":For what it is worth, people.... 

 :First off, I dont have the time (or energy, or inclination!) to mkae sure this article stays as unbiased as possible.  Annoyingly (for me!) consider this me to be ""bowing out"" of this debate.  If course i will try and keep my hand in, but I think you all understand my opinions of how this article has been edited.  And I think that the fact that I am outnumbered (rather than out-reasonded) is why this article is doomed to have a clear POV for the forseebale future.  Of course, I will be keeping my eyes out for editors with (what I consider...) an NPOV in the future, and shall be supporting them (where appropriate - I like to think that I am not purely an ""anti-AA zealot""...) 

 Secondly, I personally agree with david mack on the subject of ""disease concept of alcoholism"".  Yes, it is an important thing to recognise - equally, it is important to recognise that it is not the final definition.  I don't see why an article on AA should have to state what is and isnt the prevailing view (FYI, the lot of you:  THERE IS NO PRVAILING VIEW!!  Defining addiction/alcoholism is the sort of thing people get phd's for, and is certainly not under wiki's remit...) 

 On David Macks point about the contribution of genes to a disease: homosexuality was defined as a disease until the 70s.  Current medical understanding is that it is more a ""genetic condition"" than a ""learnt behaviour"".  Does this mean that doctors have got homosexuality wrong for the last 30 years?  Is it really a disease?  I hope you see my point.... 

 I'm personally fine with sticking ""reseach critical of AA"" anywhere in the article.  It needs to be expanded.  I am sure no one else will do that, so if I get some time off of work, I will try. 

 The ""what does addiction-as-a-disease mean?"" point sites an article by ALAN I. LESHNER, PHD Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse. Clearly, when you look at the wiki article alone, NIDA, as a source, is questionable both on grounds of Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  I should find a better source than that one. 

 I cant think of worse language than ""widely accepted"".  It certainly isn't in Europe.  It isn't by WHO, it isn't even accepted by all relevant agencies in the USA.  This is misleading information. 

 Please dont think of google as the most reliable source of finding out what is and isn't reliable (similar to using wiki as a ""fountain of all knowledge""). And dont think that mentions of ""more revealed"" (which no one has proven to me is unreliable...) or ""orange papers"" (which may be insubmittable as a source, but is never-the-less incredibly well researched) are reasons to doubt a source.  You might not like them, but I consider that an ""ongoing debate"".  Get hold of the full documents before editing that section, please. 

 Oh, and have found some nice stuff about ""AA as a cult"" on the web.  Am going to try and get it all together for a section under ""controversy and criticism"" over the next week or two (if I have the time).  I assume no one has any objections? 
 

 "