Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Narcotics Anonymous

Where's the dispute?
In the section of "opposition to NA" in the contriversies catagory of the article. first three sentences.

What's the dispute?
The original language of the section read: Alcoholics Anonymous does not explicitly prohibit drug use besides alcohol, and according to A.A. literature, "only those with a drinking problem may attend closed meetings.

I edited it to : Alcoholics Anonymous does not explicitly prohibit drug use, nor indeed does it prohibit anything (including drinking). There is however, an implicit understanding that sobriety means abstinence from drugs and alcohol and the vast majority of A.A. members adhere to this definition.

It was then edited back repeatedly to its original form. The original form seems to intimate that A.A. implicitly condones drug use when the verbage of the edited paragraph is much closer to actual aa policy( which neither condones nor prohibits anything) and implicit ideology. I belive the editor is tryign to prove a specific point about AA which is biased, innacurate and not based in neutrality. I request mediation to resolve as the implication is not only baised but could be damaging.

Who is involved?
Involved parties, please sign below:

user id: oaklandfunk mrkasher@gmail.com
 * 2008 Olym pian chit chat 21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Participant's views
2008Olympian: I am surprised to see this has been accepted here as there has been no attempt to get a consensus at the talk page. But since we are here, I will explain my edits. I did not place the original language in the article, but I did revert the changes above. First, neither the original statement nor the replacement are properly sourced. Second, the edit that "nor indeed does [AA] prohibit anything (including drinking)" is incorrect. AA does prohibit drinking by its members. From the Doctor's Opinion in the main text, Alcoholics Anonymous, p. xxx: "The only relief we have to suggest is entire abstinence," and from the third Tradition, p. 562, "The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking" (emphases added).

AA does not address drug use, so the original edit seems to be technically correct. Please see Singleness of Purpose for further clarification. The statement that "There is however, an implicit understanding that sobriety means abstinence from drugs and alcohol and the vast majority of A.A. members adhere to this definition." has no source. If there is any literature that states that, then feel free to add that information. Until then, it is simply original research.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 22:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So if my understanding of your argument is correct, then you prefer the original wording because, while neither of them are sourced, the original is less of a breach of WP:NOR? Firestorm  Talk 22:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is correct. I would also support a decision to remove all of it.  I think that the original wording could be supported, however, with the sources at Singleness of Purpose.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it is a contentious statement and not sourced one way or another, I think the best thing to do would be to remove the statement per WP:V. Firestorm  Talk 02:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There can be no source for whats called an "implicit understanding" as implicit is by its nature, unsourced. but there are droves of coloquilisms to support such an attitude in AA. "I dont take anything that effects me from the neck up" "I dont drink near beer, any more than I smoke near pot" etc. I could cite AA speakers if that helps but thats no more a source than me as an editor.

AA does not prohibit anything. The two quotations from AA literature describe given on this talk page, describe not a prohibition from drinking, but rather a suggestion as to a: how AA is going to be most effective. the doctors opinion uses the word SUGGEST which is clear evidence of a lack of compulsion and B. what the membership requirements are. It should be noted that the only requirement for memeber ship is a DESIRE to stop drinking. Not, in fact, stopping drinking. Were that the case every member of AA who relapsed would be stripped of membership.

The main point is that due to cultural circumstances, emotions run high when it comes to NA and AA describing one another and what might look like WIKI edits are actually agendas couched in bias.

If you want to remove the ENTIRE AA sentance I support that edit but I dont think its accurate as is. Oaklandfunk (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Oaklandfunk (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2008Olympian:Well, suggestions in AA for an alcoholic not to drink are like suggestions not to jump off a 50-foot bridge; you can do it, but it might kill you. Under your interpretation, none of the fellowship prohibit anything: NA does not prohibit drug use, CA cocaine use, etc., as all members of any fellowship have the potential to relapse. I would support removing the prohibition language entirely. See if this is acceptable: I would also change the section title from "Opposition to NA" to "Approaches of other twelve-step groups".-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 06:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found source material that can clear up this discussion here are my NEW proposed edits : Alcoholics Anonymous "is a program for Alcoholics who seek freedom from alcohol" but does refer to "some members AA members who have misused drugs...in such a manner as to become a threat to the achievement and maintenence of sobriety" and mentions that drugs can " create a dependence just as  devestating as dependence on alcohol" however, according to A.A. literature, "only those with a drinking problem may attend closed meetings.

the source for the quotes on drug use(not the attendence of closed meetins policy) are from an AA pamphlet titled "The AA member and other drugs" which is AA confrence approved literature. How shall we proceed? Oaklandfunk (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion
I have removed the contentious sentence entirely, as it wasn't well sourced anyway. I hope this satisfied all parties. Firestorm Talk 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)