Talk:Codependency/Archive 1

Archive 1

codependency as pop psychology

I clarified some of the article to correctly portray codependency as pop psychology and removed some of the 1st person POV entries Mr Christopher 20:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr Christopher, I think you have gone overboard with your changes, We need to discuss this some more, I think. I added POV tag. --FloNight ^talk 07:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, this article is copy-pasted from a sketchy-seeming site called allabouttherapy.com, which seems to be pushing the readers to get therapy from some Melody person, so I would *seriously* doubt it neutrality

I object to co-dependence being treated as a disorder as opposed to a symptom (of perhaps depression). I believe co-dependence can be mistakenly attributed to healthy individuals who choose that behavior rather than unhealthy people who are plagued by it. Eddietoran 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

12 step programs no good; comment on Scott Peck

The NY Times a few days ago (see [1]) reported a study by researchers, led by Marica Ferri of the Italian Agency for Public Health in Rome, which found little or no support for the efficacy of 12-step programs. A big promoter (if not the originator) of the "codependency" cachet was M. Scott Peck. In the early 1980's he published 2 books, "The Road Less Traveled" and "People of the Lie," which I had foisted on me by an acquaintance when I was hospitalized a few days. In one of these books Peck describes trying to play chess with his daughter (who was in late elementary school or middle school) and running past her bedtime. He reports wanting to win so much he kept her up very late and messed up her following school day. He felt so bad he went into weeks of depression and got extensive psychotherapy.

I submit that anyone who acts like that (who would not know to put a marker on the chess board as to whose turn it was, and shelve it till next day?) is a fool, and if he puts it in a book for public sale he is a worse fool. OK, codependent behaviors exist and are identifiable, but they should not become a preoccupation or a mantra for people with time on their hands.

I doubt this caused clinical depression. It may have brought other issues to light.

Anyone anxious to beat a little girl at chess should be launched into the sun. CeilingCrash 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

24.177.122.186 03:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

External link is broken

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

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)

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)

What is a codependency advocate?

Someone who believes in the idea of codependency, or someone who defends the act of codependency? --Jaded-view (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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:

Sources

I agree with Steinberger that the article need more sources. Hopefully can different people contribute with that. I have added sources for the part of content I added and hopefully will other contribute with sources to other parts of the article. The fact that there are different definition can anybody see by reading the different definitions.85.24.134.63 (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't read that they speak of different concepts. Steinberger (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but others do. [2] A Searcht for Codependency (Psychology) gives more than 229 hits. How can you for ex defend deleting the definition of Codependency used by Karolinska Institut in the MeSH, Medical Subject Headings, that is different from the text in the article? Behind the link to MeSH you can also find other sources to different definitions.Dala11a (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have searched and no usage evade the present definition. And to go further, I can't see that MeSH definition "a relational pattern in which a person attempts to derive a sense of purpose through relationships with others" provides something new or clarifying to the lead. Your old forking of slightly different definitions was just confusing as they all spoke of the same general concept. I really can't see the meaning of doing like you did. Steinberger (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Search engines are not a good source by any count. Steinberger (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you promoting a text with pure bullshit? "Codependence (or codependency) is a popular psychology concept". Popular psychology means that the term codependency is out of date, non-scientific bullshit. To support you view you delete a good source that dismiss that view. Very very far from a neutral presentation. Dala11a (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So you view the present text as having a bias towards codependency. I don't concure to your text interpetation. However, it is not a uncontroversial and commonly agreed upon concept within the "sientific" psychology discourse. The concept is mostly used within 12-step discource, but that does not mean that the phenomenon does not exist, but it is popular psychology. Your suggested read Conflicting views about codependency really says it all. Steinberger (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"it is popular psychology", state who?? This controversial statement has its advocates, still without source in the text. I agree on that some versions of the concept maybe can be classified as "popular psychologi" but other versions don't. I can refer to for example Cermak L.T (1986), Sheaf Wilsson A (1986), Smith W.A, Zetterlin U(1999) all in a source list for an essay about different definitions of codependency page 18Dala11a (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced and far from a neutral presentation

There are a number of competing definitions of the concept codependency. The first line state that they are "popular psychology". All of them?? Also those that are a part of for example a doctor thesis?? Since there are at least 10-20 different definitions of the concept need that statement about the same number of sources.that shows that each one of them is "popular psychology" not just 2 as in the present text. Furthermore has user Steinberger deleted all sources that contradict his thesis, for ex one that state that there are a number of diffrent definitions. Timmen L. Cermak :Diagnosing and Treating Co-Dependence: A Guide for Professionals Who Work with Chemical Dependents, Their Spouses, and ChildrenDala11a (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright to text from WHO

I included the WHO definition of Codendent from a WHO's web site. User Steinberger stated that this is a copyright violence. But that is not true. WHO's Copyright notice state: "The information in the various pages of the WHO web site is issued by the World Health Organization for general distribution... Reproduction or translation of substantial portions of the web site, or any use other than for educational or other non-commercial purposes, require explicit, prior authorization in writing." Wikipedia is non commercial and a few lines is not substantial portions of WHO's webb site. WHO wants to be mentioned etc. Dala11a (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[3] You cannot copy and paste content if you don't know exactly what you are doing. And in when it comes to copyright issues you obviously don't (this is not the first time). Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, yes. But, the content of wikipedia can be used commercially (under the GFDL-license). And it is, in various forks, some content is even for sale on a official DVD. All content put into wikipedia have to comply to the GFDL-license, and I suggest you to take a read on it, because WHO's does not allow for the commercial use that GFDL explicitly does. Steinberger (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that co-dependency is normally not due to any illness. But that is not a relevant criticism of the concept codependency. The concept is not only a popular psychology concept. To become a loser because of lack of skill is not a disease. The alcoholic's wife is in a difficult situation if she wants to stop the booze in her kitchen. Facing an alcoholic in the right way is no easy task if she want to stop the booze.

