Talk:Twelve-step program/Archive 2

Court-mandated Twelve-step attendance

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)

Reviewing the sources of this section, I don't see much that's worth keeping. The only purpose for this information is to imply if a court sees twelve step groups and unequivocally religious, then it contradicts statements made by the groups to the contrary (e.g. twelve Step groups are spiritual, not religious). In other words, would be documenting instances of courts saying that twelve step groups incorrectly describe themselves. This is, however, mixing legal definitions of religion and spirituality with colloquial definitions. It seems like it serves no other purpose than ammunition in a POV semantics debate. Other than that, it's all about constitutional law, judges, parole officers, etc, which is not relevant to this article. -- Craigtalbert 09:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if you just removed a section containing notable, cited facts, chiefly that the State of New York has found that AA-style twelve-step programs are religious. Please consider returning this fact to the article if you expect your edit to stand; as removing cited facts from Wikipedia articles is not usually considered legitimate conduct here. --FOo 01:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe you should have another look. I removed a section that cited an obviously biased source (e.g. Resisting 12-Step Coercion: How to Fight Forced Participation in AA, NA Or 12-Step Treatment), went in to excruciating detail on unrelated constitutional law issues, was on a topic that has questionable relevance to this article (do you really think a treatment on the difference between spirituality and religion is within the scope of this article?), and was laced with POV language. Removing it was well within the guidelines of every wikipedia policy I've read. -- Craigtalbert 02:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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 mind WP:FORUM. I don't disagree with you. The problem with it, as I stated previously, are the relevance of constitutional law and the "religion vs. spirituality" discussion to this article. Even if we were to included it, what you've written gives it undue weight. -- Craigtalbert 00:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The "undue weight" policies have to do with fringe opinions. The finding of a state court of appeals is not a fringe opinion. It is the law (within that court's jurisdiction, of course). --FOo 02:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much in the undue weight section about fringe opinions. I do see a lot of discussion about prominence. Originally I didn't believe this article advanced the idea that Twelve-step programs were "spiritual, not religious." I was wrong, it did in an uncited/OR section that I just removed. There are at least two different opinions on the subject: (1) that twelve step groups are spiritual, not religious (2) that despite what they claim they are religious. If you include one opinion, you have to include the other. Having an entire section dedicated to one opinion, and a sentence embedded in a POV section about the other, I'd say is undue weight. As it stands now, they both have equal weight. -- Craigtalbert 04:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally liked the one-sentence line as it was previously in the intro: a simple statement that some jurisdictions obligate the accused to attend meetings, which is a controversial practice. it's worth acknowleding this practice. plenty of people show up at aa meetings thru this, and it's controversial both among individual 12-steppers and among the accused. Pozcircuitboy 19:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't merely a controversial practice, which suggests merely that some people don't like it. It is, in some jurisdictions, an illegal practice. --FOo 02:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agreed that the amount of information was becoming excessive. I don't think it needs to be cut, but rather we-written according to wiki guidelines with a link to a new article withall of this info. it is important info to some people, and deserves its own article. if anyone has the willingness to write it, go for it. but all of that info about court-mandation is irrelevant to the topic at hand. very similar to the issue with AA history awhile back - the extra info was just overwhelming the general purpose of the article. Pozcircuitboy 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this as long as it gives reasonable weight to both opinions, otherwise it's a "POV fork." Also mentioned this in the AA talk page section on the same subject. -- Craigtalbert 20:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Good Faith Changes

Please be aware of the guidelines on Help:Reverting. One such is that, except in cases of obvious vandalism, reversion is a last rather than a first resort.

In particular:

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Reverting an edit with no justification save an armwave of WIKI:WL is itself vandalism.

PhGustaf 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

207.194.108.93 has been warned about these kind of edits. This is also not an article about SMART Recovery, the information doesn't belong here to begin with. -- Craigtalbert 23:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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 flag I added was a more appropriate response.

PhGustaf 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Court-Manadation

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)

Paragraph on Anonymity

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)

The paragraph isn't really about anonymity -- it's about confidentiality. It's often said at meetings that "What's said here stays here", and the graf just says there's no legal assurance of this. PhGustaf 02:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Occasions of abuse at meetings

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)

I very much agree on this one. The article it does talk specifically about AA and it's the author's opinions that it is particularly problematic in AA as there are many more man than women in the fellowship - something that's most definitely not true in other programs (in fact, it's reversed most of the non-substance abuse related ones). It would be a mistake to generalize these findings. -- Craigtalbert 01:04, 6 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

Again, the authors of the study on 13th-stepping didn't mention the twelve traditions as being the source of the problem. They believed it was due to most large number of males in AA and the high incidence of sexual abuse histories among women in AA that could make them more susceptible to sexual exploitation. The demographics of other groups are different from AA's. I would expect to see similar patterns in NA, but the research doesn't support that so it would be WP:SYN, or speculation. -- Craigtalbert

Was this article previously a copyright violation?

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)

New Criticism Section

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)

Removed Meeting Process section

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)

Moving criticism back to AA

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)

Ok thanks. -Bikinibomb 18:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dream Theater's "Alcoholics Anonymous suite"

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)

AA's Twelve Traditions

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)

Where adopted, which is in nearly all of the fellowships, the changes made to the twelve traditions are as small as the changes made to the twelve steps. When programs don't use the AA traditions, it's usual not in favor of another set as much as it is abandoning them all together such as the case with Celebrate Recovery and LDS Family Services. The kind of unspoken criteria working on this and the List of twelve-step groups article was that if the fellowship doesn't more-or-less use the twelve steps and twelve traditions, they're not a twelve step group -- or only partially.

