Talk:Higher Power/Archive 1

Archive 1

June 2006

there realy isnt a leangthy definition of it. It is quite simple. Members of alcoholics anonymous use this definition for their new members and is a way for people who have no belief in any god to get the most out of the 12 steps.

The term "Higher Power" has much more general connotations that use in AA. I think the definition for it in relation to AA should be a subsection of a main article. Trick 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Early AA groups simply referred to God. Bill and the founders always explained this was the God of the Bible and the same God they had turned to. The original Big Book manuscript makes it clear that "a power greater than ourself" is God. They found; however, that when dealing with atheists (early on in the history of AA) it helped the atheists by using the approach found in the article. Over time, they drifted away and simply began to use the term higher power. A good site to learn about the early history of AA from one of the old timers is http://aa-history.com/

Copyediting

Did some copyediting. Article seems to suck much less now. -- Craigtalbert 04:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sponsor?

Does AA suggest using a sponsor as higher power? Can't find a ref for it. I'm surprised at that if true so I'll change it, change it back if I'm wrong. Thanks. Mr Miles 19:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Higher Power

OK, maybe I'm missing something here... how is a journal report on court hearings OR? (BTW I wanted to apologise for adding a citation needed note to 12 Step programs, it's common over on religion where I mainly edit but it seems like over here it's quite a big deal. I really didn't intend to cause trouble on that one) Dakinijones (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we are having some style-related misunderstandings. For instance, in this paragraph from the Overeaters Anonymous article, you put in {{cn}} tags following the first two sentences.

OA defines compulsion as any "impulse or feeling of being irresistibly driven toward the performance of some irrational action." OA further defines compulsive eating as a progressive, addictive illness, as addiction is depicted in AA's seminal text Alcoholics Anonymous. Much like AA's position on alcoholism, OA believes compulsive overeating is chronic and represents an effort to alleviate psychological stress.

This was strange, since there was a citation and the end of the paragraph supporting all three of the sentences in it. My guess was that you wanted something directly from OA literature, so I gave you one, and put it (redundantly) and the end of the first two sentences. In this article, from the paragraph below, I removed the information not supported by the citation: the first sentence, uncited information I removed the first sentence and the third sentence. The citation was placed in the middle of the second sentence making it unclear what information is was intended to support.

Commentators outside the 12 Steps programs disagree on the nature of a Higher Power. The American Psychology Association reports in its Judicial Notebook of July/August 2004 that although former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating asserted that a Higher Power could be "a dead ancestor, a tall tree or the group itself" courts disagreed with his analysis. A series of state Supreme Court and federal circuit court cases in the 1990's have defined programs based on AA's 12 steps as religious in nature and as a result have ruled that participation in such programs can't be compelled.

The last time I looked, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes indicate that citations should follow, rather than precede, the information they support. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was definitely style-related misunderstandings on the OA page. The way the material was referenced meant I couldn't tell what source particular statements were based on... mainly I was seeking clarification. Lack of experience in this context meant I sought clarification in a way that I'm sure caused you problems, which is why I apologised. In future, I'll come check with you on your talk page or something... if that works for you?