The text state however that “A "codependent" can be loosely defined as someone who exhibits too much”. That is a total misinterpretation of the concept if you use a definition in line with WHO's definition. The codependent alcoholics wife care with a non efficient method or have lost faith on winning the battle against the booze. That difference is not just wording [4]. User Steinberger do not like or do not understand WHO's definition and delete all attempts to refer to it. Dala11a (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WHO talks about codependency as "a relative, close friend, or colleague of an alcohol- or drug-dependent person, whose actions are defined by the term as tending to perpetuate that person's dependence and thereby retard the process of recovery." That does not differ too much from the not-to-good wording in the inline in the article today. For example, "The 'codependent' party exhibits behaviour which controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party's condition..." So for a definition part, its redundant. Moreover, WHO does not speculate in the reasons behind this behavior as is done in the article (obviously a bad thing) or above by mr Dala11a. There is some information in the WHO article entry on the history of the term (70s, co-alcoholism, ect) that not is present in the current article, but that information is present in almost all sources I have come across on this subject. Steinberger (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the copyright issue is the least of the problems here. The term "codependent" has been used as shorthand for "addicted person's significant other" too many times to ignore that pseudo-definition. The definition as you have it here may in fact be "better," but people have also used the term to indicate 'anyone' involved with an addict. The introductory section needs to acknowledge in some way that the conflict surrounding the term is a function of the potential for fallacies of equivocation. If some writers (outside of wikipedia) insist on using the term in its broad sense of "anyone in a relationship with an addict, past or present" this poses a real problem for the WHO definition, or any definition presupposing pathology. I vote to amend the introductory section to recognize the dual nature of the concept right off the bat. And if the definition is going to be left the way it is, someone should at least change "revealing" to "relieving."Rose bartram (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move [Now Resolved]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Codependence → Codependency — —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelExe (talk • contribs) 23:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support, seems consistent with similar titles. Abductive (reasoning) 04:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lack of Quality, Suggest "stubbifying" [Now Resolved]

This article lacks information, is poorly written, and does not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. I would at this juncture even question whether it is a valid entry (in its current state, that the topic is worthy is not disputed). I would suggest reducing the article to a stub with a brief definition, a few links, and then to await a re-write by a professional. Contributions/88.77.158.73 (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Who qualifies as a professional, and how are you going to be sure that only a professional will be contributing? Do professionals ever disagree with one another? How do you know that professionals have not been contributing to the article all along, and having their work undone by anonymous editors pushing a point of view? I certainly agree with your quality concerns, but after watching the article for a few months and making a few faint efforts myself, I am not so optimistic about the value of starting over. There are contentious issues involved, and not just one contentious issue. Unless someone has a great deal of time to watch the article and gently handle all the anonymous editors who sweep through and add their own improvements (?), fixing it may be wasted work. Converting it to a stub might just invite more crazy edits, and would also set a bad example by encouraging the "bomb the village in order to save it" technique--not one of Wiki's better features. Why don't you instead start small, by repairing one section and then trying to ensure that it stays improved, keeping an eye on it for a while? If we all did that with one section, it might get to be a pretty good article. I admit that I had plans to do that with a "history of the concept" section, but I got distracted and now the fledgling little section is gone anyway.Rose bartram (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to restore some of the sentences for which there seems to have been a bit of consensus in the past. Unfortunately, getting them referenced properly is going to take a little longer.Rose bartram (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but the staring lines is difficult to understand, what is the relation between the person who is alcoholic or drug addict and the person who is codependent?Dala11a (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My position is that the two sentences you just added back in (The codependent is the person who . . . ) are too specific for an introduction. The best way to avoid edit wars is to keep the introductory section as general as possible, including just enough information to allow a reader to identify the type of concept being discussed. In the case of codependence, some editors have taken the most skeptical position and implied that the concept is silly pop psychology. That view, whether you like it or not, needs to be respected and allowed for. Please be realistic and consider putting specifics further along in the article where they can be balanced with other material, as necessary. Don't make the introductory paragraph a battleground, as it has been for much of the history of this article. Better to make the beginning a little vague, so people can keep reading of they want specifics.Rose bartram (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot has been corrected since the 'stubifying' suggestion, I think the article should be left as is. The article should be kept because it now has lots of good references and the quality of the writing has also improved significantly. Plus 'codependency' is a widely- accepted concept in psychotherapy (has extremely wide acceptance, actually). So there is lots of legitimacy here, from all the added citations, the increase in writing quality and also the widespread (professional) use of the term. 75.166.179.110 (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Question: how does this relate?

People who have experienced natural disasters, life threatening illness or accident, and personal and community tragedy have been found to perceive a benefit from the ordeal such as positive personality changes, changes in priorities and enhanced family relationships.[11] Caring for survivors serves a worthwhile ethic of empowerment - both for the caregiver and the survivors.

