Jump to content

Talk:Covert incest/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Article creation

There was a discussion about covert incest on the incest page. I do not know very much about this subject, but I created this article in the hope that someone who does know about it would be encouraged to write and article

How does one qualify as an expert? I'm a covert incest and overt incest survivor and have a website for covert incest. Will that suffice? Forest Path 07:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you qualify. Anyway, the expert tag is just a suggestion, not a requirement. I'm not an expert in this field, but I am going to try and improve this article. I think it would be great if we could work together towards this end. Cap'n Walker 20:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some things that crossed my mind upon reading what has been written so far. It's not just some authors who use the term covert incest, but also mental health professionals. Many survivors first heard of the term covert incest or emotional incest through their therapist.

Also, about what's written under the Legality section, what determines covert incest is whether it is done for the benefit of the child or the parent. The problem of course comes when a need is justified as being for the child's benefit when it is in fact a camouflaged desire on the part of the parent.

Covert incest is systematic abuse, meaning it's not something that just happens once or twice. It happens repeatedly over a period of time when the parent has no other support network to get his or her emotional needs and turns to the child.

Finally, it commonly comes with overt incest. I know more people who had both than just covert incest or overt incest by itself. There is more to sexual abuse then the mere sexual act involving penetration or physical contact with genitilia. Forest Path 18:47, 23 Jul 2007 (UTC)

  • This is good information. You are probably aware of more internet sources than I am, please add whatever info & citations you have. As far as the legality goes, I agree with you about the relevancy of the parent's intent. This is true with nearly all criminal offenses. We don't know what's inside a person's head when he commits a crime, so we infer it from his actions. Easy enough to do in the case of a liquor store holdup, harder in the context of CI. How many times can a father ask his daughter about menstruation before we decide that he's asking these questions for himself? Once? Monthly? It certainly is tough. Sometimes the law has trouble keeping up with humanity's depravity. I'm going to edit the Legality section to include your point about intent. Cap'n Walker 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a whole bunch of references to covert incest. Forest Path 22:04, 29 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Removing some stuff

I've cleaned up and properly cited the book sources, so I removed the improper-citation disclaimer. I also wish to remove the "Needs help from an expert" tag -- I am definitely not an expert, but I think there's plenty out there for the average Joe to turn this into a well-sourced article. I won't remove the tag just yet, I will wait a while to see if anyone objects. I'm working on this from day to day when I have time, so it's still a long way from where I want it to be. Edit away, fellow Wikipedians! Cap'n Walker 21:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Citing references

This is first real try at this, and I'm attempting to figure out how to do the references. What's the best way? Is it okay to have separate categories for book references and internet references? If not, would someone fix this for me? I'm clueless. Cap'n Walker 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if we should mention this anywhere, but covert incest was mentioned in a Law and Order: SVU Episode called "Secrets" from Season 2. I have a transcript of it. Forest Path 19:09, 23 Jul 2007 (UTC)

  • I saw that episode. I'm not a big fan of "Examples of ________ in Popular Culture" sections in Wikipedia articles, but this is as much your Wikipedia as it is mine, so feel free to add it if you wish. Cap'n Walker 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added a new section called "Covert Incest in Popular Culture." Forest Path 05:24, 29 Jul 2007 (UTC)

  • I like what you've added, but I think including the L&O transcript is a little too extensive. I don't doubt the veracity of the actors' statements, but L&O is a fictional drama. Most wiki entries on pop culture just make mention of the episode and a brief statement regarding how the subject matter is presented. Just a suggestion. Cap'n Walker 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I changed it to be a summary of how it was covered in that episode. Forest Path 14:02, 31 Jul 2007 (UTC)

More to add?

I like what you did with the L&O summary. I think there's more to be added to this article. I assume you've read many of the books listed, is there any more information that we can add? Cap'n Walker 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to think about that. I've read Silenty Seduced and The Emotional Incest Syndrome all the way through. The others I searched on Amazon and you can actually read the passages that contain information about covert incest on there, so check it out. It covers mostly the same things though.

Just off the top of my head, I think we should bring up narcissism, as parents who engage in covert incest are narcissists. We could also talk about the family model, where the parents and children are supposed to occupy their own subsystems and have boundaries separating them. This comes from the field of family therapy.

Also, we should probably mention that children are not equipped to handle adult type relationships, which is why covert incest is so devastating. Children should not be used for any kind of emotional support. This leads to them feeling like they are all powerful and able to control their parents wellbeing.

Another thing I can think of is that for many covert incest survivors, the abuse doesn't end when one becomes an adult or moves away. It usually continues. The parent showing on the door step, the frequent calls, the "accidents" that require their child to come "rescue" them, and the interference it has for both the covert incest survivor and partner. Forest Path 13:54, 01 Aug 2007 (UTC)

See Also

A small number of closely related articles helps the readers much more than a large number of loosely related articles. Neitherday 21:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Further Reading

I added a further reading section. I listed books that only deal with the subject of covert incest and nothing else. Forest Path 19:42, 01 Aug 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Neitherday...

Perhaps you've heard of placing concerns on the talk pages before deleting half an article. The AlwaysYourChoice discussion is a direct quote, and is attributed as such. I'm not aware of the "way too large a block of text" rule regarding copyrights. I have paraphrased the "Common Examples of Covert Incest" section. I guess I'll delete the Kenneth M. Adams portion for now, but I'd like to see other users' input on that.Cap'n Walker 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Involuntary covert incest

Are there any recorded examples of situations in which a parent will unknowingly display these tendencies toward thier child, but in thier own mind find nothing unhealthy or sexually inappropriate about their actions? For instance, sexually charged discussions about their children are just "an interest in how their child's life is going", watching thier child in states of undress is just "remaining on hand in case s/he slips and injures him/herself", nudity or suggestive dress is just "more comfortable around the house", etc. I mention this because in this article, the given example is of a parent knowingly abusing his or her child, but without physically raping them. If there are any examples that can be cited of scenerios in which the parent either unconcsiously perpetrates the abuse, or else consistantly rationalises it to him or herself, would they be worth including in this article? 74.67.115.126 03:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is for the most part unconscious. People who do these sorts of things are in denial. They rationalize their behaviors, they minimize it, etc. If someone "knew" what they were doing was damaging to the child, they wouldn't be doing it after all. But since these kinds of abuse usually goes back generations, it is considered "normal" to them. Forest Path 21:58, 06 Aug 2007 (UTC)


  • Forest Path, I'm guessing you've read books on the subject of CI. Is there anything more you can add? Citing to books is just as appropriate as citing to internet sources. Cap'n Walker 14:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources and footnotes

