Talk:Twelve-step program/Archive 2

Archive 1

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)