This doesn't seem to relate to the article at all. Either clear it up, or make it so it's clear how it relates to the article. Codependency isn't about care of infants, etc... it's about people who have a lack of healthy boundaries for themselves...--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Three dots [Now Resolved]

There's an unhealthy amount of serieses of three dots in the paragraph titled "Development and Scope of Concept". It looks like they signify omitted parts of quoted text, but the text isnät in quotation marks. I don't habe time to fix it, so I'll just mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.25.12 (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Introduction is Awful [Now resolved]

I came to this page hoping to learn about co-dependency. The introduction is so poorly written in terms of both grammar and style that I just had to post this message. Whoever wrote that introduction, please think twice before you contribute to a popular subject.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.224.7 (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are apparently assuming that one person wrote the introduction. Click "history" and you will see what actually happened. Multiple editors added and changed, and when others attempted to knit the sentences together in a way that made sense, someone else changed it again. As you note, the subject is popular. That makes it virtually impossible to prevent shabby editing. Fix it if you think you can (remember to sign your posts, and it helps if you register first), but it will probably not stay fixed.Rose bartram (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. The intro is awful and the article contains virutally no information whatsoever. Normally wiki articles aren't very informative because they're poorly written (fine, I don't expect the contributors are communications/english majors, and there's still info to be had) but this article a) has very little information and b) is poorly written. The intro is basically, "Codependency is bad, mmkay?" I'd love to fix it but I don't know anything about codependency. 64.160.116.204 (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction is awful but the article that follows is even worse. It is so full of irrelevant psychobabble that is unintelligible. Co-Dependency is the process by which a loved-one assists or "enables" an alcoholic or addict in their substance abuse. The term is born out of Alcoholic Anonymous and has been massively co-opted in recent years by pop psychology, as evidenced here by some of the sources listed. The definition here is just plain false, and much of the content is misleading. Though they may appear to be, any sources that don't reflect its original meaning are not reliable sources. I hope that some well versed 12-steppers and experienced editors work TOGETHER to fix this mess.EyePhoenix (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Definition is false and misleading. "Codependency or Codependence is a tendency to behave in ways that negatively impact one's relationships and quality of life." is actually the definition of self destruction. Co-dependence is defined by two or more subjects depending on each other. This can be negative (if one values independence) or positive like in situations of tribes or colonies. The writers views comply with many others on the web, and almost seem to be motivated by dysfunctional relationships. Depending on dysfunctional parts is obviously negative. The view could deter people from any close future relationships or even create doubt in existing relationships by deception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tencerjohn (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been corrected, with citations. Following Wikipedia guidelines and adding citations for your additions is the way to avoid rabid and overzealous editing.

Consensual definition The current definition is the consensual definition reached 1989 in the scientific community Codependency is a pattern of painful dependence on compulsive behaviors and on approval from others in an attempt to find safety, self-worth, and identity. Codependent relationships are a type of dysfunctional helping relationship where one person supports or enables another person’s addiction, poor mental health, immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement.192.136.235.164 (talk)

Classic Vs Modern -- Codependency Defined [Now Resolved]

I offer that the current definition of codependency is the classic, outdated one, with Alcoholics Anonymous as it's source. In it's place I offer the one coined by Robert Burney, in his book "Codependence, The Dance of Wounded Souls" as it's modern and more encompassing replacement: from Robert's website: http://www.woundedsouls.com/articles/what-is-codependency-codependence-2.html I believe that Robert has hit the codependency definition nail squarely on it's head, though his conclusions on recovery from this pervasive disease are somewhat limited. Perhaps Robert would be kind enough to update this important topic? --Lostsoul001 (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that Robert Burney appears to be a nobody, a self-published self-described self-help guru who may or may not mean well, but no-one can tell, because he has never been monitored or measured or tested and is not subject to any regulatory body. And there is always going to be a suspicion that you are him, trying to sell more books. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The current definition is the consensual definition reached 1989 in the scientific community andconsidered for the DSM. The behaviors section discusses the range of alternate definitions. Codependency is a pattern of painful dependence on compulsive behaviors and on approval from others in an attempt to find safety, self-worth, and identity. Codependent relationships are a type of dysfunctional helping relationship where one person supports or enables another person’s addiction, poor mental health, immaturity responsibility, or under-achievement.192.136.235.164 ([[User talk:192.136.235.164|t

Very strange comments by Ashley Pomeroy.... In his first paragraph he clearly shows he likes the work with very positive remarks that this writing by R.B on codependency hits the nail on the head.... (so thats good) But he then goes into some cynical dross about Roberts credentials and motives for selling books! Ridiculous!! I don't get it at all!! Since when does someone need to be a "somebody" to contribute something of value? Hopefully people will read Roberts book and form their own opinions by how it resonates with them...Pointless second paragraph Ashley and is indeed a symptom of your own codependency issues if a real deep analysis and inventory of Ashleys comments was taken by himself with full self awareness of how his own codependency operates and controls his own thinking process

http://www.woundedsouls.com/articles/what-is-codependency-codependence

Debate of 12-Step vs. Fix your self)

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?

Codependency needs to reflect the reality - even over theory.

Melody Beattie collected information from 1976 onward, which adds to the Al-Anon literature. Neither is scholarly, but both are well-known.

When a person wishes to know about Codependency, it will be useful to have an article that presents what is known about the term, "a popular psychology" term, but a term with meaning.

There are support groups that use the 12-Step model that originates with the Alcoholics Anonymous program. Most support groups use an admixture of spiritual growth and personal assertiveness skills.