It'd be nice if this page had more reliable sources, both in quantity, and in the quality of sources. Usually 'some guy's website' doesn't count as a reliable source. Based on a quick pubmed search, this term doesn't seem to be used much in the scientific/medical literature, anyone know if it's used extensively in research? That'd definitely help. Survivor's literature isn't terribly reliable unfortunately. Further, any sources should be footnoted as in-line citations. Having multiple sources at the top of the list is much less helpful than having each line footnoted; it's easy enough to repeat the citation using the <ref name = > tag. As is, there's large swaths of information that can be outright removed as unsourced - it says on WP:V, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. WLU (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of books. If you go back and look at older versions of this page, you will see them listed. I don't know about scientific/medical literature as I don't read them. To say survivor literature isn't terribly reliable is a biased statement. Can you point to some research in scientific/medical literature that proves the unreliability of survivor literature? Yeah, I thought not. As you can see, it goes both ways. Forest Path (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure most of the survivor literature is not a reliable source given either the guideline or the verifiability policy. This isn't my policy, it's wikipedia's. Please read the policies rather than assuming I, or they, are wrong. If this is a survivor's-only concept, this should be clear in the article and the 'survivor literature' is more suitable. If it's a psychology concept, then the appropriate source is peer-reviewed journals and books from reliable publishers. Read the policies then discuss. I'm not making stuff up, I'm citing policies that represent years of work by thousands of editors, which form the core of all wikipedia and the touchstone for all of its articles. Read the policies. I edit according to policy, which is why I cite them. Read the policy. Policy is non-negotiable, guidelines are somewhat negotiable, but if you're going to edit over the long-term, you need to know when each one applies, and they are both key. Please read them, then we can discuss. If books published by popular and non-reviewed press are all we have to work with, so be it, but that does impact what can be said. No matter what, please read the policies. WLU (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not pretty sure most survivor literature does not follow the guidelines. I read the guidelines. Most survivor literature is based on the works of other psychologists. So no, it's not "made up."
Also, the two main sources of published books about the subject were not written by survivors, but by psychologists. So it does not count as "survivor literature." Please, can you at least look up the books and see the backgrounds of the people who wrote it instead of assuming it's "survivor literature?"
And yes, I've read the policies, but I see no correlation between what's written there and your interpretations. None whatsoever. This is not a personal attack. You keep repeating how you are following policy, but all I see is you wanting to throw everything away, as you've already stated your desire to gut the whole page.
And please, I do understand we all have our unique perspectives as human beings, but don't think you are equivalent to policy. I'm not disputing policy, I'm disputing your interpretation of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest Path (talk • contribs) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Editors of the page should also be wary of engaging in original research - in stubby pages without much reliable sourcing tend to stray towards OR or 'personal experience' as a source. This isn't legitemate for wikipedia except under very specific situations (consensus for the addition which supports ignoring the rules). How I wish this were studied in the psychology literature, it'd be much easier to write... WLU (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a thing against psychology, which is coloring your views. Since no one can prove using experiments that the subconscious exists, maybe we should strike that out too. It's called theory and it's based on researching people's case histories. But I guess this is not objective enough for you.
I would actually prefer if someone who didn't have such a strong bias against psychology would edit this page. Your recent edits are very unhelpful and shows your disdain for the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest Path (talk • contribs)
Please read the policies on assuming good faith and no personal attacks. This isn't about you, it's about the page. Unfortunately we are all volunteers, so if anybody else is paying attention, that's actually a good thing. Irrespective, I believe my edits are from a neutral point of view (another of our core policies, see also WP:5P or WP:SIMPLE. Also, there's an essay I wrote for newcomers to wikipedia here which may be useful to you) and I stand by them. I'm also willing to explain them if you'd like. WLU (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I know this isn't about me. I didn't even write the page. You have come to this page without any knowledge of its history. It used to be a part of the incest page, but it got too big that people created a page of its own. Now you want to get rid of it. I mean, please. What does this have to do with policy?
And for the last time, I have read the policy, I just don't agree with your interpretation of it. Period. So please don't keep repeating it. Instead show exactly how you applied it. I see no correlation whatsoever.
I check this page because I have an interest in the subject matter, but I've been mostly hands off about it and leave to others to write about it. The only section I wrote was the Law and Order bit. And no, it doesn't hurt my feelings that you shortened it. I just don't see what this has to do with policy.
This pages has been edited by many, many people over the years, by many, many admins, but you are the first to come along and say the whole thing should be gutted. I find it hard to imagine that you are the living embodiment of policy if its been able to survive this long.Forest Path (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In case I didn't make it clear, I don't give a shit about the page's history, I edit what is extant. I don't give a shit about your opinions, I care about reliable sources and what's on the page now - a whole bunch of popular psychology, case reports, legal advice and very little research or reliable sources. Read the policy or edit, I don't care, but stop wasting my time. The law and order bit was shortened due to WP:NOT, particularly the section about plot summaries, there's no need for a summary on a page that is not about law and order. And many pages survive for years because there's few links to it and little traffic. Want to do something about it? Edit. WLU (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you don't care about my opinions, then you can just stop reading them or responding to them. I can post my opinions here whether you like it or not. There is no policy about "wasting your time." You are responsible for your own time, not me, so stop blaming your wasted time on others.Forest Path (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what?

