Talk:Children of alcoholics

Creation of page

This page was crated after lengthy discussion on the Adult Children of Alcoholics article. It was decided that article about the twelve-step program rather than the demographic of children of alcoholics. Considerable content from that page regarded the demographic rather than the twelve-step program, so that material has been moved here. --Elplatt (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people

I've removed the list of named individuals. I can't see how a list of people who claim to be the children of alchaholic ads anything to the article, and it raises quite a number of BLP concerns. Please get a consensus before replacing it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't replace this list without some discussion. I'd like to hear your justification for it being on this page.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, please do not replace names until a concensus is reached whether the list fails WP:BLP. I also note that the characteristics para is a copyvio. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I tried to leave a response after my last edit, but must have only previewed. Since the majority of editors now disfavor the inclusion of the list, I won't restore it for now. Would one of the editors against the inclusion of the list please provide the specific policy reason they are against the inclusion of this list? If I do not hear back in a reasonable amount of time, I will restore the list.--Elplatt (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons the list of names is not acceptable is exactly the same as debated with you on the talk page of Adult children of alcoholics. Nothing has changed. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't need a policy reason. It's an editorial decision, and it looks like consensus is against you. If you get one, then you can replace them.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the topic is already covered well enough in the Alcoholism in family systems article, a well as Al-Anon/Alateen, and I think the content with references from Adult children of alcoholics should be merged into either one of those two articles. OlEnglish (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion at ACOA, it was decided that self inclusion was a good criterion for inclusion in the list, so I'll take that to mean that you agree with the inclusion of a list in general. I agree that the two articles should be merged though, and have suggested that both be merged into Alcoholism in family systems. Thank you for providing a third opinion. --Elplatt (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mac. You should revisit WP:CON. If we disagree, there is no consensus. This is not a vote but a discussion, and you refuse to contribute anything but your opinion! Policy is the key to consensus. From WP:CON: Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome.'

No policy reason to exclude the list, so unless there are any policy objections, it will be restored. --Elplatt (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elplatt, you're work is appreciated and valuable, but this is a bike shed. You could argue as to why this list belongs in the article, but it would be an uphill battle against the current consensus and wikipedia policy. This is distracting from other meaningful work, and is disruptive. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. And once again, please take a look at WP:CON as you do not seem to understand what a consensus is. If anyone here is engaging in WP:DE, it is you. I am trying to build a consensus by soliciting the reason for your actions before undoing them. However, you are the one who is tenaciously making edits without providing any policy reason whatsoever. --Elplatt (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that the only person supporting the list is Elphatt, taking into consideration what has already been said on Talk:Adult children of alcoholics, there really is no call for this list of people at all. Besides all that's said do we also need a List of adult children of tiddlywink players - it's exactly the same claim to fame. Let's get over this discussion and add something worthwhile at WP, rather than all this discussion ping-pong. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't see a conflict with WP:CON, and I haven't seen a reason stated for the inclusion of the list. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiddlywink players are not a notable demographic, ACOAs are. Including lists of notable demographics is a well-established practice, see List of African Americans. Are you arguing against the notability of the demographic? I will admit that the notability is not well established on this page, but in the spirit of WP:AGF the proper course of action is to express your concerns so that I can address them, rather than deleting the article bit by bit. --Elplatt (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And no consensus was reached. --Elplatt (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus aside, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was, and is still, an argument that should be avoided. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got lazy on my last post, merely asking others to review all said on the other article. But this is the first and most important reason WP favours privacy. For legal reasons, humanity reasons, and common sense this must be more important than any other WP policy - especially as some of the people named haven't self-identified themselves in this category. Therefore reference to WP:CON is totally irrelevant. It is the duty of any editor to remove unverified disparagement immediately. This list will always be removed from time to time as a result. We are only wasting time debating this issue. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have, again, demonstrated your complete misunderstanding of the issue:

Consensus is not "irrelevant"
The material is verified
All living persons in the list have self-identified
Being an ACOA is not a "disparagement", and that statement is POV and offensive to ACOAs.

