Talk:Oxford House

Notability

There is nothing in this article that indicates the subject meets WP:notability. Mdbrownmsw 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just recently started to expand on the article, which was only a stub. I know it needs alot of work. There has been a 60 Minute piece on Oxford House, and there are thousands of Oxford House's all over the nation housing even more thousands of addicts and alcoholics, so I certainly believe its notable. I'm not trying to make it sound like an advertisment, but at the end of the day Oxford house is infact a buisness, so its going to have some language like that. I know there needs to be more references, I actually live in an Oxford house so most of this is personal knowledge. Since you seem so interested in this article, why not help? Inseeisyou 14:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the notability tag on the basis that there are now a number of sources, including a major university research study, and it is referenced that more than 1000 of these houses exist in the United States and outside. Feel free to discuss.Inseeisyou 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Advert

This article is fairly poorly written. Most of the introduction sounds like ad copy for Oxford House, rather than an actual description. Only after several sentances and a list of rules do we learn that Oxford House is not one "house" but that there are many and they are in the United States.

Mdbrownmsw 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, which parts sound like an advertisment? I didn't see anything marked. Inseeisyou 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As you have not marked anything with the ad tag, nor responded to the reasons for this, I am removing the advert.Inseeisyou 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Tying in somewhat with notability, this article has no sources, other than for the "TRADITIONS", which are copied, verbatum, from Oxford House's manual. Mdbrownmsw 14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As at least one outside source, which I'll try to tie in at some point or others can have a crack at is the DePaul study on Oxford Houses found here: http://www.soberhousing.com/documents/OxfordHouseSummary-DePaulUniversity.pdf I'm sure there is more out there and I'll post as I find them, and try to use them. Additionally, as far as the "Traditions" which are copied verbatum, there is no way to "restate" the 12 traditions, they are going to be verbatum if presented which are a core part of Oxford House. Example would be the "Twelve Step Program" article. Includes the 12 steps "coped verbatum" from the Big Book, obviously.Inseeisyou 19:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the sources tag as there is now 5 sources, 4 of which are not from the Oxford House website. More to come.Inseeisyou 16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Chicago?

I'm sure there is Oxford Houses in Chicago, but Oxford House is a nationwide organization and I'm not sure in what way it falls under "Chicago"? Could someone please explain? Inseeisyou (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

@Inseeisyou: The Oxford House model has been most thoroughly studied by a team of researchers at DePaul University in Chicago. The article isn't in Category:Chicago, but rather is maintained, in part, by the WikiProject Chicago. In general, WikiProjects, like Wikipedians, can work on any page they like. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Rules / (Traditions)

It would help to include a link to the "oxford house rules" page on the official Oxford House site. Specifically, so it can be noted that Oxford's first two rules (traditions) are at odds with each other and do not encourage abstinence. A democratic "majority" of relapsing oxford members can, and often do, vote out the sober individuals who are active in recovery. "Majority rule" by people who actively drink and use while in Oxford housing (over a third) is one of this businesses most scary aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malloywasright (talk • contribs) 08:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Malloywasright (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional Research

I moved some of the references to a new section. By the looks of it, these were added by 140.192.168.71, who did not contribute significantly to the page, so I don't think they are "References". However, I don't think it's typical Wikipedia Style to have an "additional research" section. Ideally, we should be summarizing what the research has shown. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)