"Constant, uncomfortable attention (e.g., constant barrages of "I love my little princess")." Really? I mean... REALLY? I think this is going too far, and sounds like bullshit to me. Someone needs to justify this on the talk page. lunisneko(talk) 23:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing stuff just because you don't like it. This is taken from books on the subject. Forest Path (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The statement is currently uncited (the list is sourced to four different sources, meaning it's not possible to tell what is actually sourced and what is not). Per WP:PROVEIT, the list could be removed and replaced bullet-by-bullet, with each bullet having a citation. If it really gets messy and there's intense disagreement, the bullets can be justified by a quote from the source for each one. There's also a whole bunch of really poor references - the first two 'some guy's website' references I have removed as self-published. The book by Adams is a bit better, being an actual published book (though short, <120 pages). The page needs real sources, peer-reviewed sources, indicating that there's been attention to the concept beyond pop psychology. The only other source I've found after an admittedly small amount of looking is another book published in 1991 by Bantam. [www.pubmed.org Pubmed] turns up no articles, google scholar turns up 61. Many appear to be low-impact journals, and require subscription for full text (and none seem to be exclusively about covert incest, and their citations seem to be Adams, the short book mentioned above. Sources need to be reliable for a page about a hypothesized mental disorder. Does the DSM use the term covert incest? How about the ICD-10? There does seem to be use of the term, but not much in mainstream psychology. WLU (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is cited by 4, as well as 1. Each time more citing is added, people say it is too much and remove it. Then someone comes back and says it not cited. And this cycle continues forever and ever. We don't need to go through this process again and again.
And there is no rule in Wikipedia that says only peer-reviewed sources are acceptable. This is your bias. And pop psychology is not a recognized term in psychology.
And covert incest is not a mental disorder. Never was and never will be. Neither is rape or overt incest. They are behaviors.
Finally, please back off on your hostility to the subject and stop responding to this with a list of Wikipedia rules. You have mucked around with this page enough and I think it's time you give it a rest.Forest Path (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not the number of sources (one is adequate), it is placement. The Adams reference is at the top of the list in signs, so it's unclear if every item comes from Adams. If someone adds a second reference at the top of the list, then a new item at the bottom, it looks like the whole list is sourced to both (which would be a significant indication of agreement by independent sources, indicating greatly strengthened validity for the list) when really it's the top four by Adams and the bottom by whoever. Particularly because the list has been challenged, it's important to verify what Adams says, what is speculation or unsourced, and what was linked to the unreliable sources that were also heading the list (again, self-published websites are not sources, there needs to be some sort of review).
If this is actually claimed as a medical or daignosable condition, then peer-reviewed sources are indeed required.
I'm going to try digging through what Google scholar turns up [1] and expand the page with better sources. Low-impact journals are still better than websites. WLU (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I can look it up tonight as I have the Adams book and confirm. I will provide the exact passage and page.
Covert incest is not claimed to be a diagnosis or medical condition, as I have repeatedly said. It is a type of relationship/behavior between parent and child.Forest Path (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, please add all the behaviors that Adams discusses and ideally provide the page numbers; expand the list to be comprehensive if possible, if it's too long we can discuss trimming to the 'best' examples. I don't think the passages are necessary but if you want to type it out then it'll help other editors when modifying the page.
The problem isn't really the dagnosis or whatever, it's the use of the term - who and how. How prominent is it, how popular, is there actual research on it, etc. If the APA and other governing bodies don't really discuss then it makes the page harder to work with and more of a fringe topic. Parity of sources then comes into play, and less reliable sources can be used, but the page should also reflect that the term is based on clinical judgement, only used by limited groups and may not represent a mainstream research opinion. WLU (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, they are spread out across the books I looked at, but I've managed to come up with some passages that highlight what was covered in the list here.
From page 50 of Adams' book: "As Rebecca began to recount her father's relationship to her, the 'ickiness' of his seduction came evident to her. Though she had never been sexually touched in an overt way by him, Rebecca squirmed in her seat as if to get her father off her. She grimaced and exclaimed, 'My dad actually bought me sexy underwear. I can't believe it! I forgot all about that. It felt a little funny at the time, but he always said I was his 'princess' and deserved the best. So I didn't think much more of it. Besides part of me liked being treated so special. When I started developing breasts, my dad would look at me with a big smile and proclaim, 'You are becoming a woman.'"
From page 23 of Love's book: "I have had quite a few clients, both men and women, whose parents walked this fine line between emotional and sexual incest. Their parents didn't touch them inappropriately, but they displayed an unhealthy interest in their bodies. Some had parents who did not allow them privacy in the bedroom and bathroom. Others had parents who openly stared at their bodies, took seductive pictures of them, or made inappropriate sexual remarks. When parents are both sexually and emotionally fixated on their children, the enmeshment is usually more intense and more damaging."
From page 114 of Patrick Carnes' "Don't Call It Love": "She commented on the covert aspects of her relationship with her father: 'Prior to recovery and in early recovery I perceived my father's explicit talk about my body in sexual terms to be sexist. I was both annoyed by it and turned on simultaneously. Later I realized the inappropriateness and felt invaded, abused, and appalled. I recognized that my previous reaction to it was a way to deny the abuse I felt. The inappropriateness fed my addiction. I also recognize that the many ways in which my father was 'open' about nudity and his sexually explicit conversation with me were forms of incest, since I now recognize both his preoccupation with sex and the turn-on he derives when engaged in this. (It continues to this day, requiring limit setting from me.) I also now recognize how 'icky' I feel when I'm around his sex talk, which underscores the power of this abuse.'"Forest Path (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Bleck, those are examples and raises questions of original research to me. I've added stuff from a variety of sources which might cover it all and the sources were explicit so there's no need to interpret. WLU (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you that this is not a diagnosis and therefore does need peer-review sources? I'm going to have to look into getting others involved, because you refuse to be impartial.Forest Path (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Does not require, but anything sourced in a peer reviewed source is better than anything sourced to a self-published book, generic website or no sourcing whatsoever. I don't have to be impartial by the way, wikipedia pages must be neutral and this is achieved by reflecting sources as accurately as possible and using the best and most reliable sources available. Bring in others if you want, I don't care. WLU (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Page re-written

I've re-written with the references I managed to find on Google scholar. There's urls and lots of citations. I'd really like to expand the criticism section if I can find more - I'm guessing some of the peer-reviewed journals have some choice words on the subject. WLU (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WLU, you constantly show your bias. If you keep this up, I'm going to flag this as an issue. Guessing that peer-review journals have criticisms of covert incest speaks volumes of what your views are and brings into question whether you can remain an impartial editor on this subject matter.Forest Path (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, if you think it's a huge problem then feel free to bring in whoever you like. Note that my addition of criticisms was tiny, just once sentence, and based on a source. I haven't added original research or my own opinion, I'm summarizing the source. So what is your problem with the extant page? Is it what it says or the fact that you perceive a bias in me? Comment on the content, not the contributor. I say again, what is problematic with the current page? WLU (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The rewrite was unnecessary. You could have just added to what was already there. The fact is you do not collaborate. It's your way or the highway. I don't think someone who has openly been critical of the subject matter should be the sole person responsible for the page. I have already asked for a third opinion. You should have absolutely nothing to worry about, because if your page is completely unbiased, it will pass with flying colors and will confirm that your changes were justified. It's a win-win situation. For someone who speaks highly of peer review, I just think you need to be peer reviewed as well.Forest Path (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you don't seem to have discussed a problem with the extant page. There's no reason to keep old content, older is not better. You are of course free to add content or sources, but content should not be removed unless it is unsourced. There is indeed a peer review for users, I don't know what their opinion would be, but I've a pretty good idea. I hardly think they'll have any real comment with me expanding a page based on published sources. Re-read the whole page, beginning to end, check the references to ensure they're fairly represented, then let me know if you have problems with the product. My bold changes to the page were within a perfectly acceptable process. I really, really do not understand what issue there could be with adding references to nearly every statement on the page. Really, I have expanded, reorganized and sourced. What is related to the page that you have a problem with? The fact that I did it is irrelevant. WLU (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The point of Wikipedia is not for everyone to rewrite the page in their own voice. It is not an exercise in creative writing. Would you mind if I did? I think I could do a better job. Don't worry, the more people that look at it, the better it gets. I hope you agree with this? I find it hard to understand why someone who thinks highly of their contributions would feel so threatened. I care about the subject matter and want to make sure it has been looked at by as many people as possible. I'm sure it can be improved. Correct?Forest Path (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I don't see what coud be "my own voice" given I have expanded and reorganized the page based on 12 reliable sources and virtually every single sentence cites a book or journal article. Is there a problem with my summary of the sources? I don't feel threatened, and an exercise in creative writing would be original research. My additions did substantially change the previous contents of the page from my recall. And I have no problem with anyone editing the page and have urged you to in the past. So long as you edit according to sources in a way that accurately summarizes them, I would expect to have no problem. So go ahead. If you're expecting a substantial revision, I suggest adding a {{under construction}} template at the top of the page until you are finished so you don't run into edit conflicts. WLU (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to edit anything because everything I have written has been disregarded so far. I will not waste my time any longer. But I will have others look at this. Talking about this any further is of no use, because it has already been set in motion.Forest Path (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