On this page, as far as I'm aware, nothing I wrote was unsupported by the citation. But if you feel that was so, then I'll go find a direct quote from that source to the effect of what I wrote. Dakinijones (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather just keep to following wikipedia's style manuals than have to check with each other every time we make an edit. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean I intended to ask you about MOS questions, I meant simply to ask you directly in those instances where your phraseology and citation made it unclear as to what your source was for a particular statement. If you prefer me to use a note - or some other method of your choosing - I'm happy to do so. We have an unusual situation where one person has authored a number of articles in a hurry. I'm glad you did so as I understand the articles might have disappeared altogether otherwise. However, other people will also need to edit these articles. Sometime we're not going to understand your thinking whilst you wrote them. A note seems a little harsh. I thought to ask you. You don't seem to like that idea. Maybe you'd just prefer me to totally re-write any part whose sourcing I don't understand? Really... I'm happy to do this any way that works for you. Just let me know what it is. Dakinijones (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing unclear about the citation, it followed the information it supported as suggested in style manuals. Writing articles "in a hurry" (whatever that's supposed to mean) doesn't mean that I filled them with original research. In fact, I took care to find and use scholarly sources almost exclusively for all of the information in the articles. This is more than can be said for most articles in wikipedia, including this one. -- Scarpy (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if you thought my use of the phrase "in a hurry" was intended as some kind of slur. I meant simply that it was a matter of some urgency. I think the work you did in such circumstances was outstanding and it's never crossed my mind that any of it was OR. I particularly value the academic sources you have provided since articles of this nature would be of very poor quality without them. However, it's a start-class article, so of course more work remains to be done Dakinijones (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW... what is your objection to mentioning Celebrate Recovery? Dakinijones (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true that in the Celebrate Recovery article it says that Jesus is their only Higher Power. But there is no citation for the "some Christian organizations." If you change the phrase from "has led to criticism from some Christians organisations and Celebrate Recovery" to "has led to criticism from Celebrate Recovery" it would not be original research. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So maybe in future instead of just deleting something you don't like the phrasing of, you could edit it so that we still have the info but in a better form? Removing the whole reference deprived wiki of the material when a simple edit on your part (removing 4 words) would have given us all a better article. Dakinijones (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's better to repeat the citation used in the previous article rather than to have to make someone dig through wikilinks to see if the information is supported elsewhere. More than that, the citation supplied for the information in the Celebrate Recovery article is questionable anyway. It's not Celebrate Recovery literature, it's based on a quote from a CR member that appeared in a news article in the Baptist Press (News with a Christian Perspective). Certainly not an unbiased source, and not high on the list of serials with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I didn't deprive wikipedia of good information, if by good we be supported by a reliable source. What I suggested was a compromise to remove the most problematic language from the sentence. -- Scarpy (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Reliable Sources are publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If can't show evidence of a peer-review process for information on facesandvoicesofrecovery.org and books published by Wisdom Publications, they're not reliable. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well what I wrote wasn't a matter of debate so could stand alone without any sources. Which is why I left the pagan part with a wiki link as source. I presume you have no problem with that? But the Wisdom book is a primary source and not used to argue any point and from what I read at WP:RS that makes it perfectly acceptible. I'm happy to look for a better source for the Islamic part since it's a secondary source... actually, scrap that. I just checked and the article comes from a peer-reviewed professional journal. I'll make that clearer in the reference. Dakinijones (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's not sourced, it's original research, and that's very, very, very bad: WP:NOR. If it's not sourced with a reliable source, that's very, very bad. To prevent pseudoscience from entering wikipedia articles should always be based on reliable sources ArbComm ruled on this over a year ago.

I know you're not happy with me, and I know I seem like the bad guy ruining your work on the Higher Power article, but I've been around wikipedia for a long time now and been in dozens of similar discussions before (in the beginning, on the same end that you're on now). The quality of where we get our information from matters.

You'll find that getting to reliable sources is not nearly as difficult as you think. Start getting familiar with Google Scholar and Google News Archive, but stop using Google's web search to find sources. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the sources I cited are reliable by the definitions you pointed me towards. Dakinijones (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I will grant you that I was wrong about the particular article hosted on facesandvoicesofrecovery.org, in this cases they were hosting documented from a peer-reviewed magazine. Counselor is even cited a few times in actual journals. Generally it is not true of content hosted on their cite. I apologize for jumping to conclusions in these case. But...

The book you've cited as a source to document organized efforts of Buddhists to adapt the Twelve Steps is not a reliable source (it's publisher does not peer-review), and it doesn't document what the paragraph implies that it does (some kind of concerted effort of Buddhists to adapt the Twelve Steps to particularly Buddhist fellowship). The article from Counselor says nothing about Muslims trying to create their own Twelve Step program for addiction. Not to mention the entire paragraph is compromised by weasel words (e.g. "such as," "some", etc). There is no real point to the information in the paragraph, is it trying to imply twelve-step groups are useful to convert non-believers in believers of any faith?

