![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
Sept. 7, 2007 Inouye vs. Kemna -- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals not only upheld the earlier rulings that AA functions as a relgion , it went a step further allowng the plaintiff, who was ordered to attend AA, the right to pursue damages. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco: the constitutional dividing line between church and state in such cases is so clear that a parole officer can be sued for damages for ordering a parolee to go through rehabilitation at Alcoholics Anonymous or an affiliated program for drug addicts. In that ruling it was also noted "adherence to the AA fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization." In "working" the Twelve Steps, participants become actively involved in seeking God through prayer, confessing wrongs and asking for "removal of shortcomings." The Ninth Court of Appeals pointed to cases decided before 2001 by the federal courts of appeal for the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin) and the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, Vermont), in addition to a number of cases in lower federal courts and in state courts, all with the same result. The "unanimous conclusion" of these courts was that coercing a person into AA/NA or into AA/NA based treatment programs was unconstitutional because of their religious nature. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/08/BA99S1AKQ.DTL
The san fransico gate news is not a biased source. Fact: The Wiki Addresses Mandated Court attendance Fact : Judges and parol officers have been mandating people to attend AA and 12 steps for drug and alcohol related incidences.
Fact there have been court cases.
Fact: The Courts do not agree with AA or 12 steps assessment of themselves. Fact the courts have ruled it a violation of peoples rights {in the United States} to be sentenced to AA or other 12 step programs.
Fact: It is not the wiki job to agree or disagree with the courts assessment of AA and therefor eliminate from The AA page because the courts have a different viewpoint. Fact the information above came from a newspaper. Fact you can find all the cases related to AA, in Find Law. I have read them.small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 ( talk) 22:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
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:
Reverting an edit with no justification save an armwave of WIKI:WL is itself vandalism.
PhGustaf 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Help:Reverting says:
Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
Your opinion that the article "doesn't belong here" does not justify your reverting it undiscussed. The citation needed flag I added was a more appropriate response.
PhGustaf 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is truly an AA issue. I doubt another fellowship would handle this in the same way. Please feel free to put it there, but if there isn't a solid argument why this specifically relates to the 12 steps I will remove it soon, or at least seriously re-write it. Pozcircuitboy 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
no, it is not just an AA issue, it is an issue where the 12 step traditions come into play.
"Former members tried to get the central AA office in New York to condemn Midtown's tactics . AA makes strong suggestions on how groups should operate however cannot enforce them for in keeping with the 12 step tradtions: "it has no firm hierarchy, no official regulations, and exercises no oversight of individual groups."
Do, other 12 step groups have differenct traditions from AA? -- —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.232.97.13 (
talk •
contribs) 7 October 2007, 20:42
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)
Wow, that is markedly similar. I have not seen it previously. Actually I wonder if some of it was copied from this *shrug*. Pozcircuitboy 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If this article focuses on the "Twelve Step Program" and many "Anonymous" fellowships have adapted the program of recovery pioneered by AA's "first 100", then isn't it more fitting to put AA's 12 Traditions in the article on Alcoholics Anonymous and not in this article? Surely at least some of the other fellowships have their own traditions.
Frankly, the AA article has been mangled by contributors attempting to argue about the merits of AA, the nature of alcoholism, and a host of irrelevant issues. I'd like to see an article that focuses on what the twelve step program of recovery is and is not. This doesn't seem to be the place to argue whether it's "good" or "effective", reasonable, unreasonable, helpful, counterproductive, etc. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts. Don K. 10:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
There is something wrong with this reference (or, more likely, I don't understand all of the shorthand in the ref). If you click on the actual title, you get the poster that you saw. However, if you click on the first set of numbers you get an unrelated article and if you click on the second set you get just the name of the "journal". In any case, atheists are not mentioned at all in the poster and so, unless somebody can actually come up with the article, I suggest omitting this ref entirely. It is not listed in PubMed, but I am sure that PubMed listing is not a requirement. A poster, by itself is certainly not suitable for a reference as they are not peer-reviewed and are often not very accurate. A poster is essentially a place-holder for the full article to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desoto10 ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
OK, but first I have to learn how to add a reference. I'll be back. Desoto10 ( talk) 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I took a shot. Desoto10 ( talk) 07:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a section on effectiveness, since that is probably one of the things people are interested from an encyclopedia. I brought a ref from the AA article, from which said article should be removed, and placed it here with a little discussion. I can add citations for some of the sentances if required. I may have screwed up the reference list. sorry. Desoto10 ( talk) 05:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnn.medina ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
Any of you have input on this? -- Scarpy ( talk) 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This section is confusing and seems to contain some synthesis:
The first line covers doesn't connect to the rest of the paragraph: AA is a cult and 12-step programs alter 'cultural identity' (whatever that means) respectively. Also, what is being stated has only been researched by Alexander and Rollins, the use of the word 'critics' suggests a quantity of research of which this is the best example. Also, that single piece of research has been rubbished by the Wright study of the same data. I wonder if the notability of this material is a rather too enthusiastic attempt to find some academic authority to explain that funny feeling most people have (the feeling that they're witnessing a cult) when they observe a group of AA/NA/CA members standing around holding hands and chanting prayers.
The second line is not supported by the abstract from the cite - has the full article been checked?
