick makes it seem that all groups are the same by saying "the group" when generalizing, and that all have the same no cross-talk policy when she claims that "cross-talk...is not allowed by the group." In my experience of attending 1000s of meetings, most groups have taken a "group conscience" and have group policies against crosstalk. Other meetings have no such policy and some may actually encourage it.

Frankly, Kirpatrick is a dubious source. Her erroneous conclusions make it apparent that she little actual knowledge of the AA Traditions. She interviewed six members of AA for her study. She is not an expert in the field, but apparently a lay person - it's hard to find any informantion on her via Google. Furthermore, the only apparent publication of her article is on free hosting site set up by Damon Timm, who describes himself as "currently a ASL-English Interpreting student at Northeastern University in my last year of the Interpreting program (though not my last year with the University)" Under the heading "Quality Control, he cautions visitors to "please remember that this is not a web page maintained by a board or a group of people with a specific mission--it is just me. Unless otherwise noted, you can assume that the work posted here is by students." The "contact" navbar button to send an email to Timm is not working.

Better studies to cite for the Meeting section would likely include "Alcoholics Anonymous as a mutual-help movement: a study in eight societies By Klaus Mäkelä, Alcoholics Anonymous" from World Health Organization's Regional Office for Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT -- Scarpy (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to wait to see if anyone else has something to say - such as other sources worth consideration. You of course are also welcome to weigh in with more helpful comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICK -- Scarpy (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're too kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.247, please take all of this in the spirit in which it's intended. Wikipedia develops iteratively, if no one makes a change, it doesn't get made. Inviting a discussion, as you have, is generally a good thing. But if you have a good source, and Klaus Mäkelä's work is very good, there's no reason to stall. Research is easy, it's the writing that's hard. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:DICK for how others view "the spirit in which it's intended." If no one protests, I'm going to remove the above edits from SOFIXIT on down to Scarpy's Talk page. It's starting to get silly. BTW, I'm working on an edit of the Meetings section and it will be presented for review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Others" should see my previous comment if they want know the intention behind my original comments, because that's where I explained it. I apologize if any of my comments offended you, as it was actually the opposite of what I intended and if you have a look at the edit summary I was agreeing with you. While I also agree that this is getting pretty silly, there are guidelines for removing talk page comments, and this discussion does not belong on my talk page. More so, when future editors read this page they will probably want to see who supported and who opposed (if any do) then changes you suggested. This way there can be no mistaking that I was very much in favor of them, and even encouraging you to make them. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point entirely, but oh well. Time to forge ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who put in the meetings section to begin with and found the one source, I applaud anyone who can add to it. Please make sure that personal information that you or those that you may know does not creep into the section. Anybody who has been to more than one AA meeting knows that there are no hard and fast "rules" and that the context and location of the meeting is important. The article by the enabler of deaf AA attendees I thought was just about as unbiased as you could get. This person clearly had no agenda and was just reporting what was seen so that deaf people could figure out what was going on.Desoto10 (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good intentions, to be sure, were in play when Kirpatrick's wrote her misguided, factually incorrect, grossly over-generalized and poorly researched paper for what seems to be undergraduate work. WP:Sources states that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There is no way Kirpatrick should remain a source, since she is so clearly a questionable source who had no evident benefit of "editorial oversight". AA has published suggested guidelines for meetings [1], and Klaus Mäkelä and Danny M. Wilcox have published easy-to-find scholarly work on meetings , with Mäkelä adding the unfortunately missing international perspective. These are sources that the meetings section would