The rewrite seems like an improvement to the article. The new version is more neutral in tone and uses additional reliable references. The material removed was unsourced and the rephrasing changes the tone from firm insistence of reality to neutral description. However, a few issues remain, beyond the need for expansion. The lead should be moved to an "overview", "introduction" or similar first section and replaced with a proper lead. The criticism section seems unjustified, with only one critical statement. (The current criticism should be moved to the existing "Description" section, or the aforementioned "introduction" section.) In general, we should avoid criticism sections unless it is a distinct part of the reliable literature available, instead placing critical claims in the appropriate place in the article (just as we do with positive and neutral claims). Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, thanks for your input. I feel better now. I've been involved with this so long that I wanted a neutral third party outsider to judge for themselves. And I do feel it can be expanded and moved around like you suggested. Hopefully, your ideas will be incorporated in the next round of edits.Forest Path (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm re-editing per Vassayana's comments. WLU (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Done, I believe I addressed the issues raised by Vassayana's comments. ResearchEditor, note that one of my changes was to add the category of psychological abuse. WLU (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it should say something like "Covert incest...is a proposed term to describe a type of incest and psychological abuse..." The dispute is over the term, not whether what is going on in these situations is beneficial to children or not. Even Mr. Pendergrast says on page 52: "There is, of course, much that is true in these books. In many marriages or divorces, a father or mother may rely much too heavily on children for emotional support. In such situations, children can feel acute responsibility beyond their years. While this phenomenon is unfortunate, however, it is fairly normal and widespread, and it is not incest, emotional or otherwise." This should also be mentioned along with his "criticism." This is not clear in the current way it is written on the page.Forest Path (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Pendergrast is critical of the concept, but I had difficulty summarizing. Feel free to adjust the criticism bit, based on what you say above I don't see me having a problem. On reflection, I'd rather the term 'incest' were not used in the lead because incest is a sexual relationship. The defining feature of covert incest, by my reading, is an inappropriate emotional relationship that involves no actual sex, either penetration or even blatant groping. It's characterized by ambiguity, while actual incest is not. Though two of the sources actually describe it as a continuum, which means you can never really pin down the dividing line. I've adjusted to remove incest from the lead, perhaps the concept's place on a hypothetical continuum could be added/expanded in the body then reflected in the lead. WLU (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, although I'm fine with the changes you made and what you say is for the most part accurate, something can be sexual without there being any contact (for example, sexual harassment). I don't buy Mr. Pendergrast's arguments, but I've read the part of his book where he talks about covert incest and understand what he is getting at so let me see if I can adjust his criticisms to include what I said above.Forest Path (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I added my changes. Hopefully, it's worded okay.Forest Path (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I agree with your suggestion of talking about the continuum in the body and reflected in the lead. But I'll leave that for someone else to write.Forest Path (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Something can be sexual without involving contact, but in your example the charge would be 'harrassment', not rape. Hence, I think covert incest is psychological abuse, not incest. But since the definition of incest is identified slippery and on a coninuum in the books, we can reflect that in the page and I think the continuum concept does more to accurately reflect the opinions of the various authors than trying to shoehorn all possible definitions of incest into the lead of one short-ish page. You've the interest and the sources are there, so feel free to be bold and make the addition yourself. Your edit to the criticism section was a definite improvement and nicely summarized. If it's left to me, I'll put it off and almost certainly forget about it. Keep in mind that the lead should reflect the body - add to the body first (probably overview would be easiest) then add to the lead.