Mr Miles ( talk) 00:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) as a method of recovery from alcoholism" I think not - no one actually recovers in AA - they are always in the process of recovery, but are never recover - replacing the addiction for alcohol, with the addiction for AA and their meetings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.48.22 ( talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Given that everything we see, feel and hear is apparently interpretted by the brain, I could argue that the APA's opinion is relevant on almost anything. Having said that it is not at all clear to me why the APA is being given top billing here. Yes, psychologists work with many people in 12-step. Yet traditional 12-step approach espoused by AA is specifically non-professional. Psychologists are not directly involved with traditional 12-step (unless they themselves are working the program). Some 12-step meetings have allowed students of pyschology to sit in and observe what goes on, but I've got a hard time believing that what goes in a meeting can be studied empirically when the participants are aware they are being observed (eg. Hawthorne effect). Self-definition by twelve-steppers would also present problems I guess, at least as a sole source for a definition. I dunno, a truly unbiased definition of 12-step would be kind of difficult to obtain huh? Zedmaster375 17.33 4 May 2008 (UTC-5) —Preceding comment was added at 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
How in the world can 12 steps be "evidenced based" with an unknown higher power in charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.126.200 ( talk) 23:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I noticed that the user who posted the template is now deleted. --
Advocate (
talk) 00:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC). Sorry, she has a talk page but no user page, my mistake.--
Advocate (
talk)
09:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
Per AfD Discussion, the entry was moved to Twelve Traditions -- Advocate ( talk) 00:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
Don K. - there is a wikipedia article conveniently titled History of Alcoholics Anonymous. Your recent contributions ( [1], [2]) would be better off somewhere in that article. -- Scarpy ( talk) 02:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
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 chitchat seemywork 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)Information that is specifically about addicts and alcoholics should be in the articles dealing with twelve-step fellowships that treat addicts and alcoholics, if it's not generalizable to all twelve-step fellowships (or at least the majority of them, and the majority of them are not for substance abuse recovery) it doesn't belong in this article. -- Scarpy ( talk) 10:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
A Google Scholar search on the two shows quite a bit of overlap, as you would expect [3]. There are also at least a few books published by Al-Anon that use the word [4].
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)
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)
A lot of so-called scientific studies on the 12 Steps include in their sample populations anyone who sat in a seat a few times in a 12 Step group. Rather than studying those who actually worked the 12 Steps. By counting those who just showed up for a few meetings, the statistics on recovery can be dramatically skewed. When instead the focus is on those people who have worked all 12 Steps the recovery results are significantlty better.
198.59.49.200 ( talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like precisely the sort of claim described by the no true Scotsman fallacy. It allows the claimant to exclude anyone who doesn't fit their conclusion. -- FOo ( talk) 05:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I had thought this respected media documentary to be relevant to the article.
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)
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)
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)
30 links is really not that many. Lots of wiki articles have that many. Just let go and let people link 12 Step programs that can help people.
70.209.163.119 ( talk) 21:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The history section is about the history of AA, rather than the history of the twelve steps. Someone sent me this: "The 12 steps are derived from the Oxford Groups. The leader and founder of the Oxford Groups was Frank Buchanan an ordained Lutheran minister. This explains the heavy protestant Calvinist/Lutheran slant to the steps. (i.e. that man is evil by nature and powerless to save himself--only complete surrender to God can obtain the possibility of Grace and Salvation)."
...Can anyone confirm or deny that? The only Frank Buchanan currently in Wikipedia was a politician, and there is no mention of the twelve steps in the article about him.
CousinJohn ( talk) 12:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The statement on anonymity is correct. BUT, articles do not normally concern themselves with what an organization, place or event doesn't have. The list of the latter would be way too long. Therefore, IMO, going on about the unenforceability of anonymity is not on WP:TOPIC. It is irrelevant. I'm not suggesting that it might not be of interest. It's just that no article has a inventory of what is not available. Nor should this one. Student7 ( talk) 14:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.199.219 ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The word you are grasping for is "tenets". 68.208.127.241 ( talk) 13:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: uncontested move. I note that the article is broader in scope than the AA Twelve-Step Program, which was mentioned here. DrKiernan ( talk) 18:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Twelve-Step Program → Twelve-step program – This is a common noun, not the name of any specific program. Per WP:CAPS the title should be in lower case. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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/?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)
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)
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)
I believe that this article only sufficiently shows the pros of 12-step programs and does not show the opposing side of the treatment under the criticism headline. For example, the article states that the 12-step program receives controversy over whether it is universally effective however it does not include any quantitative statistics or empirical data to show how many people actually on average receive effective treatments from the program from any studies. S.benevides ( talk) 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
In reading through this article I have found a number of places which are questionable and others which are just plain wrong. I would like to make corrections in the proper manner for Wikipedia. However I am not a "professional" with Masters or PhD in psychology, a professional license hanging on my wall, or published articles to my name. My only qualification to make the changes to this article is that I have been attending 12-Step groups for 26+ years, therefore I know 12-Step programs inside and out and am very well qualified to make changes to this article. Even if I did have those official qualifications I would not identify myself in a reference to this article since I am a member of multiple 12-Step ANONYMOUS programs. My attendance at thousands and thousands of meetings over the years gives me a pretty accurate view of 12-Step programs, far better than any ivory tower intellectual.
