Talk:Adult children of alcoholics

Please note that any material concerning living persons in this subject area MUST include reliable citations. Any material which does not MUST be immediately removed and must not be replaced without both citations and consensus that it belongs on the article. See our policies with regard to this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Individuals who come from dysfunctional families without alcohol also share the same attributes. The article should make this clear.75Janice 02:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)75Janice 19 January 2007[reply]

It is mentioned in the Co-Dependents Anonymous article. — Craigtalbert 01:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution I have repeatedly tryed to add to Wikipedia is straight out of the book The 12 Steps For Adult Children From Addictive and Other Dysfunctional Families. I find it biased to list all of the negative qualities of Adult Children of Alcoholics set forth by Dr. Janet G. Woititz without offering benefits that recovery through the 12 steps has to offer Adult Children of Alcoholics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmennell (talk • contribs) 16:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

This article could easily be better researched. There is plenty of reliable sources one ACOA/ACA — Craigtalbert 01:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ACOAs

I see no reason for the list of ACOAs to be removed. Citations should be added, but the appropriate course of action is to tag the section, rather than removing large amounts of text without any discussion. I have restored the list, and will add the references I am aware of.--Elplatt (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should be removed if not verified see WP:V and WP:BLP, as far as I am concerned verification is the key, not whether any particular (famous) person was a child of alcoholic(s). I have looked at the articles of some of the people named, and not all of the articles mention this, I have checked the two external links and couldn't see verification there which also makes me wonder about those that are referenced to books. I'll leave it a couple of days - if you can whip the references into shape all well and good, if not I'll take it to admin for somebody else's opinion. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Richhoncho, for WP:BLP reasons there should be a citation supporting each person on the list. If there is not one, according to WP:BLP, the information should be removed immediately. As such the list currently violates WP:BLP. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the external link given for one of the people named I could find no confirmation there that the person named was "child of alcholics" I have taken the view that the whole list should be removed, this on 2 major grounds, 1. failure to meet WP:BLP 2. That there is no confirmation that the people named were connected with particular organisation and, a personal opinion, is that these kinds of lists are more likely to have unverified and potentially libellous "facts" added. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The properly sourced material has been restored. In response to your points: 1. The sourced material meets WP:BLP requirements. 2. I don't know which "organization" you are referring to, but "adult children of alcoholics" means just that, adults who were the children of an alcoholic, and the references clearly establish this condition for all people remaining in the list. --Elplatt (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The removed entries are reproduced here for the purpose of developing the list: <BLP violation removed> --Elplatt (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've removed that. We can't have unsourced allegations of this nature anywhere on wikipedia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the article here. Let somebody else have a look. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on the organisation ACOA. It should only list individuals if there are prominent individuals who have repeatedly associated themselves with that organisations and there are reliable citations to verify that self-identification. Anything else will violate BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as noted in the discussion above, ACOA is not an organization, but simply refers to any adult who was the child of an alcoholic. User:Richhoncho apparently changed the page to claim that ACOA is a particular organization, which he knew to be false, shortly before your review. The history of this page should clearly establish that ACOA is a classification of people rather than an organization. If the page as you read it was true, I would have agreed with your decision. However, you have been deceived by another editor, so I would ask you to reevaluate your decision. --Elplatt (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Elphatt, you are wrong - identified by the fact that the article title is in capital letters -signifying a name and also the link at the bottom to the organisation. Both there before either of us got involved. Might be time to look at the comments at [1] I am not unsympathetic to what you are trying to add, but this is the wrong place and the wrong way to go about it. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACOA is a 12 step program, not simply a discription of children who grew up in an alcoholic home. Requinamoore (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list. It is so unhelpful. I'd guess that 5% to 10% of people in the country have a parent with an alcohol problem. What is the purpose of picking out a few to list them here? I especially question the inclusion of Jim Jones, one of the most notorious figures in all of US history. Surely he is not typical of ACOA's. Is a message being sent: "You better sober up or your kids will end up like him."? Steve Dufour (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. You may consider the list "unhelpful" but that is your opinion and not a reason for exclusion. The reason for listing them here is that ACOAs are a significant minority in the world, and notable members of that category meet the inclusion standards for Wikipedia. Lists such as this are covered under WP:MOSLIST. Regarding Jim Jones, there is no message intended, just that he was a child of an alcoholic, which is a well established fact. Also, since Jones is dead, note that he does not fall under WP:BLP requirements.