do better to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.130.60 (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Just write something up and put it in there. Keep in mind, this section is not an analysis of why AA meetings go on the way they do, but a description of what happens in one. AA's guidelines have no place in this section, unless it is substantiated that the guidelines are actually followed.Desoto10 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Looking over your main complaints about how an attendee introduces himself and the cross-talk issue, these could easily be fixed by a few word changes. Your rewording above is far less clear than what is already in the article. But it doesn't look like you are going to actually write anything anyway.Desoto10 (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the directive to describe AA meetings while not attempting to explain them. While the my comments above indicate no such tendency, I will nonetheless regard the advice as helpful and try to keep it in mind. The word "whatever" is usually unfortunate, since it's usually dismissive and, in this case, completely avoids the issue of how poor a source Kirpatrick is purported to be. It also suggests a reluctant acquiescence - but too vaguely so for determining what consensus, if any, may have developed. The AA guidelines suggested above are varified by Mäkelä and Wilcox, as norms. (As for why "AA's guidelines have no place in this section", while inexplicably, an AA guide to beginners meetings is currently cited arouses curiosity.) Replacing a poorly sourced meetings section that is US-centric without accounting for what is an international and multicultural society, may not lend to prompt correction. When I will be able to submit a suggested section that may be an improvement, I am not sure, but I hope that I will benefit from a supposition of good faith until and after then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.90.15 (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm familiar w/ AA to a degree. i have a different type of problem. i used to drink a pretty fair amount along w/ drug use. i seperated from my wife aproximately five yrs ago. at that point i put my drinking and drug abuse behind me because i didn't want to look back and say the decisions i made were fogged by drugs and alcohol. my problem is my anger. i read an excerpt from a book called 'addicted to anger' by newton hightower. he states that anger is addictive. i figure who better to deal with addictiveness than AA. i've seen therapists and have been given meds. none of which seem to help. i want very much to get rid of this problem. like an alcoholic wants to free him/her self of their problem. if AA can help, i'd love to join. if not is there a program you can refer me to. i live in pittsburgh, pa. mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.58.154 (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though this page is for discussion about the article, and not a referral source, compassion should permit an exception. You're best off consulting a health care professional. You would qualify for AA if you have a desire to stop drinking. You may also try looking into Al Anon. Try Googling for 12 step groups in the Pittsburgh PA area. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.90.15 (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there seems to be a misconception about this page. we edit the AA page, we are not collectively members of AA (some of us violently oppose such membership). If you are looking for AA, you can find them in Pittsburgh on the WWW or in the phone book, and you will be welcome to attend open AA meetings to figure out if it is something that can help you, I am sure they have an 12 step program for Anger as well somewhere.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources cited for the first paragraphAlcoholics_Anonymous#Meetings section are mute on many assertions made. Since the paragraph is a well-written, brief and accurate description of AA meetings, this is all the more unfortunate. The first pamphlet AA at a Glance, actually a two sided flyer referred to as a "pamphlet" in citation, does no more than distinguish between an open and closed meeting. The second source, Suggestions for Leading Beginners Meetings pamphlet, besides having a title that signals clearly that it is not describing A.A. meetings in general, says nothing about the varieties of A.A. meetings there are, but the first paragraph uses no similar restraint. Desoto10, has emphatically stated above that "AA's guidelines have no place in this section" unless corroborated by better sources. I am working on a rewrite of the section, using scholarly sources listed above, and hope to have it available soon, in the meantime it should be clear to all that the current section is sub par. - Mr Anon

Here is crude draft of a suggested first paragraph for the Meetings section. Suggestions are encouraged.

