Talk:Co-Dependents Anonymous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Co-Dependents Anonymous article.
Article policies


[edit] (re)New article / Process Addiction

Thanks to Craigtalbert for recreating this article after its deletion by User:Coelacan. It's too bad we can't restore the original talk page too.

One question: is the "process addiction" model the same as the "Life-process model of addiction"? A reference is needed.

— DavidMack 23:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The term is explained on page 105 in A Disease of One's Own (see the first citation in the article). Apparently it was coined by Anne Wilson Schaef. She contrasts an "ingestive addiction" with "process addiction." As quoted in the book Schaef says "A process addiction is an addiction by individuals, groups, even societies) to a way (or the process) of acquiring the addictive substance. The function of an addiction is to keep us out of touch with ourselves (our feelings, morality, awareness--our living process). An addiction, in short, is any substance or process we feel we have to lie about." From what I can grok from the Google preview of the book, that particular quotation is taken from Declarations of Codependence by someone with the last name Kristol. I can't seem to find that book (if it is one) listed on Amazon or in Worldcat... and that's about as deep as I'm willing to go down the rabbit hole for now. My goal was just to provide enough reliable sources so that some cocky admin doesn't speedily delete the article. Researching process addiction would be more about researching Codependence, and is not so much about researching Co-Dependents Anonymous. Either way, it doesn't seem like it has much to do with the Life-process model of addiction. — Craigtalbert 04:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That being said, I found these three citations while doing some research for the Debtors Anonymous rewrite.
There would probably be worse places to start. — Craigtalbert 11:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Codependency litertature vs CoDA literature

