Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-26/narcotics anonymous

Where is the dispute?
Under Narcotics Anonymous, the section titled "Development of NA Literature"

Who is involved?
Seems to be Wookie in Heat mostly, with some help from Coffee Pusher
 * User:Wookie in Heat
 * User:Coffee Pusher

What is the dispute?
As a long term member of Narcotics Anonymous, I am painfully and personally aware of the great controversy over the question as to who the real owners of the literature were. The courts decided that the members are, and I have posted an absolutely factual narrative about the court case itself, as well as the outcome. I included links to the "official" NA web site, directly to the document they have posted there, that explains that the NA groups have the legal right to print their own literature, since they are the rightful owners.

Some members do not like this information to be disseminated. That does not change the fact that the information is factual. I recently inserted the following text (after the third paragraph, which begins "Professional editors...", only to have it deleted:

'''Two of the most troubling changes in the 5th edition, that resulted in much controversy, involved the language of the 4th and 9th traditions. What many long standing members of Narcotics Anonymous found to be most egregious among the alterations was one deletion in particular. The earlier version, which had been approved by the fellowship as a whole, read in reference to the service boards and committees that could be created to serve the needs of the fellowship, that "none of them has the power to rule, censor, decide or dictate." This line was deleted in its entirety. The line immediately following that read, in the earlier, approved edition "They exist solely to serve the fellowship, but they are not a part of Narcotics Anonymous." It was altered, eliminating the second part, removing the phrase "but they are not a part of Narcotics Anonymous."

'''Many members saw this as a warning of things to come, and started printing their own basic texts, using the earlier edition. This caused great controversy within the fellowship. Prominent among those printing what came to be knows as "Baby Blue" basic texts was Dave Moorhead. Eventually the World Service Office (WSO) filed a lawsuit against Dave, known more commonly as "Grateful Dave". This lawsuit led to a ruling that clarified that the true owners of the Basic Text were the members of the fellowship and not the WSO. The WSO was defined as the "trustee" of that asset, holding that trust on behalf of the true owners.'''

'''This led to the creation of the Fellowship Intellectual Property Trust (FIPT) document. This document covers a number of copyrighted and trademarked materials in addition to the Basic Text. Bulletin 4 clearly states that NA groups have full legal authority to print their own literature, as long as the group feels it has "a clear need to do so", and that "no advance permission is needed to do so."

Note: direct links were included for both the FIPT in its entirety, and for bulletin 4, both going to the "official" NA web site at www.na.org

What would you like to change about this?
Since this information is absolutely factual, and verifiable, I would like to find a way for the information to remain in the entry for "Narcotics Anonymous".

I also object strongly to the reference to the information I added as being "vandalism". Just because some individuals don't like that part of NA's history does not mean it didn't happen, and reporting it in Wikipedia is no more an act of vandalism than it would be to mention human slavery in the entry for United States History.

Continuing the slavery analogy, many members of NA would just as soon not acknowledge this, what many of us consider to be the darkest days of our history, but it happened nonetheless. The court case itself has a full transcript available to anyone with access to the legal database -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WORLD SERVICE OFFICE, INC VS DAVID MOORHEAD

CIVIL ACTION NO. 90-7631

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Filed in December of 1990, Judge Louis Pollack

How do you think we can help?
I don't really know what tools you have available to you. Page Protection of some sort would be great.

I, and many other members of Narcotics Anonymous that are in long term recovery, would be happy to provide as much verification as needed.

Administrative notes
I am declining this case; there appears to be no attempt to discuss the issues with the other editors involved.
 * For the Mediation Cabal,'' The Wordsmith Communicate 18:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)