Finding no good explanation of Codependency is not helpful to the general public, who reads articles like these.

I will offer my definition of modern, larger-scope codependency:

A self-defeating lifestyle, marked by unsuccessful attempts to influence or control the behaviors of others. It is not unlike the manipulation seen in the popular personality disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder; but the psychiatric community has resisted making connections between the two ideas. Neither Codependency nor Borderline Personality Disorder are scientifically provable. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude Codependency from serious psychiatric discourse.

Codependency is an imbalance, and with careful attention to behaviour, it can be corrected. It is relational to the cognitive-behavioural therapies: the consumer must decide to follow a program of thought alteration (correction) to achieve a positive outcome.

If Codependency as an idea was taken a little more seriously, more people might be properly brought into short-term therapy to assist in focusing the treatment to achieve a better outcome.

- Sylvester Wager —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subwaysleuth (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that Wiki articles can "reflect the reality, even over theory" of a concept like codependency. Wiki editors are not the arbiters of reality, and I'm afraid your suggestions for the article sound a lot like original research. Perhaps what really bothers you is that presenting the theory as "pop psych" makes it too easy for someone who ought to be coming to grips with his/her own dysfunctional behavior to instead reject the idea that anything is wrong. Part of the problem with this is the focus on just one type of potential reader, the would-be client you want to reach. Even if you are right about what that particular reader needs, paternalism is not a legitimate role for Wikipedia editors.

Why don't you find some references written by respected clinicians, and replace some of the undocumented part of the "symptoms" section with better material? That would add balance and utility to the article. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not intended to save the world, only to inform. The part about Borderline Personality Disorder, by the way, strikes me as incorrect and I would hate to see it added to the article.Rose bartram (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is so full of popular misinformation it is just sad. I can't find the actual definition ANYWHERE in this mess. The original source of the term is the literature from Alchololics Anonymous and Alanon. Most of the sources listed for this article are pop psychology books that have co-opted and altered it's original meaning. Co-dependency is not "two or more subjects depending on eachother". The 'dependency' that it refers to is a subject's dependency on alcohol, drugs or other compulsive behavior. The 'co' refers to another, who assists or enables a person in that dependency. The definition needs to be clarified by some RELIABLE sources and editors who UNDERSTAND what they're talking about. EyePhoenix (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both Subwaysleuth and EyePhoenix. This article is lacking. I can't put my finger on exactly why, but it feels like it's walking on egg shells and avoiding something. It might be trying to achieve some sort of political correctness? I don't know. Maybe I could better identify the issue if I knew more about it (but general info seems to be lacking as well). I agree with Subwaysleuth - codependency is a psychiatric issue. Sure, it's not in the Holy Bible, but it definitely belongs there (not saying you should add this thought to the article; I'm just saying it for the sake of this convo). It is definitely a personality issue as well, mainly a part of borderline, dependent (obviously), and narcissistic. I'm not opposed to theory, but there should be more substance in this article. Like they've already said - it needs more definitions, or bold statements, etc. Charles35 (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think laying out the history will help. If you see how the term evolved it tends to clears the confusion. I took a stab at it. 192.136.235.164 (talk)

Codependency and Narcissism?

Very strange that narcissism doesnt even get a mention here as it is to narcissists that codependants are most attracted. Codependency and narcissism deserves at least a section. Sam Vaknin describes them as inverted narcissists, Alan Rappoport describes them as co-narcissists and Masterson describes them as closet narcissists. Some relevant links: http://samvak.tripod.com/faq66.html http://www.winning-teams.com/codependent.html http://www.alanrappoport.com/pdf/Co-Narcissism%20Article.pdf --Penbat (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT: Alright let's get real. Narcissists + codependents is pop psychology. It isn't some neat psychological mechanism that explains the fact that they end up together. It's simply because neither of them can do any better! This is such a popular phenomena because it applies to everyone who turns to psychology for answers: divorcees. All this narcissism nonsense and codependence stuff is always in the context of "getting out of a relationship with a narcissist". People need to grow up and realize that there's more to being a narcissist than the relationship they're in. It has to do with their entire life. Sure, romantic attachments are a part, but it's not the biggest thing. Charles35 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT: I don't believe the premise that codependency is about narcissists entrapping people into codependency is technically correct. The conventional view is that codependency is a natural pairing and it is typically defined from the perspective of the codependent enabler. The scope of enabling situations is far broader than Narcissists. The article states the term was originally coined by Alcoholic Anonymous and not all alcoholics are narcissists. Codependency is also seen with personality disorders, mood disorders, depression, and situational conditions like unemployment. So it is, for example, alcoholic and codependent enabler or borderline and codependent enabler.75.166.179.110 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT: I also don't believe that the central theme of codependency is about narcissists entrapping people into codependency. The section on Narcissists is very confusing. Maybe it can be boiled down into something simple. 192.136.235.164 (talk)

COMMENT: Done 192.136.235.164 (talk)

Removing content from Sam Vaknin

I am removing some of Sam Vaknin's content; he is not a credible source of information, as has been diagnosed as a psychopath, has earned his credentials from a diploma mill and has published his content for ulterior motives.

http://www.enpsychopedia.org/index.php/Sam_Vaknin http://narcissism-support.blogspot.com/2009/03/sam-vakin-diagnosed-psychopath.html http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=8381.0

One of the links above mentions an interview with Bob Goodman, in which Vaknin stated: "The book [Malignant Self-Love] was never intended to help anyone. Above all, it was meant to attract attention and adulation (narcissistic supply) to its author, myself. Being in a guru-like status is the ultimate narcissistic experience."