Please don't confuse what others have written about Co-Dependency with CoDA or CoDA Literature. The scale referred to by Whitfield is not a CoDA item, but in a book about Co-Dependency, albeit, with consideration of the Steps and Traditions in terms of healing. Perhaps it would be best to limit the CoDA page to CoDA and CoDA literature and everything else to the concept of co-dependency and how it is viewed by professionals, etc. There is a big difference, and arguments to be made on both sides as to which is most effective and beneficial to the individual and society in the long run. Of course CoDA takes no position on "outside" issues, etc (see Tradition about public controversy). Abreit01 (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understood it the scale was written/approved by CoDA and his book was one of the places that published it. But I could be wrong. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
oK I would like to take a crack at re-writing this article. It completely misses the mark as far as what CODA and Co-Dependency actually are. There may be some differences in terms of literature and different 12 step programs, but the core definition of Codepence is very clear, and is somehow completely missing from this article. Would like your feedback before I proceed. EyePhoenix (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Including definitions of codependence from CoDA literature is fine as long as it follows the guidelines for using questionable and self-published sources. But, this is not the codependence article, anything passed CoDA's understanding of it here is not acceptable. That being said, be bold, but please use reliable sources. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The term co-dependence emerged from AA and Alanon. CODA is a branch of Alanon so there should be nothing radically different in terms of its definition and treatment. It is not a 'disease", "mental illness" or a "personality disorder", you wont find it in the DSMIV. As a member of both programs I can tell you that if this article was written from CODA literature, it is very poorly adapted, to the degree that it gives a false meaning. EyePhoenix (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is not written from CoDA literature -- that's the point. Wikipedia articles should use reliable sources and questionable and/or self-published sources only when absolutely necessary. The measure of whether or not a topic is notable enough for a wikipedia article depends precisely on the number of third party reliable sources discussing that topic. When articles don't cite third party reliable sources, they get axed.
A lot of terminology arouse colloquially in twelve-step programs and made it's way in to clinical settings. That does not mean that twelve-step literature is somehow the only valid or best information on what codependency is. Codependency has been studied clinically, and there are at least two professional metrics for it (the Spann-Fischer Codependency Scale[1] and the Codependency Inventory[2]), and has even been studied in relation to personality disorders[3]. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Understood Scarpy. Truthfully, I just think the article is too long and doesn't really deal with co-dependency as it originally was defined. It seems to have developed a rather confused series of meanings, as I hear it misused all the time in popular culture. I thought perhaps this was a good place to clear that up, though it appears that many of the "reliable sources" are also misusing the term now. So I guess codependence has evolved into something subjective and not particularly meaningful, in my opinion. My experience of CODA has codependence still defined by its relationship to the alchoholic or addict, so I'm a little dismayed that this literature has removed it from that meaning and added a whole lot of very subjective B.S. that really just confuses the issue. But I digress, this really is about CODA and not codependence, which I suppose is why I think its way too long and wordy. I agree that it could use more sources, but my personal problem with this article is its excessive wordiness and subjective pop-psychology explanation that really doesn't mean very much. So if I were to edit this, I would remove most of this text and strip it down to the bare definition of CODA as a 12 step treatment program for codependents. I've edited articles before and come up against strong opposition, revert warring etc, so at this point, I'm using the discussion board first. Its often useless to make 'bold' edits without substantial support from other editors. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Then it is a good idea that you discussed it. I revert edits that put original research in to articles -- Scarpy (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I do not think think my definition of Codependence is "original research" by any stretch. Quite the opposite, for all the reasons I just explained. You know Scarpy, if you choose to automatically revert an edit that may not yet be well sourced, yet allow to exist a poorly written article like this one, it makes me mistrust your motives as an editor. Nothing personal, but there is just way too much of that mess taking place on Wikipedia. It isn't just about 'reverting' and 'demanding', it is about supporting and helping. Especially when you know those changes to have integrity. Rather than automatically reverting sensible edits, you might just consider assisting them through discussion, through finding appropriate sources and helping other editors on that level. Just a thought. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what your definition of codependence is, but I know that, on wikipedia, if it can't be supported by a reliable source, than it's original research and should be removed. Supporting and helping is a very good thing, but not if it means enabling someone to add original research to an article (even if it's in good faith) -- that's intentionally compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Scarpy please don't mischaracterize what I've said. I already acknowledged what you said and moved beyond it, there is no need to repeat yourself. I didn't say anything about "enabling someone to add original research", or "compromising integrity" or anything like that. Plus, I've explained my definition co-dependence more than once here, having learned from 12-step work many years ago. So I'm not sure why you would say you "dont know what it is". My very simple point was that instead of just reverting someone because they have not provided a source, you could be a little more constructive and less obnoxious by helping them to find it. That opinion is based on what I see as a general editing problem on Wikipedia: too many who try to "control" and not enough attempts to "construct". As I'm sure you're aware, many editors are quick to direct, condescend and boss other editors without really considering the impact of how they are coming across. By alienating potentially good editors without providing proper support, Wikipedia's "integrity" is most definitely comprimised. This article is a great example. Might be a good point of discussion: "Why is this article still so crappy?" Again, just a personal opinion, take what you need and leave the rest. EyePhoenix (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you've said, related to a definition of codependence: "My experience of CODA has codependence still defined by its relationship to the alchoholic or addict, so I'm a little dismayed that this literature has removed it from that meaning and added a whole lot of very subjective B.S." Personal experience is subjective, whereas information cited from a reliable source is verifiable.

You haven't edited the article yet, so I haven't reverted in changes you've made. The situation you're describing with bossy editors is so far hypothetical. What's missing from it, and from the loaded question, "Why is this article still so crappy?" are specific examples. -- Scarpy (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Scarpy, If you dont know why I think its 'crappy', you havent heard what I've said. For the record, my experience of CODA involves reading quite a lot of literature from within and outside the program. I don't call being able to read, reframe and relay information from books as 'original research'. On the contrary, I believe I have a firmer grasp of the subject then many of the so-called "sources" listed, or the article as it currently stands. But your right, I haven't edited this article, nor am I about to at this time. I tried to give you a little insight as to why, but I guess it hasn't been that useful to you. I'm not saying you haven't tried, but you seem to skip right past the critical points I've tried to get across, and I have no reason to believe this would be a collaborative or cooperative effort. Call me sensitive, but thats what I'm interested in. Anyways happy editing Scarpy. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, citing information from reliable sources (and, in this case, even CoDA liteature) is not original research. But If you can't be more specific, e.g. citing your particular sources (book, chapter, page numbers, etc) then I agree that we would have a hard time collaborating on the article. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Scarpy, but as far as presenting you with specific sources, we never got that far. There were other things to be discussed first, and I'm glad I did. EyePhoenix (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)