Efficacy of any kind of treatment, where assessed, has encyclopedic value. Really, if it's not the most relevant characteristic of any kind of treatment, I don't know what is. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Identity

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)

I believe it lists atheists in the article cited, but I will double check. I think there's a poster version of it linked, if you want to have a look. FYI: I'm an atheist. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Sponsorship

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)

I think you should be bold and add it. :) -- Craigtalbert (talk) 09:04, 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)

Effectiveness

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)

The opening sentences you'll need citations for. Also, a difficult thing on this article, is to use material that applies broadly to twelve-step groups. For instance, the effectiveness discussed in the article cited are just related to AA/NA, though I'd imagine they would extend to other twelve-step addiction recovery groups (MA, CMA, etc), but how well something like this would apply to Clutterers Anonymous or say Debtors Anonymous I don't know.

That being said, writing an article on twelve-step groups without over-focusing on AA or NA is like writing an article on the Transcendentalists trying to avoid talking about Emerson or Thoreau. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-twelve-step addiction recovery groups

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)

Relationship with God

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)

Problems With 12 Step Program Studies and Assesments-- Most Studies include people who have attended less than 10 meetings / and also people who have never worked the Steps

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)

Effectiveness

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)

Whoops it's all ready in there. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines on length of Further Reading sections

Any of you have input on this? -- Scarpy (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural identity

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)

I wrote the original version of the paragraph and someone took parts of it out, when drive-by editors aren't careful when they do that, references can get out of place, but having a look at it again, it seems like they're all in the right place. There is an article on cultural identity linked in the article (and now here). But, there's nothing in there that isn't supported by the sources. Email me if you want help getting to them.

The sentence with the word 'critics' is cited to show you exactly what critics it's talking about. This tendency people have to want to essentially recreate a citation in the text of the article is horrible and makes it completely unreadable (e.g. Alexander and Rollins conducted wrote an article in 1983 that said [whatever]). Is the reader supposed to know who "Alexander and Rollins" are? Were they introduced before in the article? No. Leave the citations in the citations. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you've read the full article and it supports the statement, that's fine by me.

My concern wasn't that the study isn't named, but rather that using a plural - critics - misleadingly suggests a body of research. I've changed it to 'one study' (leaving the cite to do its work) and added the follow up application of the same Lifton rules. Ta. Mr Miles (talk) 13:33, 5 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)

Effectiveness and article focus

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)

Unreliable reliable source

I understand that the American Psychological Association is a reliable published source, but their summary of what is involved in the 12-step process is incomplete.

• admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion; (step 1)
• recognizing a greater power that can give strength; (step 2,3 & 11)
• examining past errors with the help of a sponsor (experienced member); (step 8)
• making amends for these errors; (step 9)
• learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior; (step 10)
• helping others that suffer from the same addictions or compulsions. (step 12)

The list omits the inventory/admission/defect removal process of steps 4 to 7, isn't there a better source for a summary?

Mr Miles (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Their summary is accurate, "examing past errors with the help of a sponsor" is steps 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of skims several processes there but okay. Mr Miles (talk) 00:27, 4 May 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)

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

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)

Further Reading

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)

It was actually just one person who added it. I asked for input on the talk page and over at the help desk, but apparently there are no specific guidelines on the issue. I've been meaning to kind of go through and prune it, but it's hurting anybody at the moment. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So no worries then if I do the odd bit of pruning myself? Don't plan on a major sudden change... just move one or two at a time to more appropriate sounding articles within the 12 Step articles. I'd leave deletions to you as I'm not familiar with most of this literature Dakinijones (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, that would be a good idea. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

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)

If you read all of the way to the end of the sentence, you'll see a little number in superscript. That is a footnote for the citation. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness

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)

The previous effectiveness section was misleading as it only cited a information about a NA group at a particular treatment center, and by no means was reflexive of the effectiveness of all twelve-step treatment programs (most of which are not for treating substance abuse). The point it illustrates is that having a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of twelve-step programs overall needs to evaluate how they operate on various pathologies, and directs readers to the effectiveness sections for particular twelve-step articles. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Illegal Plagiarism

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)

Also, out of curiosity, is it plagiarism? The passages from the AA manual were correctly cited, so to me, that indicates all is good, but what is the legality surrounding reprinting of passages on wikis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.245.143 (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's cited correctly and is within the fair use guidelines. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Overview

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)

Copyright of Big Book

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)

Even so, it's within fair use. I asked for clarification at the helpdesk. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the template now as the information is in the public domain. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:36, 19 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)

Singleness of Purpose

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)

Programs that do and don't follow the Twelve Traditions

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)

Alcoholics Anonymous History

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)

Cleanup

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)

Apparently we've been waiting for a review for awhile. User:Dakinijones seemed interested in working on it, but I think she (he?) tries to avoid me now. :) -- Scarpy (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

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)