Regarding statistics. Your guess that 5-10% of people have an alcoholic parent is irrelevant. First, because it is a guess. Second, 5-10% of people is still significant. Currently, less than 13% of Americans are African-Americans, do you propose removing List of African-Americans? --Elplatt (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There were an estimated 278,058,881 people in the United States in July of 2001[2], according to the Alcoholism in family systems article, there were 26.8 million COAs at the time; that's about 10.4%. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree that 5% to 10% is a lot of people. That's the problem that I see. How do you pick out the ones that should be on the list? Steve Dufour (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that this page is not maintained by ACOA and is therefore not necessarily bound by the traditions of ACOA, the 12th tradition of the ACOA program states that "Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities." Naming people who identify, or whom we identify, as an ACOA is not needed in the description of this program, nor it is appropriate. If a notable person had their own website where they discussed their experience as an ACOA, I think it would be appropriate to link it in the 'external links' section of the wiki entry as opposed to maintaining their status as an ACOA as 'fact.' Self-identifying as an ACOA is one thing, being labelled as such changes the nature of the identification, making it subjective and therefore, less factual. Requinamoore (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a solution has been reached here with a suggestion from Elphatt. I think the majority of people have agreed that this is an article about an organization and this article should be (re)-written accordingly. Elphatt has suggested a "List of" and providing that meets WP criteria WP:BLP and WP:MOSLIST - and, in view of Requinamoore's comments, should include self-acknowledgement by the individual as well, because, after all, Wikipedia, cannot be a place for "outing" people in any circumstance, nor should it ever be a soapbox! --Richhoncho (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can add anything that Richhoncho hasn't already covered. I think this list will be, by nature, self-limiting, since only persons who have publicly stated their status in a reliable source will be included. Hopefully this fact will address Requina's point about anonymity. Gimme danger (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of people worldwide have probably spoken of their parent's alcoholism in articles or biographies. Any such list would be unmaintainable, intrusive and encyclopaedic. It would contribute nothing to any understanding of the organisation/programme (and the capitalised title suggest this is an article on that) or any phenomenon we could write about. It is also a BLP disaster waiting to happen. Why go there? How does it help the reader?--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation supporting the "common characteristics" section is a book that is most certainly not about the 12 step program. If this article is indeed about the 12 step program this section should be removed and the intro should be rewritten. --Elplatt (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Only three of the individually listed individuals have the circumstances of their parents' alcoholism on their biography pages. Since Wikipedia favors privacy, it certainly would not be appropriate to list individuals whose own notability is not demonstrably influenced by the alcoholims of thier parents. With appropriate narrative content, the inclusion of Susan Cheever or other people closely associated with the twelve-step movement couldeasily be justified, but not as part of a list. With respect to the remaining two (or two hundred, if such other instances were to be identified), it's hard to see how such an accumulation of voyeuristic information all accumulated in one place actually improves the article or the encyclopedia. It does not give any depth, color, or additional understanding to the topic. Bongo matic 06:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve-step or demographic?

A number of people have made the claim that this article is about a twelve-step program. There are a number of issues raised by this, which I will list here.

The associated twelve-step program is actually called Adult Children of Alcholics World Service Organization or ACA.[3]
The intro describes ACOAs as "individuals who have grown up in a Dysfunctional or alcoholic household" which refers to the demographic rather than the twelve-step program.
The characteristics of ACOAs are taken from the book by Dr. Janet G. Woititz. This book is about how individuals are affected by alcoholic parents, not about the twelve-step program.

If this article is about a twelve-step program, all of these things need to be corrected. --Elplatt (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently categorized like a twelve-step program, it's in: Twelve-step programs, Addiction and substance abuse organizations and Non-profit organizations based in the United States.

Either way, it is probably better to leave it as both for now. The list notwithstanding, there's barely enough information in this article supported by reliable sources to justify it's existence (although if someone would like to do the research, there's plenty of peer-reviewed information for both articles [4] [5]). -- Scarpy (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from Janet Geringer Woititz's book (page xxviii): "I have had many requests from all over the country as to how to go about setting up groups for adult children of alcoholics, how to meet their special needs, and yet remain true to the principles of AA and Al-Anon. This book provides an answer to these questions." [6] -- Scarpy (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, removal of third opinion request.

As somebody has now created a page for the organization and Elphatt has created a similar named article (which I didn't spot until after I moved this article, which is unfortunate), there is no longer any contentious issue with the article. Many thanks for all that commented. I'll keep an eye just in case anybody disagrees with my actions - should be easy to change. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you claiming this page is or is not about a particular 12-step program? --Elplatt (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? With the creation of Adult Children of Alcholics World Service Organization, it was time to separate the two articles - which meant re-titling without caps and removing the "organization" categories. It's just a shame you had to copy the information from here to create a new article, at least now you can merge as you see fit - somebody will sooner or later. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confirming that this page is not about an organization, I will merge. Please confirm. --Elplatt (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge as you see fit. That's why I added the merge tags. Richhoncho (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting merge into Alcoholism in family systems. Discussion there. --Elplatt (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected

I've redirected to Alcoholism in family systems. A merge was proposed but the article content amounted to a paragraph stating that adult children of alcoholics are adults whose parents were alcoholics (there's a PhD in there somewhere I'm sure) plus a list of features taken from one paper by a redlinked academic. Anyone is welcome to add a short section in the target article, the redirect preserves attribution if you want to copy it fomr here, but it's probably not worth it without some independent evidence that this represents a real-world consensus view of the subject. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]