It looks like this was done it reverse. Rather than researching scholarly literature on the Higher Power concept and summarizing it, you wrote something about how you understood it and then looked for citations to support it. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a primary source recording the fact that some Buddhists have adapted the 12 Steps for their particular spiritual perspective. It does not interpret and therefore does not need to be peer-reviewed. See WP:RS. For the rest, do feel free to copyedit my phraseology so we get a better article. Dakinijones (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Only in specific contexts, and this is not one of them. The book does not support what you're trying to say. If you used it to cite that one particular Buddhist woman reconciled Buddhism and the Twelve Steps and it was a good experience for her, then that would be one thing. You're using it to imply that Buddhists have adapted the Twelve Steps to make their own program.

I'm putting in a request for a third opinion. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's not what I'm trying to imply. If you feel that is how the page will be read, please feel free to edit the text so that it doesn't Dakinijones (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the 3O editors closed thinking that it was resolved: [1]. This article is about a neologism to begin with, this particular section really just shows to confusion over it. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to argue additionally for it's adaptation by Catholics: [2]. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Higher Power or "higher power"

I note that "higher power" is usually capitalized in this article (except for the quote from W.). Why is that? There is no God-like singular Higher Power, but many many higher powers. Maybe there is some convention that I am not aware of. Thanks.Desoto10 (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In 12 Step circles the convention is generally capitalization (see Big Book quotes). For many 12 Steppers, HP is interchangeable with God... and yet allows those who aren't believers in a single God figure to be included without having to ascribe to such a God. It's a piece of multivalent jargon and its very ambiguity has ensured its usefulness and increasing popularity. Only wish I had a source to quote for it ;-) For now, that ambiguity is simply reflected in the varying perspectives on the page. --Dakinijones (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The elaboration on God in the introduction--"God Almighty, the God and power of the universe, the God of Heaven, watching over our earthly domain with awaited availability, and strength availed to any who request it."--is definitely not appropriate to an encyclopedia article. If it's a quote from recovery literature it should be indicated as such. PurpleChez (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Higher Power Cleanup

I would like to assist in the cleanup of this page but am not entirely sure where to begin (which perhaps means I shouldn't be adding to it or changing it!). The references to AA literature seem quite legitimate and correct - perhaps more could be added under a "Use/ Higher Power in Practice" sort of heading, examining the use and purpose of a Higher Power in 12 step programs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaelraitha (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd start with the odd capitalization: by converting every instance of "Higher Power" (other than in quotations) to "higher power" and continue by moving the article to "Higher power". -- Hoary (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not odd capitalization, it's how it appears in nearly all the references that discuss the concept. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Then they're odd too. If I'm a believer, then "God" (so capitalized); but in discussion of the status or role of this or that among the competing gods, "a god". The "River Thames", but "a river"; "the Trinity" (if the context makes this a proper noun), but "a trinity" of something or other. Plus MoS seems to advocate lowercase. ¶ But in view of the existence of "Higher Power (seaQuest DSV)" etc, this should instead be "Higher power (theology)" or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That is true in most cases, but there are exceptions. See relevant discussion on a similar topic here: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 August 17#Change capitalization of article. Scarpy (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the parallel. There, you have a fixed number of something, as defined in some book or tradition. Thus the "Ten Commandments" aren't just any old list of commandments; they're a particular list of a particular ten. By contrast, here it seems we have any old higher power. ¶ Capitalization aside, it seems not much more than a dicdef; while Higher Power (seaQuest DSV) is profoundly uninteresting to me, it's already longer and is actually about something. So it's not at all clear that "Higher power" (however capitalized) should go to the article on this odd term rather than to a disambiguation page. -- Hoary (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You can put in a WP:3O if you'd like. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done so. -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: I've tried looking at the references, but they all seem to be dead or otherwise inaccessible. I think the answer here is to go based on how the AA writes it. If the AA literature itself says "Higher Power", then go with that. If this was an article talking about the general concept of a "higher power", then I would say the lowercase one is correct. As to outside sources: this LATimes opinion has it capitalized, and so does this press release about a treatment center; this court case has it lowercase, as does this Wired article about AA. Since you guys seem to have access to the sources, can you tell me what they say? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to any of the cited sources to which links are broken. I do have Wendy Kaminer's I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional, which says e.g. "The religiosity of the recovery movement is evident in its rhetorical appeals to a higher power and in the evangelical fervor of its disciples" (p.3, my italics). -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But she's just an author, right? I guess I'm looking for what could be considered canon - the actual text used by AA. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But the actual text used by Sanyo and Sony is "SANYO" and "SONY" respectively, and we rightly ignore this. -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but this isn't a company; this is a term used by an organization. WP:LOWERCASE says "Use lower case, except for proper names". I was trying to figure out if AA uses "higher power" as a proper name, but that seems increasingly unlikely. To that end, I would say "Higher power" would be more appropriate here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The "King James" bible talks (here) of "Prophets", "Psalmes" (sic) and "Scriptures" (all so capitalized), but see Prophets of Christianity (using "prophet"), Psalms (mostly using "Psalm" but some "psalm"), and Scripture (using "scripture"). Of course capitalization was used a lot more 400 years ago than it is now (and that bible was old fashioned even when new), but my impression is that religious and quasi-religious writing in English likes unneeded capitalization. However, WP should be a neutral encyclopedia, and should not dole out capitals according to others' idiosyncratic practices. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