Books

• B, E. (2005). The Story of a Bi-Cultural, Latina Addict. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Social Work Practice Press.
• (Chappel, J. (1997). Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous in clinical practice. New York, NY: Wiley-Liss.
• Chatlos, J. C., & Estroff, T. W. (2001). Adolescent psychiatry and 12-step treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Denzin, N. K. (1999). Cybertalk and the method of instances. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• DuPont, R. L. (1996). Overcoming adolescent addiction: Working with families and the role of 12-step programs. New York, NY: Hatherleigh Press.
• Emrick, C. D., & Tonigan, J. S. (2004). Alcoholics Anonymous and Other 12-Step Groups. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Finley, J. R. (2004). Integrating the 12 steps into addiction therapy: A resource collection and guide for promoting recovery. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
• Fuller, R. K., & Allen, J. P. (2000). Patient-to-treatment matching. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Hopson, R. E. (1996). The 12-step program. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Humphreys, K. (2003). Alcoholics Anonymous and 12-step alcoholism treatment programs. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
• Irvine, L. (1999). "Codependent forevermore: The invention of self in a Twelve Step group". Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Johnson, J. (1996). Addiction and recovery for individuals and society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Kassel, J. D., & Jackson, S. I. (2001). Twelve-step-based interventions for adolescents. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Pergamon/Elsevier Science Inc.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Laney, G., Rogers, G. E., & Phaison, R. (2002). Healing an addiction through a twelve step program ending in faith. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Laudet, A. B. (2007). Attitudes and beliefs about 12-step groups among addiction treatment clients and clinicians: Identifying obstacles to participation. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Minnick, A. M. (1997). Twelve step programs: A contemporary American quest for meaning and spiritual renewal. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Nanoff, P. D. (2007). Rising from the dead: Stories of women's spiritual journeys to sobriety. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Pastoral Press.
• Nowinski, J. (2002). Twelve-step facilitation therapy for alcohol problems. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Nowinski, J. (2003). Facilitating 12-step recovery from substance abuse and addiction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Nowinski, J., & Baker, S. (1992). The twelve-step facilitation handbook: A systematic approach to early recovery from alcoholism and addiction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Parker, J., & Guest, D. L. (1999). The clinician's guide to 12-step programs: How, when, and why to refer a client. Westport, CT: Auburn House/Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Peele, S., Bufe, C., & Brodsky, A. (2000). Resisting 12-step coercion: How to fight forced participation in AA, NA, or 12-step treatment. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press.
• Petry, N. M. (2005). Recovery without professional interventions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Pita, D. D. (2004). Addictions counseling: A practical and comprehensive guide to counseling people with addictions (rev. & updated ed.). New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing Co.
• Richards, P. S., Hardman, R. K., & Berrett, M. E. (2007). Twelve-Step Groups for Patients With Eating Disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Sheehan, T., & Owen, P. (1999). The disease model. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Slaby, A. E. (2002). Inpatient groups and partial hospitalization. New York, NY: Haworth Press.
• Spiegel, B. R., & Fewell, C. H. (2004). 12-Step Programs as a Treatment Modality. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Tangenberg, K. M. (2005). Twelve-Step Programs and Faith-Based Recovery: Research Controversies, Provider Perspectives, and Practice Implications. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Social Work Practice Press.
• Tessina, T. B. (2001). The real 13th step: Discovering confidence, self reliance, and independence beyond the twelve-step programs (rev. ed.). Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press.
• Tonigan, J. S., Toscova, R. T., & Connors, G. J. (1999). Spirituality and the 12-step programs: A guide for clinicians. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Wallace, J. (1999). The twelve-step recovery approach. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Wallace, J. (2003). Theory of 12-step-oriented treatment. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Ziegler, P. P. (2000). Treating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender professionals with addictive disease. New York, NY: Haworth Press.
• Mac Dougall, J. (200). The addicted patient. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Co.
• Vaughn, C., & Long, W. (2001). Adolescent addiction and recovery: A study in extremes. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Dissertations

• Bissett, R. T. (2002). Processes of change: Acceptance versus 12-step in polysubstance-abusing methadone clients.
• Brennan, P. I. (1998). Cognitive behavioral program vs. twelve-step program: Comparative effectiveness of two outpatient drug/alcohol treatment models.
• Busby, P. L. (2001). Dimensions of addictive experience and 12-step program participation.
• Carol, G. (2000). "A comparison of cocaine craving, social support and Narcotics Anonymous involvement between schizophrenics and nonschizophrenics". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Caison, W. B. (1997). Alcohol and drug treatment telephone follow-up using twelve step group member volunteers: Effects on a.a. and n.a. affiliation self-efficacy and behaviors among callers and call recipients.
• Cnockaert, J. A. (1994). A comparison of residential treatment for chemical dependence clients: Relapse prevention didactics and 12-step lectures.
• Colby, T. (2001). Repairing the injured maternal archetype through the twelve-step community of overeaters anonymous: A model for women healing from compulsive overeating.
• Friedman-Gell, L. (2007). Narcotics anonymous: Promotion of change and growth in spiritual health, quality of life, and attachment dimensions of avoidance and anxiety in relation to program involvement and time clean.
• Giffen, D. L. (1997). Lifestyle change and intreatment outcome in a national sample of outpatient substance abuse clients.
• Gleason, D. R. (1996). The effects of guided imagery and twelve-step programs on depression and anxiety in substance abuse clients.
• Hansen, E. H. (2001). Powerlessness and empowerment: An exploratory multiple-case study on the process of 12-step recovery among women addicted to crack cocaine.
• Hudak, R. M. I. (1997). Keep comin' back: Organizational culture and conversion in the adult children of alcoholics movement.
• Irvine, L. (1997). Romancing the self: Codependency and the American quest for fulfillment.
• Johnson, D. G. (1995). A Twelve Step model for the treatment of traumatized families.
• Kelly, J. F. (2001). Do adolescents affiliate with 12-step groups? a multivariate process model of effects.
• Leiro Perez, C. A. (1996). Marriage and family therapists' attitudes, intentions and referral behavior towards twelve-step self-help groups.
• Marion, D. E. (1999). The use of evaluative stopping rules in information requirements determination: An empirical investigation of systems analyst behavior. (stopping rules). Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences.
• Mason, D. A. (1999). The psychological and spiritual principles of the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.
• Matheson, J. L. (2007). Using metaphors to explore the experiences of powerlessness among women in twelve-step substance abuse recovery. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.
• McAleavey, K. M. (2000). Treatment outcomes among persons with anorexia, bulimia, and eating disorders not otherwise specified. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.
• McAuliffe, J. D., Jr. (1996). Inordinate mood-altering behavior as symptomatic of spiritual disorder: The Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous in light of the establishment of formative spirituality. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.
• Pugh, C. L. (2004). An interface of the twelve-step theory and Afrocentric theory for the treatment of substance abuse in African Americans. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.
• Schwartz, M. B. (1996). Towards a theory of client-treatment matching for obesity: A study of participants in Overeaters Anonymous and Jenny Craig. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.
• Sloan, H. P. I. (1999). God imagery and emergent spirituality in early recovery from chemical dependency: Ana-Maria Rizzuto and the Alcoholics Anonymous Twelve Steps. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences.
• Spears, G. E. (2000). An historical and theological analysis of the Twelve-Step process of human recovery. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences.
• Stiles, S. (2001). A psychological study of addicts/alcoholics in twelve-step programs with possible underlying DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II disorders as measured by the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.
• Vowels, Y. M. (1995). Toward a third wave feminist revolution: Feminists, Buddhists, and 12 Step practitioners encountering difference. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences.
• Walker, C. A. (2004). Treating chemical dependency using the 12-steps, buddhism, and complementary therapies. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.
• Washington, F. A. (2006). The relationship among rumination and distraction in pathological gamblers. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.
• White, J. E. (1999). An analytical study on treating drug and alcohol addiction: Evaluating alternative recovery protocols. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.
• White, J. M. (1998). Psychosocial correlates of 12-step-based recovery from substance abuse. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.
• Wolfe, D. B. (1997). The turning point in committing to a twelve step recovery program for sexual addiction: Is there a spiritual awakening experience? A phenomenological study. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.
• Young-Hall, G. B. (2001). The addiction recovery experience: Transition to a satisfying sense of meaning-in-life. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences.
• alyers, K. M. (2001). "The capacity to change in an Appalachian 12-step recovery community. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Kronick, D. M. (1998). "Development of an art therapy program to be used in conjunction with Overeaters Anonymous and other twelve step programs". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Jordan, L. C. (1998). "The effects of psychiatric symptomatology on involvement and benefit from self-help in a dually diagnosed sample". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Process referring specifically to addiction recovery

