Talk:Codependence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Codependence article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous

In some situations, knowing and understanding the concept of the "co-dependent" person may help unravel the complex forces that keep a person in an undesirable situation. The concept has been invented and has value in understanding family or group dynamics involved in educational as well as psychological situations.

Added Literature. This page will be moved to Codependence, according to the preferred psychiatric nomenclature (see same Literature) as well as that of Co-Dependents Anonymous. Dirk K. 13:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moved now. Dirk K. 20:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See discussion under Dependent Personality Disorder:

[edit] Equal time?

I'm very interested in the debate of (Codependency / 12-Step) vs. (Codependency Conspiracy / Fix yo self) as outlined by the article. Are there more resources for the latter? Could anyone chime in on current popular vs. growing methods of understanding codependence?

[edit] why is the dsm included as a reference?

It is unclear how the DSM-IV is related in any way to the term co-dependence. The current DSM-IV-TR does not list or use this word. Co-dependence is not based on scientific evidence, and as such not included in diagnostic resources.

Please use ~~~~ when making comments. This allows your statements to be signed. The DSM and indeed psychiatry as a general discipine does not and cannot use the scientific method. It instead relies on observation, and when medication is used, the altering of brain chemicals. We do not know in many cases why these medications work for some and not for others. What I am trying to say is that co-dependency is no less a condition than any other personality disorder listed in the DSM. Dependent Personality Disorder is however in the DSM, and it is an important overall reference for anyone trying to understand the categorization schema that psychiatrists and psychologists rely on.
Co-dependency and Dependent Personality Disorder are two completely separate ideas, having no direct relationship to eachother. EyePhoenix (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

24.177.122.186 03:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Codependecy Literature

Article lacks any reference to Melody Beattie and her writings.

It does now. EyePhoenix (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Melody Beattie's works do not meet the wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources and material referenced using them as a source should be removed. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Scarpy, Melody Beattie is one of the O.G.s of 'co-dependence'. Can you please explain how it doesn't meet the standard for a reliable source. Thanks! EyePhoenix (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Original Gangster?
According to the wikipedia guidelines reliable sources are, "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This generally means peer-reviewed journal articles, books published by a university press (or one of similar reputation: Taylor & Francis, Hawthorn, etc), reputable magazines (for sourcing non-scientific information: Newsweek, Time, etc), or the like. Self-published books, or books printed by a publisher like Hazelden (as most of her books are), are not reliable sources and certainly can not be expected to maintain a neutral point of view on this topic. I'm not saying they're bad, in fact I've found them to be very insightful, but that does not make them an appropriate source for wikipedia.
I struggled with this definition when I was new to wikipedia. If you have any doubts, put in a WP:RFC or WP:3O. -- Scarpy (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I must say I admire your application of Wikipedia standards, I wish other editors aimed so high. Much of what I see being used as Wikipedia sources are online "articles" with little or no "fact checking" and are often tabloid and sensationalistic in nature. Bravo. Personally I would find Hazeldon much more 'reliable' than many others currently used on Wikipedia, but thats just my opinion. EyePhoenix (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link is broken

Yup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.154.106 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs Much Improvement

oK this article totally misses the mark. The definition of Co-Dependency on this page is not well written and not correct. Co-Dependency is a term emerging from Alanon, AA and NA. Those are treatment programs for addiction and families. It refers to the relationship between those who care about an addict/alcoholic and the enabling behaviors that keep them connected. Are there any other 12 steppers here who can help me improve this article? EyePhoenix (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I just did some cleanup on this article and would like to remove the "cleanup" tag. Would like to hear feedback from other editors before we do this. EyePhoenix (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This article still requires substantial clean-up, the only scholarly reference is in the controversy section, the rest is completely uncited. Please work on it, but use reliable sources. Google Scholar is a good place to start (e.g. search for Codependence and Codependency, pick out the sources from the peer-review journals and use those). -- Scarpy (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)