I moved the criticisms to the 'overview' section - previously they were in behavior, but Pend. doesn't actually discuss behavior and they're not really 'relationship' so overview seemed the best spot. I also adjusted the wording a bit 'cause I can never resist the urge to meddle. Please review and adjust if you think it necessary. WLU (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the paragraph on Pendergrast's book is looking better. But I still have two concerns about it. One is the mention of RMT. IMO, the concept of RMT is not really connected to Covert incest, nor is this article concerned with this issue. The paragraph could easily be written leaving this out. The second is the problem of undue weight. This paragraph is fairly large compared the weight given to some of the other references in the article. BTW, thanks for adding the category of psychological abuse. ResearchEditor (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Pendergrast explicitly mentions recovered memory therapy, that's his main thesis in the book and he singles it out for comparison with covert incest in the book. The 'paragraph' is one sentence and since it is the only criticism and a nuanced one, it's gonna be a bit long. Also, since the concept seems more pop than mainstream psychology (lots of books published in popular press rather than university; very few mentions in peer-reviewed journals), a line of criticism provides a suggestion why. This is a fringe topic, Pendergrast's criticism speaks to this quite clearly. WLU (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to second ResearchEditor on both points. False Memory Syndrome is considered a fringe topic in psychology and is not recognized. His criticisms should be able to stand on its own even without reference to FMS, which like ResearchEditor has stated, is not related to covert incest at all, as covert incest does not involve repressed memories. The criticism as it appears also gives it more weight than it should. We are talking about many psychologists versus one lay person who does not have a background in psychology, but had two of his daughters separate from him due to charges of incest. This also brings his credibility into question. His views should be included, in my view, but it should not be given equal stature. (By the way, I have researched the guy and he has never explicitly talked about what he has been accused of or the nature of what happened, but instead has devoted his energy to attacking psychology in regards to how it treats sexual abuse.) However, this last point may be remedied by expanding the part that is not critical of covert incest by mentioning the continuum and whatever else may be relevant to the topc. More can be said about the whole thing as it covers a lot of territory.Forest Path (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Some info to chew on (from page 14 of Pendergrast's book): "Both of my adult daughters--first one, then the other--have cut off all contact with me, based on vague, unspecified allegations of childhood sexual abuse."Forest Path (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Covert incest would almost certainly be a fringe topic as well - no coverage in high-impact journals. I believe FMS has extensive coverage in mainstream sources, even if to debate or denigrate. Is it clear whether Pendergrast speaking of his own daughters, or is he reporting on a case study? Case studies are cited frequently throughout the book and lacking many pages on preview makes it difficult to tell which. The credibility of the source is not who says what, its who publishes - oversight comes from the publisher. I like retaining FMS because of the context it gives the criticism. I don't know how the weight could be reduced given it's just one sentence. Anything removed reduces context. And the whole point of the book methinks, is the way psychological concepts that are not based on actual research, review by peers and publication in respectable journals can be harmful to real families. WLU (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect. To put FMS and covert incest on the same level is just not accurate. There is a body of research to support covert incest. There is none for FMS. To link FMS and covert incest is political and a way to frame covert incest as pseudoscience. It's a trick and I believe it to be biased and will again ask for a third opinion. You are once again putting your biases in here. You are not applying the same level of scrutiny to FMS and Mark Pendergrast as you are doing to the rest. That is where this is inherently unfair. If a lay person had written a book but it was pro-covert incest, you would disregard for its lack of being peer reviewed. Pendergrast has not had his work peer reviewed by anyone in the psychological field as far as I can tell. It goes both ways and you cannot just apply one set of standards to one side and another for the other. So unfortunately I will once again have to ask for a third opinion. By the way, your opinion about the point of the book is your point of view and is nowhere supported in the literature. Also, since Pendergrast does not have the qualifications to do counseling, I don't see how he could possible have access to credible case studies. The book is nothing more than his opinions and to put someone who's been accused of incest on the same level with psychologists and call it fringe is quite outrageous and hard to swallow. This is exactly why I am weary of you having "ownership" of this article. I could remove the FMS reference or try to condense the sentence but you will just edit it back, so instead of engaging in edit wars, I will ask for those who are neutral to intervene. So fire away with your reply to justify why you are unbiased and so forth, but it won't make a difference to me.Forest Path (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The concept gets virtually no mention in journals, the meat of where research gets done. What research exists on covert incest? There's theorizing and clinical case studies, but what research? What mainstream governing body recognizes covert incest? The APA? The CPA? The concept is pseudoscientific for the reason that Pendergrast says - it's vague, it is difficult to prove, and it can apply to virtually anyone, and Pendergrast, based on my recall, discusses the contents of pop psychologists and recovery literature authors to apply a critical eye to wooly, unproven concepts. I believe I'm applying parity of sources to the page. If I were really hopelessly biased I would have added this document a while ago, painting a very unflattering picture of proponents of covert incest as a bunch of nutters. I haven't, because I don't like the source. The majority of the books are not peer reviewed, but I'm letting them stay because parity applies - as a pseudoscientific notion there's no real discussion in actually reliable sources. WLU (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"The concept gets VIRTUALLY no mention in journals.." What is virtually about it? What is the magic number? And to apply parity of sources, you must first PROVE that it is a fringe topic which it isn't. And just because you could have been MORE biased doesn't mean you AREN'T biased. Like ResearchEditors says, you are giving undue weigh to the side you are rooting for. The topic here is covert incest, not FMS. Your criticisms of covert incest could very easily be applied to the majority of psychological concepts and is bringing unfair attention to this topic. If those sources that covert incest is quoted from is not mainstream, then God help us. I think you have issues with the entire field of psychology. Taking it out here on covert incest is not justified. "The majority of books are not peer reviewed" you say. Well, obviously some are. But they don't meet the magic number for you, therefore you categorize it as fringe. This is totally biased and illogical. If your blatant attempts to control the topic is left in place, I will personally leave Wikipedia. This is outrageous. I will be shocked if this survives after getting a third opinion.Forest Path (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Google scholar: "covert incest" 58 results. [www.pubmed.com Pubmed], "covert incest" - two results PMID 3239608, PMID 15326880.
Google scholar: "attachment theory" 20 300 results. Pubmed, "attachment theory", 488 results.
Google scholar: "applied behavior analysis" 17 400. Pubmed, "applied behavior analysis", 139 results (and a Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.)
Google scholar "cognitive behavior therapy" 13 400 results, "cognitive behavioral therapy" 24 000 results, Pubmed "cognitive behavior therapy" 614 results, "cognitive behavioral therapy" 1634.
No peer-reviewed articles, no real books, no extensive discussion in sources of high reliability, no review articles, only chapter mentions, short sections, a page or two here and there. Fringe.
At best, a 3O might remove the mention of FMS, but go ahead. WLU (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is totally unconvincing. Good luck trying to get others to go along with it.Forest Path (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Demonstrate that the page isn't a fringe topic, and 11/12 of the sources are unsuitable. But you can demonstrate the topic is not a fringe by finding peer reviewed articles and extensive discussion within university press books, replacing all the information and sources on the page with high, rather than pop reliability sources. And then the page will be improved. So have at thee, and happy editing. WLU (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it is not my responsibility to prove something isn't fringe. Things are not fringe by default. It's the other way around. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate it is fringe. And you have not succeeded so far. All the references on the main page about covert incest are excellent and scholarly. They are written by professionals and not a bunch of crackpots, unlike those in the FMS scene. PS. There will be NO editing from me until these disagreements are resolved.Forest Path (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

recent edits made to article

I am confused about two of the recent edits made to the article.