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)

• • Ok, I think I removed the specific inforamtion.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 21:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I might have been a little heavy handed about this. Following WP:UNDUE weight should factor in, and the majority of the research on twelve-step groups is on substance abuse groups. At the same time, there are things about those groups that don't apply to others and could be confusing.

So much of what applies to the effectiveness and processes of Alcoholics Anonymous will almost definitely apply to Cocaine Anonymous, Crystal Meth Anonymous, Marijuana Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous - "The Big Five." But I would not say the same about Methadone Anonymous or even Nicotine Anonymous.

I'm not sure how to best deal with this language and categorization problem, but it would be good to discuss. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to quantify it, but it seems that although the majority of the groups aren't substance abuse groups, in terms of the number of attendees, it's not even close. I've saved those references, and will work them into the other articles soon.User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 23:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... This actually brings up a very important point. For a long time, I've wanted to modify the List of twelve-step groups to include some approximation of size (among other things; founding date problem domain, etc). The only scholarly list published (that I'm aware of) is Klaus Makela's (cited in this article), it was a little outdated by the time the book was printed (1996) and only ranks 13 groups. I've been unable to find this from most of the fellowships, I've been tempted to email some of the fellowships to get a reasonably accurate estimate but they would need to "publish" it someone to be used as a source for this article. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Al-Anon and codependence

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)

Gay

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)

Many Studies on 12 Step Effectiveness Do Not Focus on Those Actually Working The Steps

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)

1) do you have specific criticism of current references? If so, please cite. As listed above, your criticism is vague.

2) Do you have superior WP:RELY references from people who "worked the program"? That would be nice and can be used to refute other material in the article.

Having said that, it is difficult to study the smaller populations less than AAs, or NAs, or OAs, to determine long term recovery. There are probably insufficient quantities.

IMO, given the cost ($0), this program is "economically more efficient". The article may not say this! And my opinion does not count! Psychologists researching this may have an axe to grind (bias) since they make little money off 12-steppers. The latter, however, like the foregoing, requires a WP:RELY reference. My saying it is WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 18:06, 7 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)

It was studied in Overeaters Anonymous, IIRC abstinence was correlated with progress on the 4th and 9th step. -- Scarpy (talk)

Aversion to Reversion

I had thought this respected media documentary to be relevant to the article.

• "The Spirituality of Addiction and Recovery", Speaking of Faith, Public Radio program, May 15, 2008, American Public Media

However, User:Scarpy, without discussion, reverted it out under WP:EL. I still think it deserves merit. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

its placement alone under a subsection provides undue weight of a non-notable documentary (that has not produced any secondary sources). why is this link so important to you? you have placed the same link under numerous articles in 3 different formats without modifying the content of the article otherwise. That radio show originally aired in 2006, more than enough time for secondary sources to pick it up, however since that time it has not been referenced by any scholar in the addiction community.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We disagree, although I read your points. The documentary is -- as you queried "why is this link so important to you?" -- in my opinion, is an excellent, useful, encompassing, conscientious, and from well-respected sources. But there is other work to do. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to this on my talk page. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

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)

External links

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)

I agree with you but for different reasons. Wikipedia has articles on the links that were edited. The links may (or may not) belong in those articles. This is too high a level for these links. But yes, there would be far too many to be of any value. People will simply skip long lists of links. Student7 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

