Talk:Twelve-step program/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Twelve-step program. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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 ^{[citation needed]} 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)

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)