A.A. meetings are "quasi-ritualized therapuetic sessions run by and for any alcoholics." They are usually informal and often feature discussions. Local A.A. directories list a variety of weekly meetings. Those listed as "closed" are for alcoholics exlusively with only "those with a desire to stop drinking" participating, while "open" meetings welcome anyone, but are mostly attended by alcoholics. Speaker meetings have one or two members tell their stories, while discussion meetings allocate the most time for general discussion. Some meetings are devoted to studying and discussing the Big Book, the 12 Steps, and other A.A. texts. Besides men's and women's meetings, other meetings focus specific populations such as beginners, gays, and Lesbians while not excluded other alcoholics. While A.A. has pamphlets suggesting how meetings can be run ^[1][2], A.A. groups have the autonomy to hold and conduct meetings as they wish, as long as they "do not affect A.A. as a whole." Though different cultures do affect ritual aspects of meetings, throughout the world "many particularities of the AA meeting format can be observed at at almost any A.A. gathering." ^[3] Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.109.45 (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to the article seem an improvement to me. My system choked on one of the pdf's, so I couldn't see whether it mentioned "foreign"-language groups. Around here they're in Spanish and occasionally Vietnamese; I assume in other places they can be in English, which was why I used the "minority" label last try. If they're sourced, these should be mentioned, and maybe you can come up with something better than "minority". PhGustaf (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how do i stop drinking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.39.156 (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the thread above. Nobody here can to give you advice beyond "see a health care professional" or "AA is in the phone book", call if it sounds good to you". Good luck, PhGustaf (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to redoing the paragraph, there were irrelevant citations, a misquote, as well a citation of the complete Big Book that made no sense. Also removed were descriptions of NA and Al-anon which were beyond the scope of this article. Added were scholarly, peer reviewed descriptions of AA as a program and a social phenomena as well as part of greater social phenomenon. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.150.205 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 00:26, 26 November 2009

Great Job!!Desoto10 (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the changes have been good. But working towards getting this article to GA or FA status, the effort would be better spent getting it to meet the WP:LEAD criteria. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The complementary words of encouragement are appreciated, and also appreciated is the cleanup done after my admittedly sometimes sloppy edits. As to the matter of what the lead should hold, it might be better to take cues from the lead and develop them in the article. The suggestion of having the lead be shaped by the article would presume that the article outside of the lead is worthy of a GA or FA article. I would argue the opposite, and think the tail should not wag the dog, and thereby rule what the lead should contain. The body the article is too US-centric and underdeveloped in certain aspects. For example. the Disease section is particularly weak, and in need of a redo, since AA hasn't promoted or promulgated the disease concept, but the belief that it has is perhaps the most common misconception of AA as typified by Penn and Teller. The medical community in many cases seems uninterested it regarding it as a disease and instead will often refer instead to alcoholism as a substance use disorder (SUD). My point is that the better the article is, the better is will be regarded. The lead had, before recent changes, misquotes and misstatements, for instance, presenting AA's 12 Steps as a "treatment" when it is emphatically not. The way to better ranking is by a better article. Maybe what is needed is consensus on what changes and improvements are needed. A roadmap, if you will. Without that, hoped for improvements may come in haphazardly. - Me Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.150.205 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 30 November 2009

The points that you're bringing up a are mostly a question of balance. Whatever opinions we, as Wikipedia editors, have about the prevalence of misconceptions or descriptions of AA a treatment or otherwise really don't matter. What the article should represent is the prevalence of these views in among reliable sources on the topic. There is no shortage of papers that describe AA as a treatment, even if a notable AA historian disagrees that POV it does not invalidate the work of other researches. Both sides should be presented in accordance to their prominence in the literature.

The way to a better ranking is actually very clear, and one of the criteria is that the lead represents a summary of the rest of the article. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was, it seems, arguing that there was a lack of balance, and I used the disease section - which outside of the heading, says nothing about "disease at all - as a case in point, as well as the US-centric focus that the lead now addresses. I would also say that the article could hardly be considered now further from better regard now that the lead has been redone. Mr Anon

My feeling is that the results in Atkins 2007 aren't really relevant here (in the AA article) for two reasons. Atkins 2007 doesn't research AA directly, as it groups all addicts/alcoholics in twelve-step groups in to one category. Meaning, it's results reflect more on twelve-step addiction recovery groups as a whole and not specifically on AA. Building on the first point, it's implications are more related to correlations between member's primary group, their amount of participation in recovery groups, and their personal beliefs. Atkins 2007 is a great bit of research, but it certainly does not represent a criticism of AA, and its results are much more relevant to the addiction recovery groups article than they are here. Considering, especially how lean the addiction recovery groups article is, I'd say material based on it should go there. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]