The first is the deletion of the category Psychological abuse. The second is the phrase "covert incest is difficult to prove and is not explicitly illegal." This is OR and appears to be unsourced. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Covert abuse involves no specific contact and is an emotionally, rather than physically damaging interaction, with no actual sexual contact. It is difficult to prove, and I don't believe there's any actual criminal charge of 'covert incest'. While 'incest', sexual penetration or touching between parents and children may be illegal with a charge of incest, covert incest involves no actual physical contact. Specific behaviors, such as distributing pornography to a minor may be illegal, but they would be charged with 'distributing pornography to a minor.' Not 'covert incest'. User:Cap'n Walker added the section on legality in this edit and it remained a separate section through the next 8 or so months. I assumed good faith that Cap'n knew what he was doing and used common sense that a term that's more pop than scholarly would have little legal merit as a separate term. I'm perfectly happy to remove any discussion of legality if you think there's an issue with the current statement - if there's no evidence that covert incest is illegal or legal, then per WP:PROVEIT it can be removed until sourced. I've nothing really to say about the deletion of the category. WLU (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't find a version that used the category 'psychological abuse' so I can't tell if or when or by who the category was deleted. WLU (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I have found some sources on this topic using my library access. Quotations from those sources can be found at /sources001. I hope they are helpful. Vassyana (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you find the quote for this article on covert incest? I understand if it's too long. WLU (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have easy access to that material. It would have to wait until I could get to the university library, which I probably won't be visiting until at least next week. Vassyana (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, not all of them are sources on covert incest. There is a danger in trying to merge covert incest with other related topics, which I see in the making here. We could talk about exhibition, alcoholism, voyeurism, narcissism, enmeshment, structured family therapy, attachment theory, emotional and verbal abuse, sexual addiction, etc, etc. We could also include unrelated topics, such as FMS, if we find ANY literature on covert incest that is contained under these other topics. The line needs to be drawn somewhere.Forest Path (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you please clarify? All three sources seem to explicitly address the subject matter. Vassyana (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In Early Childhood Exposure, only the first quote talks about covert incest. The others are about parental nudity, parental intercourse, etc. It's definitely related, but what I mean is, I could make the case that we should talk about alcoholism or sexual addiction because some of the articles used currently talk about the relationship between covert incest and chemical dependency or sexual addiction. But I've stayed away from that, because then there is no end as to what to include with this topic. Also, I don't see covert incest mentioned anywhere in WLU's article, but maybe it's buried inside. My point being, I could start bringing in stuff that talks about characteristics that overlap with covert incest and make it part of this topic. The possibilities are endless. So I just want to caution that we stick to covert incest and what is being said about it. And everything that is said about covert incest should be able to stand on its own right, without trying to link it with something else.Forest Path (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I've looked over the sources page, the first I would not use - it's all clinical observations, which we can not integrate into a real statement as that would be OR. The other ones I can see a place for, and the second will be very useful in expanding the criticisms section. Many of the references to covert incest in articles and books that discuss alcoholism and sex addiction, so if there are reliable sources that discuss these issues as sequelae to covert incest, then that's a good expansion of the page.
If by 'my' article, you mean Jacobson, 2001, I could only get a partial preview with the words "Covert incest, a new term coined in the 1980s by sexual abuse experts, is a ‘hands-off’ derivative defined by a boundary violation between parent and child." If you actually have the article FP, then more context and content would be helpful.
Note that we shouldn't talk about the characteristics that overlap with covert incest, that'd be original research. I want to stick to what the sources say as well, so I used them extensively. The problems arise if the sources are mis-presented. I don't believe I have done so. WLU (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

There has been a request for a third opinion regarding some recent edits to the Covert incest article, however, a third opinion cannot be given without some discussion of the issue. Please discuss the issue here and see if you can't work toward some resolution. Then, if you still would like a third opinion, by all means request it. Mmyotis (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To restate my concern, clearly there has been a lot of discussion. The problem is that it's not clear what exactly is the issue for which a third opinion has been requested. Can someone provide a concise summary of the issue? Mmyotis (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the paragraph about Pendergrast's opinion on covert incest. He is a layperson whose two daughters have accused him of incest. He has since written a book to blast how psychology deals with sexual abuse. In it, he covers covert incest. He calls it pop psychology nonsense. WLU wants this criticism to be treated at the same level as those of countless psychologists who have written articles and books about covert incest. I have stated that WLU does not apply the same standard to both. He makes his case by saying covert incest is a fringe topic because it does not have enough peer reviewed sources. However, he has no problems including Pendergrast's opinions even though it hasn't been peer reviewed either because he AGREES with it. This is bias of the first degree and to have him control the content to make it seem as if both views as equally valid is outrageous. ResearchEditor has mentioned that the mention of FMS is unrelated to the topic of covert incest and that Mr. Pendergrast's opinions is given undue weight. I agree with both points. Pendergrast's opinions should be able to stand on its own even without its reference to FMS as covert incest does not involve repressed memories. But WLU wants the linkage so that he can paint both as fringe topics. FMS _is_ a fringe topic and is not recognized by psychology. So he is playing politics and clearly has an agenda to give a skewed view of covert incest in order to influence public opinion in his favor. The reference to Pendergrast should at most be short, something like "However, Pendergrast disputes the use of the term." Those who want to follow up can then follow the link to his book. If it is left the way it is written now, it means that a single individual's opinion can override those of the majority or at least be given equal parity. I don't think one source by a layperson of questionable background should be placed at the same level as reputable psychologists in the field.Forest Path (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Third opinions are not intended for disputes involving more than one editor. I will nonetheless share my opinion in this case.