Let's cut to a concrete example. /info/en/?search=Twelve-step_program#Cultural_identity starts off by saying:
>> "One review warned of detrimental iatrogenic effects of twelve-step philosophy and labeled the organizations as cults,[46]" ...
That is just wrong. There is no charismatic leader in 12-Step programs as there is in a cult. The members of 12-Step programs are anonymous even to each other, at least initially, so there is no way one member can control another as happens in cults. Monetary contributions are voluntary and limited to "passing the basket" in 12-Steps groups whereas in cults you are heavily pressured to sign every aspect of your life over to the cult, starting with your money. Unlike a cult the "central service" office or "intergroups" of a 12-Step program such as AA have virtually no control over what goes on in individual groups; the worst the intergroups can do to a group is remove a group from the meeting list if that group is out of control, but no sanctions can be taken against individuals because they are anonymous. All of the above are examples of why 12-Step programs ARE NOT CULTS.
The example I cited above continues ... "while another review asserts that these programs bore little semblance to religious cults and that the techniques used appeared beneficial to some.[47]" It is just wrong to associate the stigma of cults with 12-Step programs. I would take the whole sentence out along with the references and replace them with a short paragraph citing how the 12 Traditions -- the rules of all 12-Step groups -- INTENTIONALLY render the central office powerless in the organization.
Among other things leaving that statement and reference in seems like giving "undue weight" to a "distinct minority" as per this:
>> /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight >> Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.
So it's one sociologist vs. millions of 12-Steppers worldwide. Do I have to leave in a 30-year-old reference which is completely contrary to reality in order to be "balanced"?
Help, please.
Oh, I'm supposed to cite my sources. Anonymous me. 26 years of first-hand observation. Unpublished.
PDP-Anonymous ( talk) 08:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The person who put this article together gives the appearance of being NPOV by quoting from published studies but the overall impression created by reporting so many doubters and aspects of doubt about the efficacy of the 12 step program is skepticism. The result is a very sly slagging of the 12 step program. As such it seems to me that it is an enormous disservice to a program that provides some relief, if only to a small percentage of a large number of people.
This article needs to be reviewed. -- 174.7.56.10 ( talk) 15:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC) (a neutral observer: have not attended and have no plan to attend any 12 step program)
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)
@ LLarson: looking at these recent edits of American Psychological Association, not sure what context your looking for here. Does anything have objective meaning outside of context? Kind of a philosophical question. At any rate, can you give us more of an idea of what you were looking for here? "don't objectively mean anything with out context." - Scarpy ( talk)
We found that as soon as we were able to lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we commenced to get results, even though it was impossible for any of us to fully define or comprehend that Power, which is God.
He found Dr. Bob, who had been trying desperately and unsuccessfully to stop drinking ... the Twelve Steps had not been written; but Bill carried the message to Dr. Bob, who in turn safeguarded his own sobriety by sponsoring countless other alcoholics. ... Essentially, the process of sponsorship is this: An alcoholic who has made some progress in the recovery program shares that experience on a continuous, individual basis with another alcoholic....
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)
Found a couple of great resources for sources for this and other related articles [ [6]] and [ [7]]. Sethie ( talk) 16:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Harizotoh9: Re: your edit on August 24th, where you removed "while also attending a support group which collectively follows principles called The Twelve Traditions." with the comment "Closer to sources". The common theme that all 12 step programs have, is that members attend meetings where the the twenty-four basic principles of the program are read at every meeting. If you look at the link above, you will notice that the book from 1953 is now in the 77th printing and was written by Bill W, who appears in the first sentence of this article, this is a hard source to beat. Since those two documents are the definition of what the wide variety of programs have in common, it needs to be mentioned in the lead. The 12 steps by themselves (as the article's lead currently reads) is only half of a program. The the other half of the program requires regular attendance at 12 step meetings, meetings which follow the twelve traditions. If you look at Alcoholics Anonymous this is in the first paragraph, if you look at Narcotics Anonymous this is in the second paragraph of "Narcotics Anonymous program", if you look at Overeaters Anonymous this is in the second paragraph. I think there's some confusion here between what the program is called and what the actual program consists of. While I'm not attached to any particular wording, I am attached to describing a complete program. Please fix your edit. Dougmcdonell ( talk) 17:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Are there not 36 principles? 12 steps which allow us to know ourselves 12 traditions that guide us through how to live productively and in peace in society 12 Concepts of service which keeps us in touch on a daily basis with the higher power of our understanding.