30 links is silly. We're here to write encyclopedic content, not to draft up link directories. No thank you. Kuru ^talk 22:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is one item that makes an external link section unnecessary on this page--List of twelve-step groups. But how you convey that information to the reader may be difficult, as everyone who uses Wikipedia looks for an external link section--at least I do. Perhaps a way accomplish this would be to have a external link heading on this page with a note, something like: "(Note--External links are presented on individual sites included in the following list: List of twelve-step groups.)" Maybe there are more creative ways to accomplish this, but unless some explanation is made, editors will constantly be trying to add external links to this page. Pinethicket (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

History

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 history of the 12 steps comes from Bill Wilson who was inspired by the 6 steps of the Oxford group.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The article on the Buchman you are looking for is here Frank_N._D._BuchmanTjc (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is on the "Twelve-step program" not the "twelve steps" per se. So the program history is relevant. Student7 (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this is covered in the History of Alcoholics Anonymous article, which is pretty good. I would be very interested to see, however, something like a time-line of twelve-step programs here, something about the order and areas they were founded. I think there's even wikipedia templates for stuff like that to make it easier. -- Scarpy (talk)

Anonymity

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)

I'm not 100% sure what statement you're talking about. If you mean the Confidentiality section, I don't think there is an argument that can be made based on WP:TOPIC, as it is on the topic of twelve-step programs. There is maybe an argument to be made based on weight and balance. As far as I know it is the only article on twelve-step programs and the law as it relates to confidentiality, but I also do not think that it is given undue weight in the article. I would think expanding it passed the length that it is now would probably be giving it undue weight.

I would also argue, as I did when a few people wanted to remove the information on "thirteenth stepping," that this is precisely the kind of thing that should be in the article. It is information backed up by a reliable source, that is not well-known and going in to AA or other twelve-step meetings armed with it can only make the experience better for all of the people involved. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

But "thirteenth stepping" is about something that allegedly occurred, not about something that was supposedly missing. 12-step programs omit wet-bars, swimming pools, cigarette girls, etc. The latter is not appropriate because someone thinks that they should be there and aren't. There would be a long list of "nots". Which is one of the reasons we have a WP:TOPIC requirement. Student7 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If there not peer-reviewed literature documenting 12-step programs omission of wet-bars, swimming pools and cigarette girls, this it's not a relevant comparison. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And that is why the lack of something can't be documented. How do you inventory something that isn't there? What makes the WP:RELY source think it should be there? If I find someone who thinks spas should be there, that, IMO, would rather cast doubt on their reliability. Deliberate inventorying of something that isn't there tends to be WP:POV. The Democrats aren't fiscally responsible. The Republicans aren't socially aware. It is rather deliberately pov to inventory what someone decides is missing. Student7 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "lack of something." What it is doing is making a distinction between statues enforcing confidentiality and tradition of anonymity practiced in twelve-step groups. It's not saying "twelve-step groups lack this" it's saying, "this may sound like that, but this is a slightly different concept." Even if it was discussing something that twelve-step groups "lack," the only argument you're making for it is that some other are articles "more on topic" (e.g. aren't written the way you think this one is, like a variation on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST).

Wikipedia articles should be based primarily on reliable sources on their topic (WP:V). Information in the article should be in proportion to what's in the scholarly literature (WP:WEIGHT). That is how to avoid POV with scholarly sources, you don't given them undue weight in the article. I'm at the point where I'm repeating other things I've said before. Unless another editor wants to chime in, I think it's time for a WP:3O. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO this section is necessary for clarifying the concept of confidentiality. It is not creating an issue by identifying something that doesn't actually pertain to twelve step groups, but rather identifies a conversation that is occurring between the literature that is cited and also directly shapes the identity of twelve step groups. twelve step groups have a concept of confidentiality that is similar to legal, medical, and religious forms of confidentiality but lacks the social and legal mechanisms of enforcement. The confusion between these two forms of confidentiality have caused problems in the past, and while individual judges have ruled that 12 step confidentiality bars evidence within courtrooms, there is no law directly enforcing that opinion. this section does not artificially create a problem or a point of view, but gives due weight to a concept that is directly related to the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Taking the medical analogy, one might say that "medical procedure x exists" and explain it. One would not say that "this procedure won't cure warts" or whatever. The procedure is explained as far as it goes. We don't explain what it doesn't do (which is a lot) because it doesn't do a lot of things. If we explained in every article what the person or event or club or whatever wasn't, we would have very long articles that no one would want to read.

It seems defensive and does not present the group in its best light, which all groups/articles deserves to be presented in. It isn't group therapy either. But we can't say this either because it isn't a negative inventory.

I spend a lot of time explaining to editors of place articles that "town x doesn't have a professional soccer team" is not an appropriate entry. We list what the town has and leave it at that. Student7 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thought - rewording them as criticism (oddly enough) may solve the problem. It can be presented as criticism rather than "useful information that an editor thinks the reader should have." That would make a difference IMO. Student7 (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to present all groups in their "best light" (see WP:NPOV). Criticism should be integrated in to the relevant parts of the article (see WP:NOCRIT). If there were several scholarly peer-reviewed articles going in to detail about why a specific town does not have a soccer team, that would be appropriate material for Wikipedia (see WP:N). If a medical treatment removed plantar warts but not flat warts and the difference was documented in multiple reliable sources, making a distinction to explain the treatment's scope would be important, encyclopedic, and on topic. -- Scarpy (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little more, I don't at all see how it could be phrased as a criticism. I can't think of a single advantage to legally enforcing confidentially in twelve-step groups. It would require some kind of record keeping of meeting attendance, and that would be antithetical to the anonymity principle desired. Then what? You have a system supporting litigious members that have other members jailed or fined. It's actually really nice the way it is. -- Scarpy (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Scarpy may be right.