Third Opinion

I agree, based on the information provided on the Talk page, that the amount of criticism appears to be insufficient to merit detailing in the overview section. Wikipedia articles that cover controversial subjects or subjects that have detractors usually employ an Criticism section. I recommend that the overview contain a simple statement such as "Descriptions of the term covert incest have been criticized as being to general." and that another section be created called Criticism where the specific critical concerns are explicated. Mmyotis (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, there was previously a criticism section but it was removed under the recommendation by Vassyana who said it is only merited if the original source has a separate section for it (I hope I'm paraphrasing her right). Not sure which is the way to go. Or even if it warrants a separate page which can be devoted to debunking psychology in general.
Also, I forgot about third opinions only being for disputes between two editors. Since I asked for the first third opinion, more people have arrived. So what is the suggested way to go about resolving this when it involves more than two people?Forest Path (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You could try mediation. Mmyotis (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Or a WP:RFC. I is because this is a fringe topic that the page has as many sources as it does. Were it not a fringe topic, were it a medical topic, the only really reliable source is Jacobson, the rest are not medical or university press. Pendergrast is on exactly the same standing as the other authors - published by a mainstream, a non-scholarly publisher. I would say it is rare that a book is eliminated as a source because of who wrote it, who published it is usually the standard. But you could bring this up at WP:RSN I suppose. Incidentally, I disagree with just about everything on the main page. But since it is sourced, I don't have a problem with it. I haven't added other criticisms to the page because I haven't been able to find a source.
The comment about placement makes sense - I moved it to behavior, since Pendergrast is discussing the behavior used to identify covert incest. The NPOV tag accompanied it. WLU (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"Mainstream" is subjective. I believe Pendergrast and his ilk to not be of the mainstream, judging from his reactionary writings. He is quite out there.Forest Path (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)In response to Mmyotis, I had thought the MOS or GTL spoke against critcism sections, so I attempted to integrate the relevant citations into the relevant sections. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure was pointed out to me, and I found Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure as well. I think that a criticisms section could be made, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea. There's probably enough text and citations to populate such a section, but right now each criticism slots more or less adequately into a matching section of the main article. Feedback and other comments welcome. WLU (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though you guys are close to an understanding, and if you can work the material smoothly into an existing section, I agree it would be a better way to go. I'm still learning the in's and out's of wikipedia's policies and manuals WLU, and Vassyana is far more experienced than I. I hadn't realized she was already helping out here when I responded to the request for third opinion, so at this point I'm going to just fade into the background and watch how you guys work things out. Mmyotis (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, we couldn't be farther apart. I've since requested mediation.Forest Path (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I think you agree the article merits some mention of the criticism and that you just want to avoid undue weight, right? Would a seperate section be acceptable to you as I described it above? Mmyotis (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I was of the belief that a separate criticism section was generally something to avoid, based on my reading of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure; in course of discussing on User talk:SandyGeorgia, one other editor mentioned they thought so as well. Right now I don't see huge merit to a criticisms section as I think the interspersing within other sections seems to work OK, but I haven't tried to integrate into a single section. WLU (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies and guidelines are offered as a way of reaching consensus and insuring that articles have a neutral point of view, but they make it clear that all rules can be broken (withing limits of course) provided the editors working on an article believe doing so is the best way to make the best possible article, so I would argue that ideas should not be rejected as unacceptable for reasons of policy or guideline, but for specific reasons as they apply to a particular dispute. That said, if Forest Path and others were okay with a balanced and weighted criticism section, would you be willing to try that route? Mmyotis (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I'd have to see what it looked like to give a firm opinion. I don't really see much point since the only real criticism is 'covert incest broadens the definition of incest to a somewhat trivial degree'. But if someone wants to try putting it all into a sourced section, go ahead. WLU (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not sure that I would agree that a criticism section would be a good idea. One problem is that this is a minority view and giving it a full section may be giving it undue weight. And I would agree with WLU above from the references shown in the article. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is changing so drastically every day that by the time I respond, it's already different. I think it might be best for me just to state what I have issues with when the cabal shows up. In a nutshell, I just believe we are trying to fuse together two different 'world views' when it comes to covert incest and they don't match. I really believe they need to be kept separate, otherwise it just sounds confusing. Giving a separate section to criticisms might give it too much weight, but I've always been of the opinion that criticisms of covert incest should be a subsection of the FMS stuff. All the criticisms of covert incest comes from that camp and is always fused together with FMS, so I don't see why it can't be placed there. Then we could just have a link to it. I believe things on Wikipedia should reflect real life as much as possible. In real life, books that are 'for' covert incest are under that subject matter or the more broader topic of incest. Then criticisms are always a subsection of FMS. So I expect Wikipedia to reflect the same separation. But anyway, I'm not spending as much time here anymore because I'm just exhausted of this back and forth bickering. I'll leave it to you guys to argue it out for now. I'll say what I believe is the fundamental issue when the time comes for mediation.Forest Path (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To RE - if covert incest is the minority view with the academic world, then it's a fringe topic and the restrictions on the reliability of the criticisms is relaxed. Right now it could go either way because of the mixture of reliable and pop sources. A small number of criticisms could mean either there's not much to criticize about the subject, or it just hasn't received much attention from scholarly audiences - the first is not fringe, the second is. WLU (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okami, 1998

I have integrated early childhood exposure from the sources sub-page. I'm a bit iffy on it - I would prefer knowing how closely linked the different sections quoted are, both in explicit mention and in terms of page number. Since the article does discuss covert incest explicitly, the author does seem to use the results to criticize the harm associated with at least some of the behaviors. I think I'll shorten it.

One thing I'm curious about, I bet that Okami at some point qualifies that there's a difference between being nude around your kids 'cause you're comfortable with your body and you don't want the societal sexual taboo perpetuated, and a showing off because of their own sexual needs. I'd love a quote on that if it exists. It seems like an obvious distinction to make. I'd give one of my less useful toes for a full text (hint!) WLU (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Section is shorter now. I like the new version better - it lacks the detail but there's less weight put on a single study. WLU (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I removed the Okami mention before I saw this discussion or I would have discussed first. Okami's use of the term seemed to be solely in regard to the nudism issue, and "exposure of the child to primal scenes". etc. with no mention of the emotional elements that are at the core of this topic. Covert incest is about codependence and overpowering emotional enmeshment, not so much about parents being nude in front of the kids and other related ideas that Okami discussed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
But Okami does explicitly mention covert incest, and nudity/sexuality in front of kids is one of the behaviors. I'd like to see what Okami says about covert incest beyond the mention in the quotes, as that would influence how I would deal with the mention. I would like to include at least any info from the first paragraph that could be included, and I think it's reasonable to put in a 'at least one behavior associated with CI does not seem to be linked to harm', but again that depends on what the source says in greater detail. WLU (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kaminer quote

It appears to me that the cquote used on this quote may create undue weight, emphasizing this quote over the other text. Perhaps an intext quote can be used. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and used {{quote}} instead of {{cquote}}. Vassyana (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Using a direct quote in itself gives it undue weight. I'm not going to go into this as I've already asked for mediation. But the article is so heavily skewed that in my opinion it needs to be rewritten from scratch (again). It reads like a research paper by someone in the FMS movement and does not accurately reflect the majority opinion on the subject in the real world.Forest Path (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the cquote. I would agree that using a direct quote is problematic and probably undue weight. Also, the intext source listing is undue weight as well. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur that the quote was undue weight; I moved it into the footnote. The quote supports the content and is appropriate as a reference, but is overly dramatic for inclusion in the main text. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I utterly loath the use of quotations in references - if there's the feeling that it's too much in the text, I'd rather just use a summary and dispense with quotes altogether. From my understanding, the use of quotes is generally deprecated. WLU (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources, the sequel

Since JAR seems to have access to a good library and there are references popping up from academic publishers, would it be possible to weed out the popular press ones and replace them as much as possible with more reliable sources? JAR, that'd mostly fall on you I think, since you've already added many that are from university presses. WLU (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to page