Meetings are a "tool of the program." I agree they are important but still are just considered a tool. Messenger of Recovery ( talk) 18:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
There are DOZENS of twelve step fellowship, each with their own literature and unique language describing the highly diverse and subjective "spiritual awakenings" experienced by their millions of members. There is no way to characterize the manner, or pace by which these "spiritual experiences" arrive. Even in the AA Big Book (just 1 12-step fellowship), the main text description of a "sudden, white light" experience is at odds with the "gradual" experience described in Appendix 2. The statement takes one description from Appendix 2, and generalizes it to a broadly held belief, which seems dubious at best. Bryan Hopping T 00:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
In twelve-step fellowships, "spiritual awakening" is believed to most frequently develop slowly over a period of time.I suppose we could say something like "most frequently, but not always." to clarify. I'm struggling to see what you're objecting too. - Scarpy ( talk) 16:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The terms "spiritual experience" and "spiritual awakening" are used many times in this book which, upon careful reading, shows that the personality change sufficient to bring about recovery from alcoholism has manifested itself among us in many different forms... Yet it is true that our first printing gave many readers the impression that these personality changes, or religious experiences, must be in the nature of sudden and spectacular upheavals. Happily for everyone, this conclusion is erroneous... In the first few chapters a number of sudden revolutionary changes are described. Though it was not our intention to create such an impression, many alcoholics have nevertheless concluded that in order to recover they must acquire an immediate and overwhelming "God-consciousness" followed at once by a vast change in feeling and outlook... Among our rapidly growing membership of thousands of alcoholics such transformations, though frequent, are by no means the rule. Most of our experiences are what the psychologist William James calls the "educational variety" because they develop slowly over a period of time.[9]
The illness of the spiritual dimension, or "spiritual malady," is considered in all twelve-step groups to be self-centeredness. The process of working the steps is intended to replace self-centeredness with a growing moral consciousness and a willingness for self-sacrifice and unselfish constructive action. In twelve-step groups, this is known as a spiritual awakening. This should neither be confused with abreaction, which produces dramatic, but ephemeral, changes, nor with a religious experience. In twelve-step fellowships, "spiritual awakening" is believed to most frequently develop slowly over a period of time.
The emotional release therapies all operate on the concept of abreaction originally advanced by Freud. Early in his career Freud was convinced that if people could recall the early traumatic incidents that had made them sick and discharge painful emotions connected with these traumata, they would get better ipso facto. As time when on, however, Freud found that emotional release in and of itself resulted in only temporary improvement. He then abandoned it as the major goal of therapy and turned to the more painstaking, time-consuming, and difficult process of trying to work through the patients defenses and resistances.[10]
it may be that someday we shall devise some common denominator of psychiatry — of course, throwing away their much abused terminology — common denominators which neurotics could use on each other. The idea would be to extend the moral inventory of AA to a deeper level, making it an inventory of psychic damages, reliving in conversation episodes, etc. I suppose someday a Neurotics Anonymous will be formed and will actually do all this.Neurotics_Anonymous#History
Unlike inhabitants of more traditional cultures, citizens of the United States tend to suspect not the sudden, but the gradual. And so those who experience sudden conversion usually regard their change as somehow more genuine. Thus it was that in spite of the A.A. Big Book's measured words about “educational variety spiritual experiences,” Bill W. was himself drawn to seek ways of making more available the “sudden and spectacular upheavals” that although not necessary, seemed very, very useful.[11]
The illness of the spiritual dimension, or "spiritual malady," is considered in all twelve-step groups to be self-centeredness. The process of working the steps is intended to replace self-centeredness with a growing moral consciousness and a willingness for self-sacrifice and unselfish constructive action. In twelve-step groups, this is known as a spiritual awakening. This should not be confused with abreaction, which produces dramatic, but temporary, changes. As a rule, in twelve-step fellowships, "spiritual awakening" is occurs slowly over a period of time, although there are exceptions where members experience it suddenly.- Scarpy ( talk) 18:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
This intro suggests that a "12-step program" is a sequence of specific actions as recommended in the 12-steps. The common meaning of "12-step program" is much broader. 12-step programs all include certain elements: 1. They all hold meetings of individuals seeking help (no experts) 2. At these "meeting", individuals are encouraged to share openly about their difficulties with compulsive behaviors (addiction), 3. Individuals are encouraged to "get involved" in meetings in other ways, "doing service" or other outreach, 5. These meetings often use "literature" that is common to all meetings of that fellowship to further their understanding and practice of recovery from compulsive behaviors, often this literature references "the 12-steps", but some of it does not, 6. The organization structure connected individual meetings to each other is decentralized and loose. These are the common elements essential to all "12-step programs" : the fellowships, the meetings, the steps themselves, the literature, the service (helping to organize & outreach). This article implies throughout that a "12-step program" is a narrowly defined process delineated by actual text of the 12-steps. It erroneously suggests no distinction between a "12-step program" and "the 12-steps." The more common understanding is that AA, NA, GA, etc are all "12-step programs", which are characterized by non-expert, "addicted" members who meet in groups to share/discuss/encourage each other's recovery. The meetings are the central feature, and they are connected to one another through a decentralized organizational structure. Bryan Hopping T 01:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
It erroneously suggests no distinction between a "12-step program" and "the 12-steps."I'm struggling to see where you're getting this. What you have listed in 1,2,3,5 and 6 are guiding principles and courses of action as stated in the lede
A twelve-step program is a set of guiding principles outlining a course of action for recovery from addiction, compulsion, or other behavioral problems.- Scarpy ( talk) 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I made these updates today, with some slight modifications and removed the dubious tags. - Scarpy ( talk) 22:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
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. [1]
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)
@ CH Yong: @ SkylabField: @ Sundayclose:
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)
I moved to Alcoholics_Anonymous#Effectiveness. Yurt. - Scarpy ( talk) 03:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
Sept. 7, 2007 Inouye vs. Kemna -- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals not only upheld the earlier rulings that AA functions as a relgion , it went a step further allowng the plaintiff, who was ordered to attend AA, the right to pursue damages. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco: the constitutional dividing line between church and state in such cases is so clear that a parole officer can be sued for damages for ordering a parolee to go through rehabilitation at Alcoholics Anonymous or an affiliated program for drug addicts. In that ruling it was also noted "adherence to the AA fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization." In "working" the Twelve Steps, participants become actively involved in seeking God through prayer, confessing wrongs and asking for "removal of shortcomings." The Ninth Court of Appeals pointed to cases decided before 2001 by the federal courts of appeal for the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin) and the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, Vermont), in addition to a number of cases in lower federal courts and in state courts, all with the same result. The "unanimous conclusion" of these courts was that coercing a person into AA/NA or into AA/NA based treatment programs was unconstitutional because of their religious nature. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/08/BA99S1AKQ.DTL
The san fransico gate news is not a biased source. Fact: The Wiki Addresses Mandated Court attendance Fact : Judges and parol officers have been mandating people to attend AA and 12 steps for drug and alcohol related incidences.