COAHP - The Church of a Higher Power

The Church Of A Higher Power, otherwise known as COAHP.com was founded by the Rev. Robert Dean and believes that all religions have something to offer. It is a nondenominational church that does not ask anybody to give up their personal beliefs only. but rather,open their mind to the goodness in all religions and the believe that no higher power would want war, starvation, and the belief that we can all COAHP with what life deals us. Our effort combines the best of all religions in an effort to bring peace in our day. Volunteers are very welcome, and we ask all our constituents look at it for its positive benefits, rather then dispute the pros and cons of any one religion. Donations can be made to COAHP.com, 4434 Paris Pike, Lexington, Ky. 40511. For information, call Rev. Robert Dean at 859-425-0000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.191.25.67 (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

COAHP - The Chirch Of A Higher Power

The church of a higher power (COAHP.com) was founded by the Rev. Robert Dean Griimm, jr., in 2001. The goal of the church is to encourage people to look outside of thier religious upbringing and educate them on the pros and cons of different religions so that we can all live as citizens of the world. Membership is open to all, and it is our goal to get many people involved and help us bring about peace, through change, for the sake of the future. Everyone is asked to participate in the formation of a church that allows everybody to think openly and find the best in each religion, in an effort to bring about world unity. Contributions, your personal expertise and guidance, by teaching others to follow the path and help us lead the way, is needed. Do something that will bring about even the slightest change in a noble effort to bring about peace and spirituality throughout the universe in our day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.17.112 (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Higher Power concept in other twelve-step programs

Why is the "citation needed" tag necessary? It's well-known that the same model is used in all substance dependence counselling 12-step programs, and this is seen in their respective articles.

Bomb319 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Term was coined well before AA and William James

Looking at results from Google's ngram search, the term appears to have been used in a sense similar to AA's since as early as 1632. A lot of work needs to be done on this article. :/ - Scarpy (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Citations needed because the claim to"higher power" as "coined" by AA is ridiculous

As noted by earlier comment....takes all of 2 minutes to verify.

75.166.203.122 (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Higher Power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160427100651/http://www.nacronline.com/wordpress/67/god-as-we-understood-him-too-christian-or-not-christian-enough to http://www.nacronline.com/wordpress/67/god-as-we-understood-him-too-christian-or-not-christian-enough

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)