I realize that not many people are familiar with psychopathy and might mistake deletions of this person's content for malice. I thoroughly recommend reading the book by dr. Robert Hare (an actual psychiatrist), entitled "The Mask of Sanity", as well as some articles on Vaknin, in order to ascertain the legitimacy of these deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.240.164 (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bro, who in the world is not familiar with psychopaths? If there's one rash generalization with no evidence to support it that our society can again and again come up with, it's that "psychopaths have no emotions." What a bunch of nonsense. Pop psychology thinks they understand stuff. They don't! Biologically, there is nothing lacking in the aptitude of their emotions. Sure, they may be off and backward, but they do have emotions. Charles35 (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A cursory look at the links you provide does not give me grounds to believe that literature authored and co-authored by Sam Vaknin, who has his own article here, cannot be applied as reliable sources. If you believe these sources do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines you should request an evaluation at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For now, I have again reverted your removal of information. __meco (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Vaknins material is outrageous:

• User:Jacobisq obviously knows his psychology and he freely chooses to include Vaknin material, so his judgement is being questioned
• Vaknin's material is frequently cited by academics in the field of narcissism etc. see: [5][6][7][8])[9])
• I also happen to know that the following books all reference or cite Vaknin:
• Lisa E. Scott, He's So Vain He Can't See You (2008) p. 8
• Frank H. Columbus/Serge P. Shohow, Advances in Psychology Research, Vol 31 (2004) p. 5
• Simon Crompton, All About Me: Loving a Narcissist (London 2007) p. 31
• David Thomas Narcissism: Behind The Mask (2010) p. 28
• Ronningstam, Elsa F. Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality (2005) (can't remember the page number)
• Vaknin's views on narcissism are considered to be high profile enough to be featured in various articles in the quality press such as "Adrian Tempany When narcissism becomes pathological Financial Times September 4 2010" and in "Yvonne Roberts The monster in the mirror The Sunday Times September 16, 2007" where his opinions are included together with those of other luminaries.
• Vaknin has a huge longstanding reputation as a journalist and editor for serious journals such as:
• International Analyst Network
• Global Politician Editors
• Los Angeles Chronicle
• He co-authored a book (Macedonian Economy on a Crossroads) with the later president of Macedonia Nikola Gruevski)

It defies any sort of common sense that there are countless academic books that cite or reference Vaknin yet it is considered inappropriate that Wikipedia can do so.--Penbat (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this discussion will continue further here (although I'm pretty sure it will continue or re-appear elsewhere), but if it does note that claims above (by User:Penbat) that the author in question is "frequently cited by academics in the field of narcissism" and that there are "countless academic books that cite or reference" him are at best disingenuous and that the suggestion above (by User:Meco) that this author's notability (as supported by having a Wikipedia page) qualifies his self-published writings for use on Wikipedia is false per WP:SPS. The few academic references made to the author are in regard to his first-person views as a person publicly diagnosed as having with Narcissistic personality disorder and not in regard to any of his theorizing about narcissism. That said, reviewing the list of other references for this article suggests that maybe the topic at hand (i.e., codependency) doesn't have a significant academic foundation or an easily identified cadre of experts, so I'm not too sure how WP:SPS can be met rigorously by anyone on this subject. Perhaps some other of you can answer that. --Soiregistered (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't vouching for Vaknin as an applicable reference here. I intervened against an IP user who did not appear to present convincing documentation to support the appropriateness of their taking Vaknin out of the article. I am very unfamiliar with this article. I'll leave further decisions to editors present. __meco (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This material appears to be mostly derived from self-published sources. Unless I hear otherwise I'll remove the parts cited to Vaknin.

• Inverted narcissists:

*Vaknin—"a self-help author who openly discusses his experiences as a person with narcissistic personality disorder"—has identified a special sub-class of such codependents as "inverted narcissists." "If you live with a narcissist, have a relationship with one, are married to one, work with a narcissist etc. – it does NOT mean that you are an inverted narcissist...you must CRAVE to be in a relationship with a narcissist."

*Inverted or "covert" narcissists are people who are "intensely attuned to others' needs, but only in so far as it relates to [their] own need to perform the requisite sacrifice"—an "inverted narcissist, who ensures that with compulsive care-giving, supplies of gratitude, love and attention will always be readily available ... [pseudo-]saintly." Vaknin considered that "the inverted narcissist is a person who grew up enthralled by the narcissistic parent ... the child becomes a masterful provider of Narcissistic Supply, a perfect match to the parent's personality."

*In everyday life, the inverted narcissist "demands anonymity ... uncomfortable with any attention being paid to him ... [with] praise that cannot be deflected." Recovery means the ability to recognize the self-destructive elements in one's character structure, and to "develop strategies to minimize the harm to yourself."