The paragraph now reads: "This is a group norm,[36] however, and not legally mandated; there are no legal consequences to discourage those attending twelve-step groups from revealing information disclosed during meetings.[37] Statutes on group therapy do not encompass those associations that lack a professional therapist or clergyman to whom confidentiality and privilege might apply. Professionals and paraprofessionals who refer patients to these groups, to avoid both civil liability and licensure problems, have been advised that they should alert their patients that, at any time, their statements made in meetings may be disclosed.[37]"

So this isn't a negative inventory, I would word this to say: "Professional have expressed concern that vulnerable clients may expect enforcement or group sanction for breaking anonymity. This would seem threatening to a patient, vulnerable to this sort of thing.(ref)(ref)"

My rephrasing is not that well-worded, but you get the idea. This prevents someone else from finding something else "missing" and inventorying that as well. Reliable criticism is reportable; negative inventory is not. Student7 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mental

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)

1500 Years of 12 Steps?

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)

Broken Link

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)

Does it work?

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)

This isn't really a necessary point to make unless you are trying to add a "counter-argument" section, a section on the effectiveness of the program, or you are trying to add to other sections with arguments against the tenants outlined in the article itself. As-is the article is about the organization and its operating procedures, beliefs, and tenants, etc. rather than its effectiveness. It's a very accurate representation of this, as far as I am able to tell, and has no obvious spin to it. Pretty much all of this is straight out of the "Big Book" itself, and though I have no personal investment in defending it, its necessary for Wikipedia to have factual information for one article without extraneous information that could be placed elsewhere, or added to a sub-section. Your point on its effectiveness is valid if a new sub-section was added about this topic and represented on all sides.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.199.219 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The word you are grasping for is "tenets".68.208.127.241 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Apparently erroneous claim that Bill W. considered adding LSD thirteenth step

As best I can tell, the following text: “After a transcendent experience while under the influence of LSD, Bill Wilson considered adding an additional, thirteenth step which incorporated maintenance usage of LSD. However, he was dissuaded from doing so by Aldous Huxley” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twelve-step_program&diff=518867880&oldid=517958511 appears not to be supported by the three references cited (Francis Hartigan Bill Wilson p. 177-179; Pass It On': The Story of Bill Wilson and How the A. A. Message Reached the World. p. 370-371; Bill Wilson "The Best of Bill: Reflections on Faith, Fear, Honesty, Humility, and Love" p. 94-95.)

Bill Wilson was a spiritual explorer, corresponded with Aldous Huxley, did argue for the potential utility of LSD in treatment of alcoholics, and experimented with LSD himself. However, I can find no reference to a potential thirteenth step from which he was dissuaded by Huxley. A fairly extensive discussion of some of this material (including excerpts from archival letters) can be found in: Don Lattin (September 2012) Distilled Spirits -- Getting High, Then Sober, with a Famous Writer, a Forgotten Philosopher, and a Hopeless Drunk University of California Press. If an appropriate citation for the “thirteenth step” claim exists, please provide a link or source plus relevant corroborating excerpt on this talk page. Thanks. Eurytemora (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

12 steps as derived from or influenced by Oxford Group

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)

Effectiveness of being sponsored

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)

Insufficient evidence-based support

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)

Agree that article should include that type of information. There may not have been a lot of studies and they may be old. The one I heard for AA was taken probably in the last century. It estimated that 3% of alcoholics ever tried the problem. Out of those, half were successful. I do not have a citation. I think there was one for OA as well. I strongly suspect that the other twelve step groups just aren't large enough to justify a comprehensive study. If we can find these two, I think for this level article, all we can say is that many of those who might be eligible for 12-step groups do not try them. Of those that do, a plurality do not obtain relief from their problem. I doubt there is a study on "all" the twelve step programs. Just covers too much and the challenges in each are quite different. No one ever claimed that the challenges of each group were comparable. Student7 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientific American. Not sure they had a control group for all their studies. Just AA. See Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous. Just for AA again.

VA covers substance groups. Some groups are "behavior" groups like CODA and Al-anon.

NY Times is worldwide but is a tertiary source not a secondary one and does not have control groups. Is quite negative about 12-steps.

NIH is positive about the groups but does raise the issue of high attrition rates. Student7 (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, so what is the proper way to deal with something which is just plain wrong? Eg: Twelve-Step philosophy labeled as cults

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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:

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

In cults, one is encouraged to associate only with other cult members. This is partly true but only for alcoholics who have only associated with other drunks. But no further than that.

They are encouraged to "return" to the church of their choice (in a day when everyone was presumed to have once belonged to a church); to obtain "medical" help if necessary; psychiatric help where necessary. The 12-step hold on any individual is tenuous, at best, as explained above. The spiritual program is loosely laid out to include an undefined "Higher Power," to avoid slighting disbelievers.

Like in "cult" films, people may self-identify/admire the founders, make "pilgrimages" to their graves, read their biographies. This is not particularly promoted by AA, but certainly condoned.

Attendance at meetings is encouraged. That is pretty much it. If (and only if) a visiting prospect has left his phone number with someone, will he be contacted. Many people visit and never talk to anyone. Prospects (as well as members) have "relationship" problems lifelong. Not making any contact with people who might be of some help would be typical of that problem. But the point is that information is not coerced out of attendees. Student7 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the spirit of the previous comment

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)

Do either of you have published mainstream academic sources to cite? That's what matters, not previous anecdotal experience or personal review and interpretation of existing sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you know that "published mainstream academic sources" is not the definition of RS, and it is not the standard for anything here in WP. You might also know that such sources could not be taken as reliable academic scholarship because 12-Step programs cannot be studied formally without violating Traditions 6 & 11. They are anonymous, and no group or "Intergroup" can stand as representative of the whole program. They will not lend their name to any outside enterprise. They attract people rather than press coverage. Studying such an organization or its methodology would be an ethical nightmare because of these written traditions, and none of them would agree anyway. My brother is a psych professor, and he's skeptical for these reasons. My best friend is a member and he has changed his life in a way no one thought possible. I'm a former member of a 12-Step program, and it helped me find a way out of some very self-destructive habits. So there's no empirical data supporting or refuting its efficacy, just heresay from people like me. I can't imagine there's any quality evidence that it's harmful as a whole. Some individual groups, maybe, but not as a whole.