Fact there have been court cases.
Fact: The Courts do not agree with AA or 12 steps assessment of themselves. Fact the courts have ruled it a violation of peoples rights {in the United States} to be sentenced to AA or other 12 step programs.
Fact: It is not the wiki job to agree or disagree with the courts assessment of AA and therefor eliminate from The AA page because the courts have a different viewpoint. Fact the information above came from a newspaper. Fact you can find all the cases related to AA, in Find Law. I have read them.small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 ( talk) 22:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
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:
Reverting an edit with no justification save an armwave of WIKI:WL is itself vandalism.
PhGustaf 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Help:Reverting says:
Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
Your opinion that the article "doesn't belong here" does not justify your reverting it undiscussed. The citation needed flag I added was a more appropriate response.
PhGustaf 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is truly an AA issue. I doubt another fellowship would handle this in the same way. Please feel free to put it there, but if there isn't a solid argument why this specifically relates to the 12 steps I will remove it soon, or at least seriously re-write it. Pozcircuitboy 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
no, it is not just an AA issue, it is an issue where the 12 step traditions come into play.
"Former members tried to get the central AA office in New York to condemn Midtown's tactics . AA makes strong suggestions on how groups should operate however cannot enforce them for in keeping with the 12 step tradtions: "it has no firm hierarchy, no official regulations, and exercises no oversight of individual groups."
Do, other 12 step groups have differenct traditions from AA? -- —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.232.97.13 (
talk •
contribs) 7 October 2007, 20:42
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)
Wow, that is markedly similar. I have not seen it previously. Actually I wonder if some of it was copied from this *shrug*. Pozcircuitboy 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If this article focuses on the "Twelve Step Program" and many "Anonymous" fellowships have adapted the program of recovery pioneered by AA's "first 100", then isn't it more fitting to put AA's 12 Traditions in the article on Alcoholics Anonymous and not in this article? Surely at least some of the other fellowships have their own traditions.
Frankly, the AA article has been mangled by contributors attempting to argue about the merits of AA, the nature of alcoholism, and a host of irrelevant issues. I'd like to see an article that focuses on what the twelve step program of recovery is and is not. This doesn't seem to be the place to argue whether it's "good" or "effective", reasonable, unreasonable, helpful, counterproductive, etc. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts. Don K. 10:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
There is something wrong with this reference (or, more likely, I don't understand all of the shorthand in the ref). If you click on the actual title, you get the poster that you saw. However, if you click on the first set of numbers you get an unrelated article and if you click on the second set you get just the name of the "journal". In any case, atheists are not mentioned at all in the poster and so, unless somebody can actually come up with the article, I suggest omitting this ref entirely. It is not listed in PubMed, but I am sure that PubMed listing is not a requirement. A poster, by itself is certainly not suitable for a reference as they are not peer-reviewed and are often not very accurate. A poster is essentially a place-holder for the full article to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desoto10 ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
OK, but first I have to learn how to add a reference. I'll be back. Desoto10 ( talk) 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I took a shot. Desoto10 ( talk) 07:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a section on effectiveness, since that is probably one of the things people are interested from an encyclopedia. I brought a ref from the AA article, from which said article should be removed, and placed it here with a little discussion. I can add citations for some of the sentances if required. I may have screwed up the reference list. sorry. Desoto10 ( talk) 05:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnn.medina ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
Any of you have input on this? -- Scarpy ( talk) 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This section is confusing and seems to contain some synthesis:
The first line covers doesn't connect to the rest of the paragraph: AA is a cult and 12-step programs alter 'cultural identity' (whatever that means) respectively. Also, what is being stated has only been researched by Alexander and Rollins, the use of the word 'critics' suggests a quantity of research of which this is the best example. Also, that single piece of research has been rubbished by the Wright study of the same data. I wonder if the notability of this material is a rather too enthusiastic attempt to find some academic authority to explain that funny feeling most people have (the feeling that they're witnessing a cult) when they observe a group of AA/NA/CA members standing around holding hands and chanting prayers.
The second line is not supported by the abstract from the cite - has the full article been checked?
