Talk:Emotions Anonymous

Neurotics Anonymous Information in English

• http://www.neuroticosanonimosbv.org.mx/Menui.htm (from Mexican/Spanish site)
• http://www.neuroticosanonimos.org.br (from Brazilian/Portuguese site)
• http://www.neuroticosanonimossp.kit.net (from Brazilian/Portuguese site)
• http://www.neuroticos-anonimos.org.mx (from Mexican/Spanish site)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarpy (talk • contribs) 06:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Emotions Anonymous/Neurotics Anonymous/Emotional Health Anonymous confusion

I am no expert in this area, I happened upon this page via the Na disambiguation page, but I find this article confusing.

• Are Neurotics Anonymous and Emotional Health Anonymous still existing organisations? (apparently so, based on the history, but not clear from the introduction -- "is a predecessor of EA" in particular is confusing
• Is "organisation" the right word, particularly relating to NA/EHA, which from the history appear to be loose groups or organisations (plural) linked by little more than the 12-step plan? Is there a central co-ordinating body for any of the three?
• Are these groups really related any more closely than dealing with a similar function?
  • The text states that the EHA was created independently, in which case why is it on a page entitled Emotions Anonymous?
    • If these really are separate organisations, then I would suggest moving the page to "Emotional health support organisations" or similar (again, I'm no expert) ;)

Apologies if I've missed clarification on these issues during my scan of the text, but the answers to my questions are not immediately clear to me - Playclever (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this article might be better named something like "Twelve-step programs for mental health," sort of like Self-help groups for mental health. Or maybe spin off separate ones for NAIL and EHA. I wrote it before I knew better. It's been on my mind, buy I've been working on other articles.

They are separate organizations, although they're for the same set of problems and their histories are intertwined. Not to mention the parts of the world they operate in are almost mutually exclusive (if NAIL is somewhere EA is probably not there, and if EA is there NAIL probably isn't), the meetings are in different languages (EA meetings in America are usually English-speaking where as NAIL meetings are Spanish-speaking - although it didn't start out that way).

On the other hand, this becomes a little less complicated of EHA is removed from the equation, and there really aren't enough articles (I think) to justify an article on it's own.... I don't know. It's on my backburner, but if you want to work on it a little with or without me, that would be cool. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've split Neurotics Anonymous in to it's own article... Just took awhile. :) @Playclever: Scarpy (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Origin of Just for Todays

In the article it current says EA uses a modified version of Al-Anon's Just for Todays, but while updating some dead links I came across an article digging in to the origin of this list. It looks like it was originally published in the Boston Globe in 1921 and they were written by a man named Frank Crane. Article investigating the origins here: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/26/just-for-today/

I'm not sure when Al-Anon started using these, although they do, (see links on the published on New Hampshire Al-Anon page and District 5 Al-Anon page for examples). The issue is EA may have incorporated these from Al-Anon or they might have done it independently, or Al-Anon might have incorporated them after EA started using them. So, giving this a second look now, I'd have to say the claim of EA adopting/modifying these from Al-Anon, while likely, is WP:SYN until other sources can be produced. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Reminders

@Emotions Anonymous: please remember that content on Wikipedia should be supported by a reliable source as described in the Wikipedia guidelines in WP:RS and that self-published sources (as described in the guidelines WP:SPS should be used sparingly). You may also want to re-familiarize yourself with the WP:COI (conflict of interest) guidelines. - Scarpy (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)