The word "cult" is a tricky one in academics. It has an entirely different meaning than what's in common usage, in the US anyway. Christian theologians will refer to the "cult of Jesus" when talking about early Christians. There is no implication that Jesus had blind followers giving him their kids' college funds or anything. They certainly were not secretive. It just refers to people with an unusual or distinctive set of beliefs - something like that. Dcs002 (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

sponsorship

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)

@99.126.217.49:I believe it's a little bit different for some of the fellowships, but that's a guideline I've heard repeated often. Any particular reason why you ask? - Scarpy (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What's unclear about APA summary?

@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)

Hi Scarpy: I was confined by the limits of the Edit Summary box. “Higher power” needs to be defined prior to its introduction in the APA summary: “Higher Power” and “Power” are celebrated for their ambiguity within the scope of a twelve‑step program, but the ambiguity is duplicitous or obfuscatory when AA’s eponymous book, also sourced in this article, says that He is God.

@LLarson: higher power, okay, there would be value to defining this outside of the APA summary. Removing the clarification tags around "errors" and "past errors" which still strikes me as ridiculously pedantic. "Errors" are not twelve-step specific terminology, and we have to assume our English-speaking readers know basic English words like "error." - Scarpy (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with implies as in “Completing the Twelve Steps implies being competent to sponsor newcomers in recovery”^[5] is manifold: the source doesn’t say that; the source is a pamphlet published by the non‑NPOV organization that this article is attempting to describe; and the pamphlet actually says both that a sponsor must only have “made some progress”; but that no working of steps was required for the founders to begin sponsoring.

Thanks, —LLarson (said & done) 20:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of circumstances where self-published sources are acceptable, but agree that the citation does not directly support the material. - Scarpy (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Further reading" section

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)

Sources

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)

I particulary enjoyed the silkworth reference with the "OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE OF SEAMEN"

I notice that neither the 12 traditions nor the weekly meetings are included in "the program" Dougmcdonell (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The 12 steps is half a program

@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)

@Dougmcdonell:The topic we are discussing here is what does the phrase "12 Step Program" mean? I think we need to just find some sources and cite them, we could dialogue forever..... I have begun researching this and adding it in.

I would agree that most people think of and write about a 12 Step Program as- both working the steps and going to meetings.

With that said, one source, the AA Big Book says, "Here are the steps we took, which are suggested as a program of recovery," with no reference to meetings or the traditions. Sethie (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Did some work, I think your point is well taken, we just need to find some sources which describe exactly what is a "Twelve Step Program." Sethie (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sethie:You might be in unfamiliar territory here, you have used a medical article as a reference for spirituality. Further on the topic of reliable references being very difficult, a group does not exercise authority over how individuals work their own program. In terms of how the group functions, there is no authority outside of a group, as the groups are instructed to follow their own group conscience, this is covered by traditions 2, 4 and 9. So while an organization such as aa.org frequently provide support to group members by providing literature, meeting locators etc., they are not in a position of authority and do not govern how the program works in AA groups. No fellowship is in a position to define other twelve step programs in any detail.

A simple description that does apply to all programs is found at List_of_twelve-step_groups#Programs_patterned_after_Alcoholics_Anonymous Fellowships in this section follow reasonably close variations of the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous, it has read that way since 2008. A good description of this is found here[8], "It lays out the principles by which AA members recover and by which the fellowship functions." The information is all in the article already, just not in the lead, maybe it sounds too simple to be a complete program. It may be difficult to comprehend a worldwide movement guided by twenty-four basic principles, with no leaders and no detailed instructions, that's the way it is. If you think you have a reliable reference that goes beyond describing the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, then you will be outside the definition of a Twelve step program. Dougmcdonell (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you are saying about what a "12 Step Program" is.

I am saying- let's find reliable sources that back what you are saying. That sentence you quote is unsourced in the article.... it being there since 2008 doesn't give it any weight at all.

I will say that I am not enjoying such statements as "You may be in unfamiliar territory here" and "It may be difficult to comprehend a worldwide movement guided by twenty-four basic principles." No I am not unfamiliar, and no it is not hard to comprehend.

I took what you wrote, and began finding sources to back it. I like and agree with what you are saying, and as time permits, will find more ways to source it.Sethie (talk) 02:52, 25 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)

Yes, thanks for the reminder, service is part of the program. I mentioned the meetings and traditions as GIANT glaring omissions but you're right, there is more missing here. Dougmcdonell (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

We have an entire article on the Twelve Traditions. The problem with the Concepts is that they vary quiet a bit from fellowship to fellowship, so including them in a general form here would be misleading. The Steps very a bit too, but this is mostly covered in the article on the List of Twelve Step alternate wordings. - Scarpy (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Scarpy, when I compare 12 tradition wording between AA and NA I get - replace AA with NA, replace alcoholic with addict, and replace drinking with using. Are those three changes what you're referring to when you say "they vary quiet a bit" or are you thinking of something else?