Mr Miles ( talk) 00:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) as a method of recovery from alcoholism" I think not - no one actually recovers in AA - they are always in the process of recovery, but are never recover - replacing the addiction for alcohol, with the addiction for AA and their meetings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.48.22 ( talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Given that everything we see, feel and hear is apparently interpretted by the brain, I could argue that the APA's opinion is relevant on almost anything. Having said that it is not at all clear to me why the APA is being given top billing here. Yes, psychologists work with many people in 12-step. Yet traditional 12-step approach espoused by AA is specifically non-professional. Psychologists are not directly involved with traditional 12-step (unless they themselves are working the program). Some 12-step meetings have allowed students of pyschology to sit in and observe what goes on, but I've got a hard time believing that what goes in a meeting can be studied empirically when the participants are aware they are being observed (eg. Hawthorne effect). Self-definition by twelve-steppers would also present problems I guess, at least as a sole source for a definition. I dunno, a truly unbiased definition of 12-step would be kind of difficult to obtain huh? Zedmaster375 17.33 4 May 2008 (UTC-5) —Preceding comment was added at 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
How in the world can 12 steps be "evidenced based" with an unknown higher power in charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.126.200 ( talk) 23:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I noticed that the user who posted the template is now deleted. --
Advocate (
talk) 00:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC). Sorry, she has a talk page but no user page, my mistake.--
Advocate (
talk)
09:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
Per AfD Discussion, the entry was moved to Twelve Traditions -- Advocate ( talk) 00:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
Don K. - there is a wikipedia article conveniently titled History of Alcoholics Anonymous. Your recent contributions ( [1], [2]) would be better off somewhere in that article. -- Scarpy ( talk) 02:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
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 chitchat seemywork 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)Information that is specifically about addicts and alcoholics should be in the articles dealing with twelve-step fellowships that treat addicts and alcoholics, if it's not generalizable to all twelve-step fellowships (or at least the majority of them, and the majority of them are not for substance abuse recovery) it doesn't belong in this article. -- Scarpy ( talk) 10:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
A Google Scholar search on the two shows quite a bit of overlap, as you would expect [3]. There are also at least a few books published by Al-Anon that use the word [4].
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)
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)
A lot of so-called scientific studies on the 12 Steps include in their sample populations anyone who sat in a seat a few times in a 12 Step group. Rather than studying those who actually worked the 12 Steps. By counting those who just showed up for a few meetings, the statistics on recovery can be dramatically skewed. When instead the focus is on those people who have worked all 12 Steps the recovery results are significantlty better.
198.59.49.200 ( talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like precisely the sort of claim described by the no true Scotsman fallacy. It allows the claimant to exclude anyone who doesn't fit their conclusion. -- FOo ( talk) 05:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I had thought this respected media documentary to be relevant to the article.
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)
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)
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)
30 links is really not that many. Lots of wiki articles have that many. Just let go and let people link 12 Step programs that can help people.
70.209.163.119 ( talk) 21:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The history section is about the history of AA, rather than the history of the twelve steps. Someone sent me this: "The 12 steps are derived from the Oxford Groups. The leader and founder of the Oxford Groups was Frank Buchanan an ordained Lutheran minister. This explains the heavy protestant Calvinist/Lutheran slant to the steps. (i.e. that man is evil by nature and powerless to save himself--only complete surrender to God can obtain the possibility of Grace and Salvation)."
...Can anyone confirm or deny that? The only Frank Buchanan currently in Wikipedia was a politician, and there is no mention of the twelve steps in the article about him.
CousinJohn ( talk) 12:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The statement on anonymity is correct. BUT, articles do not normally concern themselves with what an organization, place or event doesn't have. The list of the latter would be way too long. Therefore, IMO, going on about the unenforceability of anonymity is not on WP:TOPIC. It is irrelevant. I'm not suggesting that it might not be of interest. It's just that no article has a inventory of what is not available. Nor should this one. Student7 ( talk) 14:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.199.219 ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The word you are grasping for is "tenets". 68.208.127.241 ( talk) 13:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: uncontested move. I note that the article is broader in scope than the AA Twelve-Step Program, which was mentioned here. DrKiernan ( talk) 18:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Twelve-Step Program → Twelve-step program – This is a common noun, not the name of any specific program. Per WP:CAPS the title should be in lower case. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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/?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)
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)
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)
I believe that this article only sufficiently shows the pros of 12-step programs and does not show the opposing side of the treatment under the criticism headline. For example, the article states that the 12-step program receives controversy over whether it is universally effective however it does not include any quantitative statistics or empirical data to show how many people actually on average receive effective treatments from the program from any studies. S.benevides ( talk) 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
In reading through this article I have found a number of places which are questionable and others which are just plain wrong. I would like to make corrections in the proper manner for Wikipedia. However I am not a "professional" with Masters or PhD in psychology, a professional license hanging on my wall, or published articles to my name. My only qualification to make the changes to this article is that I have been attending 12-Step groups for 26+ years, therefore I know 12-Step programs inside and out and am very well qualified to make changes to this article. Even if I did have those official qualifications I would not identify myself in a reference to this article since I am a member of multiple 12-Step ANONYMOUS programs. My attendance at thousands and thousands of meetings over the years gives me a pretty accurate view of 12-Step programs, far better than any ivory tower intellectual.