Will Beback  talk  02:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, with the self-published material removed the section would be reduced to this:

• an "inverted narcissist, who ensures that with compulsive care-giving, supplies of gratitude, love and attention will always be readily available ... [pseudo-]saintly."
  • Wyn Bramley, Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered: How Couples Really Work(London 2008) pp. 31–2

Perhaps we can add more from that source to round out the section.   Will Beback  talk 

I see that some Vaknin material was restored with the summary, "it is not SPS".[10] The citation in question is:

• Samuel Vaknin and Lidija Rangelovska, Malignant Self-Love: Narcissism Revisited (2003)

It's my understanding that that book was published by Narcissus Publications, which is run by Rangelovska and Vaknin. Is that incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's self-published and really ought to be removed. The issue is both whether it's reliable, and whether it's notable enough for mention here, and we just don't have either of those issues confirmed. I mean no disrespect to the author; it's just a question of whether it fits our sourcing policies.

More importantly there's no need to use self-published sources in an article like this, because there are plenty of scholarly sources available. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's especially important to use the best available sources for articles on medical or psychotherapeutic topics. There are a number of peer-reviewed journals devoted to this general field, so we should focus on summarizing the points and views from those. Vaknin tends to be described, in this contest, as a "self-help" author rather than as a scholar.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the SPS material is still in the article. I've removed the citations. Any assertions for which we cannot obtain reliable sources should be deleted or replaced.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Codependence and interdependence

I am of the opinion that co-dependence and interdependence are not compatible states of relating. Co-dependence fulfills needs implying dependency upon another, however, interdependence is our relational reality for 'no man is an island on their own' (? source. Written by: Novelsurfer (talk)
(Moved from the article into the talk page by Lova Falk talk 11:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC))

^This is totally correct. People use the word "interdependence" because they don't like the fact that in codependency, only the codependent is desperate and needy. Understandably, they try to make it seem to outsiders that the term describes a relationship of two people dependent on each other. In theory, this is somewhat correct, but the fact is that when we talk about codependency, we are talking about one person and their behavior, regardless of those around him or her. Codependency is seen in friendships, non-romantic family members, acquaintances, and even strangers. "Codependency" itself is a misnomer. Charles35 (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem [Now Resolved]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.coda.org/tools4recovery/Patterns2-2011.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting information [Now Resolved]

In a quick read of this article, I noticed two conflicting statements:

1. Historically, the concept of codependence "comes directly out of Alcoholics Anonymous, part of a dawning realization that the problem was not solely the addict, but also the family and friends who constitute a network for the alcoholic."[3] ^ a b Davis, Lennard J. (2008).Obsession: A History. London: University of Chicago Press. p. 178. ISBN 0-226-13782-1.

2. Although the term codependency originated outside of twelve-step groups, it is now a common concept in many of them.[18] ^ Collet, L (1990). "After the anger, what then? ACOA: Self-help or self-pity?". Family Therapy Networker 14 (1): 22–31.

These two statements as to the origin of the term are in conflict, since Alcoholics Anonymous _is_ a twelve-step program.

Otherwise, I thought the article, though neither stellar nor inspired, was acceptable and useful. While the anomaly I have pointed out does not reflect particularly well on the contributors, the article is probably about as good as it can get. Busterbarker2008 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right Busterbarker2008, but I don't really know how to fix this because both statements are sourced. Do you have an idea how to get rid of this conflict? Lova Falk talk 09:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

How to resolve the conflicting statements? Here are my thoughts. 1. More research; 2. If it was me and I had the time, I would contact the authors of both the publications, explain the dilemma, and ask if they had verifiable material with which they could amplify it; 3. You could make a snap judgement: publication (1) above is from the University of Chicago Press; publication (2) is from something called 'Family Therapy Networker' - - there is therefore a probability that publication 1 is correct and publication 2 is not. The simplest thing to do would be to delete the reference and claim from publication 2 on those grounds. However, definitively establishing which of the two publications is correct, or if neither are, could require a lot of research work. Personally, I think co-dependence is an important topic and well worth the work, but I can't myself do it anytime soon. Busterbarker2008 (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Symptoms and Behaviors [Now Resolved]

Shouldn't this topic have Symptoms and Behaviors or similar section? (192.136.237.111 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC))

Added 192.136.235.164 (talk)

Too much emphasis on narcissism [1-5-15]

Patterns and characteristics
Penbat, I see that you reversed my edit and I wanted to see if we can sort out this section on narcissism together. I struggle with this section (here) and the earlier versions of this article (here) which disproportionately (length) characterize codependency in terms of narcissism. I suggest that this material is more appropriately suited for the NPD article. I've noticed that others have questioned this, too (here)

I think Cermak (here) provides the most clinically dependable characterization of the transactional dynamics at play. Enmeshment in relationships extends equally to the chemically dependent, personality disordered, other co ‐ dependent, and/or impulse ‐ disordered individuals. The article should reflect this balance.

I drafted this from your material (below). Can we work with something brief and to the point and similar to this?

• Narcissist personality disorder. Codependents of narcissists as sometimes referred to as co-narcissists. Narcissists, with their ability to get others to buy into their vision and help them make it a reality, seek and attract partners who will put others' need before their own. Codependents can provide the narcissist with an obsequious, unthreatening audience - the perfect backdrop. Among the reciprocally locking interactions of the pair, are the way the narcissist has an overpowering need to feel important and special, and the co-dependent has a strong need to help others feel that way.
• Rappoport, Alan, PhD. Co-Narcissism: How We Adapt to Narcissistic Parents. The Therapist, 2005.
• Simon Crompton, All About Me: Loving a Narcissist (London 2007) p. 157 and p. 235
• Crompton, p. 31

192.136.235.164 (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be no shortage of book here and academic journal here links between codependency and narcissism.--Penbat (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. Are you good to go with my proposed edit/balance? Or do you have an alternative that is short and to the point (encyclopedic) that we an look at?