The list of Programs_patterned_after_Alcoholics_Anonymous is by definition "reasonably close variations of the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions" and I'm unaware of any change in wording by the groups on that list that alters the meaning such that it is "misleading". If you have an example of that, I'd be interested. I'm assuming that you're against mentioning anything other than the 12 steps in the lead, I see that approach as a complete failure even to outline a program. The lack of a program description is an issue on wiki because of groups that use some the twelve steps but not the 12 traditions like Gamblers Anonymous and Celebrate Recovery, neither one is using the "12 step program". Dougmcdonell (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

To clarify - the points I'm responding to are (1) there is a "GIANT glaring omission" of the Twelve Traditions, which is not true because they have their own article; (2) that the Concepts are an omission, they're not included in the article on Twelve Step programs because they there is more variation between the Concepts used by the organizations that use them than the Steps or the Traditions. - Scarpy (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Anonymity

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)

@24.228.226.164: this is a fair point, the best approach would be to find something meeting WP:RS to use as a source for this. - Scarpy (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Marked Dubious in August 2020

"In twelve-step fellowships, "spiritual awakening" is believed to most frequently develop slowly over a period of time."

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)

Hopping 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)

Scarpy How do we know what millions of people in 12-step programs believe or don't believe? The only source listed for this statement is a book written in 1939, so the one source is over 80 years old. In general, this article has an RS problem. The "Big Book" was a book written about 100 individual people living in the 1930s. The BigBook is not a reliable source to describe the situation in 2020, i.e. millions of people involved in dozens of different 12-step programs. It may be a reliable description of where 12-step programs *started* (just AA), but not necessarily what they are today (something much broader). Bryan Hopping ^T 21:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There’s not A claim being made about what millions of people in twelve-step programs believe. You’re shifting the goal posts here. What is citied is the view of AA from which all other twelve-steps are derived. this is of course a primary source but is used appropriately here (I believe that part of it appeared originally in the second edition).

If you want to find new RS for describing how often a spiritual experience is experienced quickly vs. slowly in 2020, be my guest. It strikes me as a bikeshed. - Scarpy (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Taking your points into consideration. Id suggest a statement more like the following: "In the first edition of the the book Alcoholics Anonymous, the spiritual experience is described as sudden and dramatic, however in the 2nd edition appendix the experience is described as more often educational, developing over a period of time." Bryan Hopping ^T 22:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is what AA says. 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]

And this is what the article says 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.

Re-reading and checking the citations on this paragraph now, I believe it could use more sourcing to draw brighter lines between a religious experience vs. spiritual awakening, and the clarify the difference between a spiritual awakening and abreaction. The point made in the Marmor 1980 is a good one 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]

We could leave readers with the mistaken impression that there is a high probability when people go to AA (or a similar twelve-step group) they will have an abrupt "spiritual experience" one day and all of their problems will quickly evaporate. When in reality it will probably be a lot about taking an inventory and doing a lot of work and that will take time. In the context of depression/neurosis Bill made a similar point writing to Ollie. 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

... so in terms of the expectations that AA sets about the process of AA, the probability is higher that it will occur gradually. It reminds me a bit of Bill W.'s experiences with LSD.

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]

Makes me think of some of the more recent work with psilocybin and smoking cessation.[12] But that's another topic...

So, reading again, I do see room for improvement here. But the important point that is that the expectation set is that a spiritual awakening will take work and time, but there are exceptions. We could provisionally say something like...

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)

basic definition

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)

You would need a citations stating 1, 2, 3 (I think you skipped 4), 5 and 6.

To your other point 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)

Scarpy I appreciate your points. Of course I agree everything needs to be sourced properly. My point is that our intro sentence should state most simply what 12-step programs are. I'm suggesting the opening statements should be something more like:

"12 step-program are mutual aid groups organized with the goal of helping members recover from mental and behavioral health problems. Developed in the 1930s, the first 12-step program, called Alcoholics Anonymous, aided its membership to overcome alcohol use disorder (alcoholism). Since that time, over 100(?) other 12-step programs have been developed to address problems as varied as drug addiction, compulsive gambling and depression. All 12 step programs utilize a version of "The 12 Steps" to describe the core pathway to remission from active illness. The APA summarizes the 12-steps thus:" (etc)

Bryan Hopping ^T 22:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

How about "Twelve-step-programs are mutual aid organizations for the purpose of recovery from addiction, compulsion, or other behavioral problems. Developed in the 1930s, the first twelve-step program, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), aided its membership to overcome alcoholism. Since that time dozens of other organizations have been derived from AA's approach to address problems as varied as drug addiction, compulsive gambling and overeating. All twelve-step programs utilize a version of AA's suggested twelve-steps as a program of recovery the American Psychological Association (APA) summarizes them as follows."

Some points here (1) we decided years ago to use "twelve-step" rather than "12-step" and it would be a lot of work to change. (2) AA was not developed to treat alcohol use disorder -- that didn't exist in 1939, and AA still doesn't exist to treat alcohol use disorder. (3) Let's stick to the numbers for notable group (a bar that's already probably too low), outside of AA, NA, Al-Anon and OA, the numbers for other twelve-step groups are vanishingly small. - Scarpy (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

rejoinder

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

Courage International and Homosexuals Anonymous

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.

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)

References

Effectiveness

@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)

My sense looking at the 2017 review is that it's not saying 12-step programs do not work for drug abuse, but that we don't have enough solid evidence to say they work beyond a reasonable doubt. It's similar to where we were with Cochrane in 2006: We couldn't say they don't work, but we couldn't say they work too. Wherever it goes, it should probably be contrasted with the 2020 Cochrane review showing solid evidence AA works for drinking. SkylabField (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure either study belongs here, but I also don't think we can mention the 2017 study showing no results either way without also mentioning the 2020 study showing that AA almost certainly helps alcoholics get abstinent better than other interventions. I don't know where to put both together, but they belong together, so this page will do for now. SkylabField (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)