Let's cut to a concrete example. /info/en/?search=Twelve-step_program#Cultural_identity starts off by saying:
>> "One review warned of detrimental iatrogenic effects of twelve-step philosophy and labeled the organizations as cults,[46]" ...
That is just wrong. There is no charismatic leader in 12-Step programs as there is in a cult. The members of 12-Step programs are anonymous even to each other, at least initially, so there is no way one member can control another as happens in cults. Monetary contributions are voluntary and limited to "passing the basket" in 12-Steps groups whereas in cults you are heavily pressured to sign every aspect of your life over to the cult, starting with your money. Unlike a cult the "central service" office or "intergroups" of a 12-Step program such as AA have virtually no control over what goes on in individual groups; the worst the intergroups can do to a group is remove a group from the meeting list if that group is out of control, but no sanctions can be taken against individuals because they are anonymous. All of the above are examples of why 12-Step programs ARE NOT CULTS.
The example I cited above continues ... "while another review asserts that these programs bore little semblance to religious cults and that the techniques used appeared beneficial to some.[47]" It is just wrong to associate the stigma of cults with 12-Step programs. I would take the whole sentence out along with the references and replace them with a short paragraph citing how the 12 Traditions -- the rules of all 12-Step groups -- INTENTIONALLY render the central office powerless in the organization.
Among other things leaving that statement and reference in seems like giving "undue weight" to a "distinct minority" as per this:
>> /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight >> Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.
So it's one sociologist vs. millions of 12-Steppers worldwide. Do I have to leave in a 30-year-old reference which is completely contrary to reality in order to be "balanced"?
Help, please.
Oh, I'm supposed to cite my sources. Anonymous me. 26 years of first-hand observation. Unpublished.
PDP-Anonymous ( talk) 08:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The person who put this article together gives the appearance of being NPOV by quoting from published studies but the overall impression created by reporting so many doubters and aspects of doubt about the efficacy of the 12 step program is skepticism. The result is a very sly slagging of the 12 step program. As such it seems to me that it is an enormous disservice to a program that provides some relief, if only to a small percentage of a large number of people.
This article needs to be reviewed. -- 174.7.56.10 ( talk) 15:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC) (a neutral observer: have not attended and have no plan to attend any 12 step program)
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)
@ LLarson: looking at these recent edits of American Psychological Association, not sure what context your looking for here. Does anything have objective meaning outside of context? Kind of a philosophical question. At any rate, can you give us more of an idea of what you were looking for here? "don't objectively mean anything with out context." - Scarpy ( talk)
We found that as soon as we were able to lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we commenced to get results, even though it was impossible for any of us to fully define or comprehend that Power, which is God.
He found Dr. Bob, who had been trying desperately and unsuccessfully to stop drinking ... the Twelve Steps had not been written; but Bill carried the message to Dr. Bob, who in turn safeguarded his own sobriety by sponsoring countless other alcoholics. ... Essentially, the process of sponsorship is this: An alcoholic who has made some progress in the recovery program shares that experience on a continuous, individual basis with another alcoholic....
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)
Found a couple of great resources for sources for this and other related articles [ [6]] and [ [7]]. Sethie ( talk) 16:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Harizotoh9: Re: your edit on August 24th, where you removed "while also attending a support group which collectively follows principles called The Twelve Traditions." with the comment "Closer to sources". The common theme that all 12 step programs have, is that members attend meetings where the the twenty-four basic principles of the program are read at every meeting. If you look at the link above, you will notice that the book from 1953 is now in the 77th printing and was written by Bill W, who appears in the first sentence of this article, this is a hard source to beat. Since those two documents are the definition of what the wide variety of programs have in common, it needs to be mentioned in the lead. The 12 steps by themselves (as the article's lead currently reads) is only half of a program. The the other half of the program requires regular attendance at 12 step meetings, meetings which follow the twelve traditions. If you look at Alcoholics Anonymous this is in the first paragraph, if you look at Narcotics Anonymous this is in the second paragraph of "Narcotics Anonymous program", if you look at Overeaters Anonymous this is in the second paragraph. I think there's some confusion here between what the program is called and what the actual program consists of. While I'm not attached to any particular wording, I am attached to describing a complete program. Please fix your edit. Dougmcdonell ( talk) 17:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Are there not 36 principles? 12 steps which allow us to know ourselves 12 traditions that guide us through how to live productively and in peace in society 12 Concepts of service which keeps us in touch on a daily basis with the higher power of our understanding.
