Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

Skip to table of contents

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 40 days

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

Other talk page banners

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

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 10, 2004, June 10, 2005, June 10, 2006, June 10, 2007, June 10, 2008, June 10, 2010, June 10, 2011, June 10, 2013, and June 10, 2017.

Addictions and recovery High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Addictions and recovery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of addiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Addictions and recoveryWikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryTemplate:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryaddiction and recovery articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Social Work High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirituality Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The 13th step movie redux

As per established consensus, the movie "The 13th step" which has not been once mentioned in any reliable source should not be in this article. Despite this, an editor is adding the content to the article again multiple times in a disruptive fashion. The movie wasn't notable eight years ago, it isn't notable now, and it does not belong in this article. SkylabField (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The talk consensus at Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 9#The 13th step movie

mentions that there are no reliable sources whoch cover this topic.

Yet the most recent update (which has been reverted) includes:

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-alcoholics-anonymous-can-be-a-playground-for-violence.

That article also references

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/the-sober-truth-3/

Those are both reliable sources.

I recommend we allow the reverted content.

ReferenceMan (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The propublica article doesn't appear to mention the movie at all. I declined to watch the video given, and instead looked at the published text article associated with it, which also does not mention the movie at all. Why would these sources lead us to include the movie? To be fair, I only did a ctrl+f search in each article for keywords "13" or "movie". I saw no references to the movie. King keudo (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no reference to the movie in the article: the movie I was released two years later 5ive9teen (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I now understand. The issue is the movie itself is not notable. Not the topic the movie covers. I am happy to close the discussion.ReferenceMan (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the 13th step movie is not notable, I do agree the Karla Brada story is notable enough to have a mention in this article. Note that the lawsuits did get dismissed and AAWS has since then made a safety pamphlet. SkylabField (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has only antidotes with no data presented to show AA as tolerant, as is inferred, of predatory attendees, most likely since none exists. It ignores perhaps the most fundamental aspect of AA: it is an intentional anarchy based on group autonomy, so analogies to Penn State and the Roman Catholic Church are poorly drawn. Also, and no mention of this is made, groups (which the article’s author does not understand as distinct from an AA district or larger entity, such as a national AA association) in the US and elsewhere, because they are autonomous, can and do ban disruptive or dangerous members. The article would make it seem that a group would never do this and has never done so.5ive9teen (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence is run-on

Proposed change:

"Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is a global, peer-led mutual-aid fellowship, founded in the United States, that supports abstinence-based recovery from alcoholism through its spiritually inclined twelve-step program."

Explanation:

The original sentence was a run-on: "Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is a global, peer-led mutual-aid fellowship begun in the United States dedicated to abstinence-based recovery from alcoholism through its spiritually inclined twelve-step program."

It runs together multiple ideas without proper punctuation or separation, making it harder to follow.

Five different factual points (arguably six with mention of mutual aid)

1. AA is a global fellowship

2. AA is peer-led, meaning it is run by individuals recovering from alcoholism.

3. It was founded in the United States

4. Its focus is on abstinence-based recovery from alcoholism.

5. AA’s recovery program is based on a twelve-step process with a spiritual focus. Jumplike23 (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Race of early members

The inclusion of the fact that early members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) were all white in the lead section violates Wikipedia's guidelines. According to the Manual of Style (WP), the lead should only summarize key points discussed in the body. If this fact is not covered prominently in the article's main text, it should not appear in the lead. Additionally, neutral point of view and undue weight policies caution against giving disproportionate emphasis to specific details. Highlighting the racial makeup of early members in the lead gives it undue prominence, which is not central to AA's history or mission. The lead should focus on AA's primary purpose—helping people recover from alcoholism—not secondary details unless they are crucial to understanding the organization. The body has content supporting a woman joining AA in the 1937 and a Black group in 1945. Jumplike23 (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is in the body. The early demographics of AA are significant and crucial to its development. To regard race, perhaps, besides gender and class, the biggest social factor in the US as unimportant is a bias of its own. 5ive9teen (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @5ive9teen where is the race of the early members mentioned in the body of the article? Even still, how is it featured prominently? I believe this is the standard, not whether race is an important social factor. Jumplike23 (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed sentence

The sentence, "Founded in mid-20th-century United States, AA reported over two million members in 2020, with 75% in the U.S. and Canada," is confusing. It starts with information about when and where AA was founded, but then suddenly shifts to membership numbers from 2020 without explaining the connection between the two. Also, saying "United States" before "century" doesn't make sense because it suggests that the 20th century only applies to the U.S. A clearer way to phrase it would be, "Founded in the United States in the mid-20th century." Additionally, the phrase "75% in the U.S. and Canada" is vague since it doesn't clarify whether this percentage refers to all members or just those in these two countries. This disjointed structure and lack of clarity make the sentence hard to understand. Jumplike23 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@5ive9teen please weigh in. The sentence as you continue to edit appears more and more disjointed. Jumplike23 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]