Also thanks for the thought provoking challenge. I'm not sure book count on Google books is the appropriate metric to resolve the issue of balance and priority. Cermak is the one who clinically profiled codependency across multiple conditions and got a "DSM style" definition through peer review in a major medial journal. This is very significant. There are also the 11 million copies in circulation of Woititz, Norwood, and Beattie's work - clearly the defining voices in the public. But even using a book count on Google books, relegates narcissism/codependency to the bottom of the list. While narcissism has a large codependent component, codependency is not largely about narcissism.

• 15,300 citations for family + codependency,
• 14,000 citations for alcoholism + codependency,
• 5,600 citations for substance + codependency ,
• 2,500 citations for ocd + codependency,
• 2,320 citations for adhd + codependency/
• 2,300 citations for borderline + codependency
• 1,600 citations for narcissism + codependency (3.6% of total)

192.136.235.164 (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion relocated here from Penbat's talk page.

192.136.235.164 (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No response. Reverted "Patterns and characteristics" to 639841970 pending further discussion/compromise here.

192.136.235.164 (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding!

This article on codependency is incredibly inaccurate. Has anyone even noticed that the "criteria" listed for "codependency" are the same criteria listed in the Dianostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association....for BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISOER, NOT Codependency???

Like most people, I have fallen into the pattern of perusing Wikipedia for information on many topics. But if this is what is considered to be an acceptable submission, I will go elsewhere and work harder for accurate information. I have contributed to Wikipedia in the past, but...no more.

P.S. I am a psychologist. This is not about theory. it is about accuracy.

66.191.161.249 (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2015‎ (UTC)

The DSM 5 criteria for Borderline personality disorder and the criteria listed in this article are listed below for comparison.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Borderline Personality Disorder

1. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment
2. A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation
3. Identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self
4. Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., substance abuse, binge eating, and reckless driving)
5. Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior
6. Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days)
7. Chronic feelings of emptiness
8. Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)
9. Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms
   
   

Failed proposal for inclusion in DSM / Co-dependency

1. Continued investment of self-esteem in the ability to control both oneself and others in the face of serious adverse consequences.
2. Assumption of responsibility for meeting others' needs to the exclusion of acknowledging one's own.
3. Anxiety and boundary distortions around intimacy and separation.
4. Enmeshment in relationships with personality disordered, chemically dependent, other co ‐ dependent, and/or impulse ‐ disordered individuals.
5. Three or more of the following:
   1. Excessive reliance on denial
   2. Constriction of emotions (with or without dramatic outbursts)
   3. Depression
   4. Hypervigilance
   5. Compulsions
   6. Anxiety
   7. Substance abuse
   8. Has been (or is) the victim of recurrent physical or sexual abuse
   9. Stress ‐ related medical illnesses
   10. Has remained in a primary relationship with an active substance abuser for at least two years without seeking outside help.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Codependency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824075736/http://www.coda.org/tools4recovery/Patterns2-2011.htm to http://www.coda.org/tools4recovery/Patterns2-2011.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the article

There are inconsistencies in this article that betray fuzzy thinking about codependency and its probably pseudoscientific status. For example, codependency is referred to as a "relationship pattern" in one place and as a "trait" in another place, showing that one or both authors of the Wikipedia article disagreed about its fundamental nature and showing lack of understanding of either what a "relationship pattern" is or what a "trait" is. These inconsistencies should be either acknowledged (i.e., under the "Controversy" section) and also at the start of the article, or they should be resolved (although resolving them seems unlikely, given the probable pseudoscientific nature of the concept). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.135.150 (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Pop goes the weasel word

The lede contains the weasel word probably; please read about avoiding use of weasel words. I find it helpful to peruse pages about WP policies and Manual of Style conventions to avoid making common errors. And I nearly always discover I've been doing something wrong, so it's enlightening and humbling. Kinkyturnip (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Has "codependency" been established as a pseudoscientific concept?

I'm not asking whether we the editors think it is or isn't a pseudoscientific concept, but whether it has been established in the scientific literature as definitely or probably pseudoscience.

At the time that I write this, the opening sentence of the article claims that "Codependency is a controversial and likely pseudoscientific concept". There is no doubt that codependency is controversial. It also might very well be pseudoscientific, but I'm not aware that this has been established in the scientific literature — and it is not the role of Wikipedia to establish or refute claims that have not been established or refuted elsewhere (see Wikipedia:No original research). To support the claim that codependency definitely or probably is pseudoscience, the article needs to cite more than just one (clearly opinionated) article published in a teaching journal in 1995.

74.12.108.22 (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I also think a small section on this debate would be very useful, because there's no summary of the debate I'm aware of that's easily readable by the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxxorz596 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

controversial

I think having the word controversial as the first meaningful word in this article makes the lede seem biased. Controversy is not a defining feature of codependency. The controversy section adequately discusses the controversy. Any article could have the word controversial as its first word: google, wikipedia, conservatism etc. Only for articles where controversy is a central or dominant feature of the subject is having controversial in the first sentence appropriate. Please discuss. The only reason I did not make the change myself is because I see it has been undone recently in the edit history. Johnathlon (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I reworked the lede so the controversy is still described prominently but not so obtrusively as the first meaningful word. I hope that works. Johnathlon (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Criticism (Controversy) section is not encyclopedic

The Criticism section reads more like a position paper or newspaper article than an encyclopedic treatment on the over use of the term "Codependency" in the general public and the lack of it's endorsement as a disease state by the American Psychological Association. There is also some highly unusual terminology such as "psychological scientists" and " pseudoscientific psychobabble".

