Talk:Women for Sobriety

Comments on November 29, 2008th version
There were a few topics that I avoided when writing this version, they were mostly issues of treating alcoholism in women as I wanted to focus this article specifically on WFS. Articles could easily be written on related topics like Self-in-relation theory. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Content removal

 * Removed several Refs to AA, including one whole section. Left most of it the same. 90.197.125.237 (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue of dual membership is discussed in nearly every peer-reviewed article I read on WFS. Removing it from the article does not give it due weight. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Due weight, in this instance is a subjective term. I also strongly object to the edit summary of "vandalism", as I discussed this in the talk page.  Haven't you had issues with "article ownership" before, scarpy?  I can dig out the discussion and ref to that if you want...  90.197.125.237 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're bringing up three issues that seem to be more or less settled in my mind: 1) Whether or not removal of sourced content from an article is vandalism, 2) if there is enough material on dual member ship to justify it's inclusion in this article, 3) whether or not I have article ownership issues.


 * For the first issue, there are vandalism templates for removal of content from an article (you'll see one on your IPs talk page). I will grant you that it seems to make some exceptions for people who use edit summaries and the talk page. If I knew that you were a regular (it's difficult to tell from anonymous IP addresses with no other edit history), either exopedian or otherwise, I probably wouldn't have used it. My apologies.


 * As far as dual membership is concerned, I agree that due weight is not always cut and dry, but in this case it's very clear. Dual membership and it's correlates, was a major factor studied by Lee Ann Kaskutas and it is mentioned in every article she wrote based on her 1991 survey, including four of them cited in this article (A Road Less Traveled: Choosing the "Women for Sobriety" Program, Pathways to Self-Help Among Women for Sobriety, Predictors of Self Esteem Among Members of Women for Sobriety, What do women get out of self-help? their reasons for attending women for sobriety and alcoholics anonymous). Everything cited in this article compares AA and WFS to some degree. This information is in proportion to it's prominence.


 * I have once been accused, by one editor, of article ownership issues as part of an unrelated ANI. This editor was adding content to the Schizophrenics Anonymous article (I didn't write it the article, and was not the first the revert the changes) based on unreliable sources, added redundant language to the Self-help groups for mental health article, and added an incorrect category and capitalization to the GROW article . In my experience these kinds of disagreements are pretty common, and the accusation was way out of line; as it is in this case.


 * At any rate, I've spent more than an hour on this response, and I'm not interested in further reverting or protracted discussion. If you still disagree with the weight given to dual membership topic, either suggest a compromise or put in a 3O. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * same person, but for some reason my IP seems to be resetting itself. Fine answers.  May put in for 3O soon.   Apologies if the article ownership comment was a bit excessive.  90.192.176.148 (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement needing attribution
The last sentence of the lead says "WFS is not a radical feminist, anti-male, or anti-AA organization." That statement cries out for attribution -- something along the lines of "WFS asserts that it is not..." I can't access the cited source, so I don't know who to attribute it to.

Can someone please fix this? --Orlady (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could try your library? -- Scarpy (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the direct quote from the peer-reviewed journal article by Lee Ann Kaskutas (you'll find the citation following the sentence you are concerned with), here is a direct quote: "Although WFS explicitly addresses women's issues, its program is not radical feminist and it does not present a polemic against men (or against AA)." When you are looking for an author to attribute something to, often you can find it by looking at the footnote following the information. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is WFS Jean Kirkpatrick also Jeane Kirkpatrick?
I'm not sure if this is the same person: - Scarpy (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Scarpy, right, they seem to be different persons, with Jeane being famous but Jean seeming to me also to be wiki-notable. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Same confusion?
I'm 99.9% sure that these are different people. Do you have any citations that would suggest otherwise? - Scarpy (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I simply fixed what looked like a typo, since it linked to Jean Kirkpatrick, which redirects from a misspelling to Jeane Kirkpatrick. I see that you unlinked it and added a comment. Alternatively, one could add a redlink such as &#91;[Jean Kirkpatrick (sociologist)|Jean Kirkpatrick]], to help prevent people from linking it again (the comment explains that it's not Jeane, but someone could still link it without realizing that it redirects there). M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  21:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for contributing to confusion. I put in link to "Jean Kirkpatrick" which I left really thinking it  was a redlink, not a redirect to "Jeane".  Now have re-added/changed link to be to Jean Kirkpatrick (sociologist), and i will create a disambiguation page at Jean Kirkpatrick.  Again I am thinking that Jean Kirkpatrick (sociologist) is notable. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You momentarily contributed to different confusion: when I posted the above, I was sure that Jean Kirkpatrick (sociologist) was red, but it's blue in your post! Of course, I see that you just created that article. Thank you, Doncram, for taking care of all of this! M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  23:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)