I agree time is being wasted, but I will not waver on this issue unless there is a consensus based on policy. --Elplatt (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment as I see it, one editor says the list should be included, numerous other editors say it should be gone. I think it is time you stopped wasting yours and everybody else's time. Take the matter where you will, I cannot foresee any consensus coming --Richhoncho (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no consensus. Therefore, the original change, ie. the removal of the list, will be undone. I am still willing to build a consensus based on policy, if you are. --Elplatt (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. You've crossed the line of being disruptive. Make the case why this stuff improves the article and convince people - that's consensus. Carry on with your unilateral reverting and you'll be blocked.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting an edit for which no consensus was reached. That is not disruptive. Provide a policy reason not to revert and I will stop while we discuss. No admin in their right mind would block me for this, and I invite you to bring one into the conversation. --Elplatt (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've come a little late to the party, but a partial list of children of alcoholics does strike me as a good example of what Wikipedia is not. As for BLP issues, even if we could cite a quality source that someone was the child of alcoholics and had some of those symptoms what about the symptoms listed in the article but which we don't have a source for them having? And that's before we get into the fairness issues of which people we name and which we don't.... If we must have examples, it would of course be a little easier if we stuck to historic figures, afterall by today's standards every Tudor noble would qualify as an alcoholic if only for the weak beer they were brought up on as children and drank for breakfast. Were Spiel Chequers 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Right now, what needs to be decided both on Children of alcoholics and Adult children of alcoholics is what exactly is the article about?! Reading both, I can't tell if they discuss: being a child of an alcoholic, being an adult whose parent was an alcoholic, the program ACOA or the book (or some combination of the four). I recommend that the topic for each article be agreed upon first and then decide whether to include people who belong to that topic later. At this point, having a list of people doesn't make sense, since there is no consensus as to what characteristic these people must have. Please relist if needed, but only if you need a third opinion. To generate community discussion, please find an appropriate Wikiproject. (EhJJ)^TALK 23:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonest editors

I have all along in this discussion assumed that every editor and contributor was acting in good faith. However I now see some of us are described as dishonest editors. To put it politely I am not best pleased. The cause of this disharmony is Elphlatt wishing to insert names of people, so I have looked at the one internet "reference" supplied and can neither see nor hear any reference to that person being or confirming they are the child of an alcoholic. I have looked at the WP article of the other four, one article claims that the person themself had a drink problem (but no claim of being a child of an alcoholic). There is no reference to alcohol whatsoever on the other 3 articles. Other than purchasing books I do not wish to read I cannot take this further. As far as I am concerned the list should not be on wikipedia in any form unless it is verified in accordance with WP:BLP and preferably acknowledged by the subjects themselves. Elphlatt has failed to do this at this point, if he does then I could agree to the list being here. It's a simple matter, Wikipedia can only be built on verifiable facts, sadly lacking in this instance. Sorry guys for the rant. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if verified, I'd still oppose it here. It isn't relevant, and there's certainly no consensus. All we have is one disruptive editor.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose a list of children of alcoholics, as I don't see how that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. As for a policy, I like WP:IAR. My suggestion, if Elphlatt feels strongly about keeping a list of children of alcoholics, is to create a separate article, rather than integrate the list here, as that is very common. At that point, the merits of keeping this new article can be discussed in an AfD, which will ensure community input and administrator oversight. (EhJJ)^TALK 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the concensus, then I'll have to defer to the majority! I did only say "could" rather than "would" And it does strike me that WP:BLP in this instance could also applies to the parents, a point which hasn't been raised before.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EhJJ, thank you for your input. I will strongly consider your suggestion of creating a standalone list. As one point, I have argued above that COAs are a notable demographic, and that notable members, in accordance with WP:BLP are very relevant. Alcoholism is not an insult, but a condition recognized by the AMA, and ACOA is phenomenon discussed by many psychologists and sociologists. To say that their inclusion is inappropriate is, in my opinion, POV. I feel that it is important to discuss this issue civilly, and with a firm base in policy and cultural openness, yet it appears to me that no one is responding to my points, and just repeating themselves. --Elplatt (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two shillings...

Louie Anderson actually does publically identify himself as ACOA (in his book!). I can't say for the rest though. — Kosh^Jumpgate 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment

The 11th Tradition of AA states:

Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.

So why any alcoholic would want themselves OR their family named in an encyclopedia is beyond me. OlEnglish (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of Eve Ensler as a COA

User:richhoncho repeatedly claims that the reference given for Eve Ensler does not verify her as the child of an alcoholic. The transcript is given here, from ted talk beginning at 17:04.

I want to tell this little story about my own beginnings because it's very interrelated to happiness and Agnes. When I was a little girl and I grew up ... my life was hell. I lived with an alcoholic father who beat me and molested me and it was all inside that. And always as a child, I had this fantasy that somebody would come and rescue me. And I actually made up a little character whose name was Mr. Alligator. And I would call him up when things got really bad and would say it was time to come and pick me up. And I would pack a little bag and wait for Mr. Alligator to come. -Eve Ensler, Feb 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elplatt (talk • contribs) 14:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing our experiences. My sister died of alcoholic liver disease, this has nothing to do with content. Sorry, that's how it is. If you want a place to share experiences then I don't know where to suggest you go, but here is not it. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got a 404 on that, has ted.com taken it down or is it just my PC or ISP? If ted.com has taken that down we should not be mirroring it here as if it was sourced info. Were Spiel Chequers 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page link, the above one must be wrong.[1]. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:56, 22 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 children of alcoholics are people whose parents were alcoholics plus a list of features taken from one paper by a redlinked academic. Teh content was also completely duplicated at adult children of alcoholics, so I have redirected that as well. Anyone is welcome to add a short section in the target article, the redirect preserves attribution if you want to copy it from 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!) 19:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]