Doesn't the criticism boil down to the fact that this condition is not defined by medical consensus (APA) but rather by a myriad of amateur definitions in self-help books and so its definition is too amorphic to be useful for clinicians.

The statement in this section that "some scholars believe that codependency is not a negative trait" is over reaching and not supported by a citation.

I've renamed the section and made some edits to make this section more encyclopedic and welcome additional edits and/or discussion here.

There certainly is controversy and it should be stated.
99.61.82.180 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary not consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style

@CASSIOPEIA: The Summary section not consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section in that it presents detailed information and concepts that do not otherwise appear in the article. It is my suggestion that the secondary and tertiary nuances of the definition of "Codependency" be developed in the section titled Behaviors and characteristics.

If there is interest in expanding the Summary beyond a simple definition of this behavioral condition, then I believe it should contain top line statements from several of the subheadings in the article. In other words, be a summary of the overall article.

I reverted my good faith edits and ask that they not dismissed as disruptive and summarily reverted.

I am open to discuss the editing of this article and I will support the consensus.
99.61.82.180 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

99.61.82.180my appologies - didnt scroll the screen down enough to see the relocation. thought you delete content. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Thanks for all the good work that you do here. We're all doing the best we can. :-)
99.61.82.180 (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

99.61.82.180 Thank you for your understanding. Appreciate it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Comparison with DPD

"Codependency is generally defined as a subclinical, situational, and/or episodic behavioral condition similar to that of dependent personality disorder."

I take issue with the comparison with DPD here, because DPD, as all personality disorders, is a clinical condition, pervasive and stable over time. I.e., the exact opposite of how codependency is described here ("subclinical, situational, and/or episodic"). Chaptagai (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2021 and 23 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chloereuter.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Critique of the value of a theoretical disorder with too varied criteria of which most are symptoms of other real disorders

The “criteria” are actually symptoms or causes (eg. ongoing abuse of the body) of other disorders in the ICD and DSM. The result is a way to buck the system in place for diagnosis, study, and treatment of disorders in the name of recovery program expediency. In pragmatic terms, it may work for many people in practice but diminishes the value of psychology over time of recovery takes place outside of traditional psychology and psychiatry. Clinical observation of only non-addicted populations creates a scenario of artificial delimitation similar to a control group. The long term effect would be to deny addicts the gold standard and the gap between the recovery movement and traditional therapies could widen until one or both lose relevance. 2600:100F:B038:7738:41EF:277:26A9:CA87 (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this article is problematic. If there is no consensus that a diagnosis exists or, if it does exist, how it might be treated, an article should directly confront those issues as opposed to mentioning them before treating codependency as if it were a diagnosable mental health disorder. Arllaw (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Dependency

The content on dependency, first suggesting that codependency resembles the diagnosable condition of dependency, then summarizing the concept of dependency, does not appear to be supported, and appears to be original research. If reliable supportive references are not identified and added, I suggest removing that material. Arllaw (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Characteristics

The list of "characteristics associated with codependency" is thinly sourced and of questionable value. If it can't be supported with current, reliable sources I suggest removing the list from the article. Arllaw (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitional Issues

There is no generally recognized definition of codependency, and it is not a diagnosable psychological condition. This article should not suggest otherwise. Arllaw (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not the goal of Wikipedia to present, without consideration of weight, reliability or broader consensus, the views of a series of people in lieu of presenting a consensus or view representative of what is found in reliable sources, ideally WP:RSMED sources. The latter approach helps articles avoid issues of giving undue weight to beliefs that are not widely held, and to avoid inadvertently promoting fringe beliefs and fringe sources. It also helps maintain neutral point of view. Arllaw (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion for anyone wanting to expand this article

Have a look at the material Arllaw deleted in December 2022. Put some of it back.Transient-understanding (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If you want to discuss changes to the article, please be specific. Are you talking about the content that mentions various books, tells us stuff about the authors and sales numbers, but is not relevant to the topic of codependency? If so, the starting point is to establish how such a book relates to and supports the subject of the article. Arllaw (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Mental health is a disease like any other, not a self imposed self destructive behaviour Roseandcamphor (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Correction should read mental illness is a disease like any other not self imposed self destructive behaviour Roseandcamphor (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that codepedency has no broadly-accepted definition, what people believe it to be is particularly important. This has been in-large-part defined by a small number of popular books. The sales figures of those books are evidence of how far-reaching their conceptions of the condition have been. Material about the authors of those books helps explain their positions and perspectives. Transient-understanding (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sales figures for self-help books tell us nothing about the quality or reliability of their content. They're also not a good proxy for public interest in an issue. The article already delves into self-help books without establishing that the author's perspective is accepted by others, let alone by the relevant community of mental health professionals. Arllaw (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Clingy

Mean of clingy 41.116.217.30 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The "clinginess" language was taken from a quote of somebody who appears to have been trying to provide a simple explanation for the cited WebMD article. If you're suggesting that the article would benefit from the use terminology that is more clear and precise, I'm not going to argue. Arllaw (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

New edits/sources

I plan to add more sources that are relevant to this page. I also plan to follow the above suggestions about editing this page. Cannymaiden73 (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)