Meetings are a "tool of the program." I agree they are important but still are just considered a tool. Messenger of Recovery ( talk) 18:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
There are DOZENS of twelve step fellowship, each with their own literature and unique language describing the highly diverse and subjective "spiritual awakenings" experienced by their millions of members. There is no way to characterize the manner, or pace by which these "spiritual experiences" arrive. Even in the AA Big Book (just 1 12-step fellowship), the main text description of a "sudden, white light" experience is at odds with the "gradual" experience described in Appendix 2. The statement takes one description from Appendix 2, and generalizes it to a broadly held belief, which seems dubious at best. Bryan Hopping T 00:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
In twelve-step fellowships, "spiritual awakening" is believed to most frequently develop slowly over a period of time.I suppose we could say something like "most frequently, but not always." to clarify. I'm struggling to see what you're objecting too. - Scarpy ( talk) 16:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The terms "spiritual experience" and "spiritual awakening" are used many times in this book which, upon careful reading, shows that the personality change sufficient to bring about recovery from alcoholism has manifested itself among us in many different forms... Yet it is true that our first printing gave many readers the impression that these personality changes, or religious experiences, must be in the nature of sudden and spectacular upheavals. Happily for everyone, this conclusion is erroneous... In the first few chapters a number of sudden revolutionary changes are described. Though it was not our intention to create such an impression, many alcoholics have nevertheless concluded that in order to recover they must acquire an immediate and overwhelming "God-consciousness" followed at once by a vast change in feeling and outlook... Among our rapidly growing membership of thousands of alcoholics such transformations, though frequent, are by no means the rule. Most of our experiences are what the psychologist William James calls the "educational variety" because they develop slowly over a period of time.[9]
The illness of the spiritual dimension, or "spiritual malady," is considered in all twelve-step groups to be self-centeredness. The process of working the steps is intended to replace self-centeredness with a growing moral consciousness and a willingness for self-sacrifice and unselfish constructive action. In twelve-step groups, this is known as a spiritual awakening. This should neither be confused with abreaction, which produces dramatic, but ephemeral, changes, nor with a religious experience. In twelve-step fellowships, "spiritual awakening" is believed to most frequently develop slowly over a period of time.
The emotional release therapies all operate on the concept of abreaction originally advanced by Freud. Early in his career Freud was convinced that if people could recall the early traumatic incidents that had made them sick and discharge painful emotions connected with these traumata, they would get better ipso facto. As time when on, however, Freud found that emotional release in and of itself resulted in only temporary improvement. He then abandoned it as the major goal of therapy and turned to the more painstaking, time-consuming, and difficult process of trying to work through the patients defenses and resistances.[10]
it may be that someday we shall devise some common denominator of psychiatry — of course, throwing away their much abused terminology — common denominators which neurotics could use on each other. The idea would be to extend the moral inventory of AA to a deeper level, making it an inventory of psychic damages, reliving in conversation episodes, etc. I suppose someday a Neurotics Anonymous will be formed and will actually do all this.Neurotics_Anonymous#History
Unlike inhabitants of more traditional cultures, citizens of the United States tend to suspect not the sudden, but the gradual. And so those who experience sudden conversion usually regard their change as somehow more genuine. Thus it was that in spite of the A.A. Big Book's measured words about “educational variety spiritual experiences,” Bill W. was himself drawn to seek ways of making more available the “sudden and spectacular upheavals” that although not necessary, seemed very, very useful.[11]
The illness of the spiritual dimension, or "spiritual malady," is considered in all twelve-step groups to be self-centeredness. The process of working the steps is intended to replace self-centeredness with a growing moral consciousness and a willingness for self-sacrifice and unselfish constructive action. In twelve-step groups, this is known as a spiritual awakening. This should not be confused with abreaction, which produces dramatic, but temporary, changes. As a rule, in twelve-step fellowships, "spiritual awakening" is occurs slowly over a period of time, although there are exceptions where members experience it suddenly.- Scarpy ( talk) 18:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
This intro suggests that a "12-step program" is a sequence of specific actions as recommended in the 12-steps. The common meaning of "12-step program" is much broader. 12-step programs all include certain elements: 1. They all hold meetings of individuals seeking help (no experts) 2. At these "meeting", individuals are encouraged to share openly about their difficulties with compulsive behaviors (addiction), 3. Individuals are encouraged to "get involved" in meetings in other ways, "doing service" or other outreach, 5. These meetings often use "literature" that is common to all meetings of that fellowship to further their understanding and practice of recovery from compulsive behaviors, often this literature references "the 12-steps", but some of it does not, 6. The organization structure connected individual meetings to each other is decentralized and loose. These are the common elements essential to all "12-step programs" : the fellowships, the meetings, the steps themselves, the literature, the service (helping to organize & outreach). This article implies throughout that a "12-step program" is a narrowly defined process delineated by actual text of the 12-steps. It erroneously suggests no distinction between a "12-step program" and "the 12-steps." The more common understanding is that AA, NA, GA, etc are all "12-step programs", which are characterized by non-expert, "addicted" members who meet in groups to share/discuss/encourage each other's recovery. The meetings are the central feature, and they are connected to one another through a decentralized organizational structure. Bryan Hopping T 01:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
It erroneously suggests no distinction between a "12-step program" and "the 12-steps."I'm struggling to see where you're getting this. What you have listed in 1,2,3,5 and 6 are guiding principles and courses of action as stated in the lede
A twelve-step program is a set of guiding principles outlining a course of action for recovery from addiction, compulsion, or other behavioral problems.- Scarpy ( talk) 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I made these updates today, with some slight modifications and removed the dubious tags. - Scarpy ( talk) 22:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
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. [1]
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)
@ CH Yong: @ SkylabField: @ Sundayclose:
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)
I moved to Alcoholics_Anonymous#Effectiveness. Yurt. - Scarpy ( talk) 03:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)