Talk:Codependency

Wiki Education assignment: Family Aspects of Disability spring 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 25 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anaescudero78 (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development winter 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cannymaiden73 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mic20020 (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Melody Beattie

It's not really clear to me why this person is being mentioned and quoted to define "codependency." There's no indication she has qualifications outside of personal experience. Self-help books can be written by anyone and therefore aren't really authoritative sources when the author has no formal qualifications. I've removed the content. If she is a reputed and respected authority within psychology, please reinstate the information and make that clearer with supporting sources. Thanks! – Primium (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Beattie popularized the concept of codependency, and authored what has long been the best selling book on the subject. If self-help authors are shared in the article, it seems to make at least as much sense to share Beattie's view (if not more) as compared to any other self-help author. Arllaw (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

But popularizing a concept doesn't really qualify someone as an authority on the topic by default. Are there other self-help authors shared in the article? I see Darlene Lancer, but she is also a psychologist and accredited therapist, i.e., someone with relevant formal education and licensing. – Primium (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Lancer is included as a self-help author. I think that the approach to self-help books should be consistent. As a self-help author, Beattie and her book are more notable. From an academic standpoint, Lancer has authored or co-authored academic articles on the subject of codependency. To the extent that Lancer's views are notable it seems more consistent to cite her academic work. Arllaw (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The format of the source information is not really as important as the quality. As WP:CITETRIM points out, a mix of different types of reputable sources is healthy. I do think Lancer's academic articles would likely be a great inclusion, though. – Primium (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If a non-fiction book is purchased and read by millions of people, whatever it says about a term is notable. If established professional bodies have not endorsed a differing opinion, it would seem likely that the term would be largely defined in both public and professional understanding by such well-read works. Such understanding is important independent of it's reproducibility, falsifiability, or any other measure of scientific value. Transient-understanding (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit discussion

Hi @Arllaw. In regard to this edit, as I said in my edit summary, the information is already in the body. It's just below the bulleted list. – Primium (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, this is not promotional, it's how you create proper citations for books using shortened footnotes for pages. See Major depressive disorder, a Featured Article, as an example. Removing it in the way that you've done has broken the references linking to it, so I have to reinstate it. If there's any further confusion, please feel free to comment here. I'm happy to help. – Primium (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to follow the shortened footnote protocol, see this article: WP:SRF. I am not sure what you are looking at, that you believe justifies citing to a resource, secondarily highlighting it under references, and also including it as further reading.

Please refrain from deleting appropriate, properly supported information from the definitions section, even if you believe it is duplicated later in the article. Arllaw (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Arllaw. Thanks for engaging with me here! The issue is not that the information is repeated later in the article, but that, as I explained in my comment, it was already mentioned just one paragraph below itself. This is now the current excerpt (emphasis mine, of course):

Codependency has no established definition or diagnostic criteria within the mental health community, It has not been included as a condition in any edition of the DSM or ICD.

The concept of codependency carries three different levels of meaning:
- An instructive tool that, once explained to families, helps them normalize the feelings that they are experiencing and allows them to shift their focus from the dependent person to their own dysfunctional behavior patterns.
- A psychological concept, a shorthand means of describing and explaining human behavior.
- A psychological disorder, implying that there is a consistent pattern of traits or behaviors across individuals that can create significant dysfunction.

Discussion of codependency tends to regard the disorder, although there is no agreement that codependency is a disorder at all, or how such a disorder might be defined or diagnosed. It has no established definition or diagnostic criteria within the mental health community, and it has not been included as a condition in any edition of the DSM or ICD.

As for WP:SRF, if that's the article layout you prefer, you can feel free to set that up, I don't see a problem with it. Note, though, that there is no singular standardized format across Wikipedia, so the current implementation is also acceptable. If you do review the {{reflist}}'s contents, you'll see Cermak's Diagnosing and treating co-dependence is not actually included. There are only references to pages. I'd also like to point out that I have not edited or commented on the further reading section, so you're incorrectly presuming my opinion. I actually think the book should be removed from further reading, along with Beattie's and Lancer's books, as they are already cited and it's unusual to duplicate content in the references. Thanks. – Primium (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I see you've also undone my changes to the lead. I'd like to propose we discuss a new lead here. As I alluded to in my edit summary, I conformed the lead to MOS:LEAD, which states the lead should reflect the most important content of the article rather than include unique information (unless it's exceptionally trivial). Currently, the lead is inadequate in this regard. It uses only unique information not found elsewhere in the article, and explains the topic via the terms of two sources not otherwise utilized. As the lead is meant to summarize the most important points, it ipso facto makes its content important, thereby placing undue emphasis on the descriptions suggested by these two sources. As we both know, of course, the definition of codependency is unclear, with only some generally consistent qualities. I'm also unfamiliar with how impartial a source BPDFamily.com is. Consequently, my proposed version of the lead reflects the facts of the body, without providing special emphasis to particular voices. I believe this version is a more accurate lead, as it's both a summary and based on unopinionated sources summarizing the largest number of opinions and observations.

My proposal:

In psychology, codependency is a behavior in interpersonal relationships that describes an individual's dependence on other people for approval, sense of identity, and purpose. While codependency has no formal definition, proposed definitions typically include high self-sacrifice, a prioritization of others' needs, suppression of one's own emotions, and attempts to control or fix other people's problems.

– Primium (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It is incorrect to define codependency "in psychology", as there is no accepted definition of codependency within the field of psychology. It's a pop psychology term, not a clinical term. The various proponents and self-help authors apply a range of definitions, as already described in the article. While I have seen codependency described as "a behavior", that is also misleading -- I have yet to see any effort to define it that reduces the concept to a single, definitive behavior. Editors may have strong personal senses of what they believe codependency to be, or believe that the psychological community has erred in declining to recognize or officially define the concept, but article content is driven by what is presented in appropriate reliable sources. Arllaw (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent points. They also underline my point that the current iteration is inaccurate and unhelpful.

In pop-psychology, codependency refers to behaviors in interpersonal relationships where an individual depends on other people for approval, sense of identity, and purpose. While codependency has no formal definition, proposed definitions typically include high self-sacrifice, a prioritization of others' needs, suppression of one's own emotions, and attempts to control or fix other people's problems.

– Primium (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you proposing that the referenced attempt to find commonalities between the various definitions should be removed from the lead?

If you believe that you have changes that will make the concept of codependency more clear or more accurate despite the lack of any agreed clinical diagnosis or definition, and can support them with appropriate, reliable sources, perhaps the place to start is with the body of the article. Then the lead can follow the body. Arllaw (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed your question in my previous responses. It might be helpful to review what I've written, as it covers the points you've now mentioned. – Primium (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed all of your points. If you need clarification, follow up on my response.

Please stop deleting highly relevant, properly referenced material from the definitions section. The fact that there is no formal, clinical or consensus definition of codependency is very important to the article and, obviously, to the definitions section. Arllaw (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Personality disorders subsection

The subsection on personality disorders is not supported by reliable sources. If it can be revised and supported, I would support that effort, but as things stand I believe that subsection should be removed. Arllaw (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)