Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous
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. |
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, 10Auto-archiving period: 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Race of early members
editThe 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Disputed sentence
editThe 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)
- @5ive9teen please weigh in. The sentence as you continue to edit appears more and more disjointed. Jumplike23 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
AA claims re: spirituality
edit"Although AA claims that spirituality is the primary mechanism for achieving change and recovery ..."
We should include a reference to the AA publication(s) that make this claim. It might be in the cited references, but it would be more persuasive and user-friendly to cite directly to the AA book or pamphlet that makes this claim. (Btw, this is one of those instances where citing to a primary source is appropriate, in contrast to the typical situation in which secondary sources, such as systematic reviews, constitute a more reliable source.)
Does anyone know of such a reference that we could add? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 07:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Lead - describing 12 Steps
editI made an edit (diff) with this edit note: "[seek] to restore aspects of the original text, which was changed in a major revision, not discussed in the talk page, but also to incorporate improvements included in that major revision."
I will add references (citation does not provide much support for the paragraph as it was or as it is now).
Copy edits to improve grammar, syntax, clarity, etc., are welcome, but let's discuss substantial changes to the text here first and reach consensus. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 05:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the changes. I support them. I also supported your removal of that unsourced footnote in body. Jumplike23 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- The IP editing this paragraph has shown they will not engage in the talk page despite multiple efforts above. I am happy to engage on talk page and reach consensus. Jumplike23 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Same here, happy to discuss, but since the anonymous editor storms in periodically to "correct" us, we will probably have to keep reverting their edits until they give up. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 08:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- The IP editing this paragraph has shown they will not engage in the talk page despite multiple efforts above. I am happy to engage on talk page and reach consensus. Jumplike23 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Copy edit request
editJumplike23 and other editors: Please see the edits (diff) I made today and copy edit to improve clarity of expression, grammar, syntax, etc. It's late and my writing is not at its best! Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 08:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)