I appreciate the recent edits made by the editors working on the page. I still have a few concerns about the page. One is this quote in the header "Covert incest has been criticized as an overly broad set of criteria which excessively expands what is considered incest or child sexual abuse." I believe this could be removed because it is already mentioned in the section on characteristics and this duplicate mention gives a minority view undue weight. Though I do understand WLU's comments on my comments above about the Pendergrast comment, I still believe it is long in relation to most of the other references, giving it undue weight. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The separate paragraph about the criticism in the intro may have implied some undue weight . Since there is criticism in the article though, it's appropriate for the intro to at least mention it, with appropriate weight. I've done some copyediting in the intro to merge that sentence into a second paragraph along with some other info so the possible excess weight is softened.
As an aside, in reading through Pendergrast's book, I noticed that he is a member of the FMSF, so I added that info to the article to provide context for the text supported by his reference. Another of the critical authors, David F Bjorklund uses information from the FSMF in his book False-memory creation in children and adults: theory, research, and implications and his book is referenced by the FMSF in their materials. That's not something we can use in the article, but it may be of interest for future research. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That is not a duplication, that is the difference between the article lead and the body of the text. The lead should provide a brief overview of the body; any ideas in the body should be generally summarized in the lead. This is also why I've removed sources from the lead - it should contain statements that are sourced below, so the footnoting is unnecessary. The current lead summary reads OK to me, I don't feel strongly about changing or leaving it.
See #Criticism below for my thoughts on the FMSF inclusion in the text. Is the FMSF seen as complete quackery or is there some acceptance of its methods and conclusions in reliable sources? I understand that FMS is controversial, but Bjorklund's book is published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, making it pretty reliable (academic press). I don't mind some qualification of the FMS's role in this, but if it's getting academic publication then there's obviously some support for their ideas. WLU (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Medcab request

I saw your request on Medcab and am willing to try and help you guys out, at least until a mediator arrives. Could you briefly summarize the situation? Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to repost this from above. In a nutshell, I just believe we are trying to fuse together two different 'world views' when it comes to covert incest and they don't match. I really believe they need to be kept separate, otherwise it just sounds confusing. Giving a separate section to criticisms might give it too much weight, but I've always been of the opinion that criticisms of covert incest should be a subsection of the FMS stuff. All the criticisms of covert incest comes from that camp and is always fused together with FMS, so I don't see why it can't be placed there. Then we could just have a link to it. I believe things on Wikipedia should reflect real life as much as possible. In real life, books that are 'for' covert incest are under that subject matter or the more broader topic of incest. Then criticisms are always a subsection of FMS. So I expect Wikipedia to reflect the same separation. If you want to talk more send me a message, because I've decided to only check back here once a day from now on. I frankly can't take any more of this B.S. and need a break. You guys can fight it out for a while while I go on "vacation." Now, excuse me, because I have to go barf.Forest Path (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you point out particular sections that need to be modified? If the criticisms are of FMS, they would belong in a subsection. If they are of Covert Incest, they get their own section. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
What are the two world views that need to be separated? Pendergrast and Bjorklund both are linked to criticism of false memory, Kaminer is not from what I've seen, though she is critical of self-help and pop psychology. Aside from the qualification to Pendergrast's criticism, false memory doesn't appear in the article. Wikipedia should reflect sources, as it is about verifiability, not truth and prohibits any original research which attempts to describe a subject without attribution beyond an editor's opinion. WLU (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Things are changing so fast that it's almost useless for me to comment. Kaminer's criticisms should definitely be on this page. Pendergrast's I'm not so sure. If we could extract that FMS crap out it might have a place on this page. Like I've said before, his criticisms should stand even without references to FMS. Though there is a point in showing that he is part of the FMS movement and therefore has an agenda. Dunno... I know the third opinioners have recommended not having a separate section, but I think once we got rid of criticisms section and fused everything together, the whole thing got worse. It's better to separate them out.
The other issue though is still about equal weight. Not sure how to address that.
Anyway, I've used up the time that I have allocated myself to overlook this article, so until tomorrow night. Have fun playing guys.Forest Path (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The extant criticisms in the article are below and this is basically what the criticism section would look like:

I'm inclined to, even if not putting it in a separate section, at least put them together at the bottom of the characteristics section (now the criticisms are split between two paragraphs). As for actually putting in a section or subsection header, meh, I don't really care. Of course, there'd be a de facto criticism section because they'd all be lumped together. There may be merit to combining them - my opinion is that Pendergrast's first comment description touches quite closely on Kaminer's. I don't know if they could be combined into one sentence with two references but they seem linked to me. Could Kaminer, Pendergrast's first comment and Bjorklund be combined into a single sentence or short paragraph?

One thing I definitely dislike about the second mention of Pendergrast is how it reads as "Pendergrast, an unqualified axe-grinding critic who works for an organziation that supports child molesters, says this." The qualifications that surround his criticism take up as much space as his actual criticism. WLU (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would read better with those two items placed together. Currently the flow is awkward. If they are combined, it could be either with a separate criticism heading or not. I believe the MoS discourages the separate headings but it's not written as a rule, it's a suggestion. In a situation like this where the critical comments are not in direct relation to specific points in the article but about the topic in general a separate section might be useful. If it's made into a separate criticism section, I'd advise deleting the "overview" heading and using "characteristics" for that section plus the non-criticism parts of the existing section.
Regarding the False Memory Syndrome Foundation info - the reason I added that is that the text regarding Pendergrast's criticism includes the term "recovered memory therapy". That's a term coined by the FSMF and promoting the idea that there is such a form of therapy (there isn't), and that is an integral part of their agenda. So, including that term in this article as part of Pendergrast's criticism requires the mention and explanation of his affiliation, in service of NPOV. If that were left out, then it would give undue weight to the recovered memory therapy mention. Another reason it seems to me the FSMF information should be included is that Pendergrast himself goes out of his way in his book to explain that he's a member and he writes it as a disclosure, so that people don't see him as trying to hide the fact that he does have an agenda to support those ideas. Regarding the summary description of the FSMF, that's from a references and it's accurate. It doesn't say they advocate for sex abusers, rather they advocate on half of people accused of sex abuse. If you feel it's too strongly worded, we could possibly come up with something else; I've thought about that but haven't been able to come up with something that would be softer in tone and still accurate. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the descriptive text belong in the respective articles? Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
JAR - have you read the preview of the Pendergrast book? I had looked through it previously and that was the best that I could come up with, but I think my inital reading was truncated or something because now there appears to be a lot more text available (starts at page 50). I can't copy and paste it though. It's possible that a more thorough review of the text might provide more meaty criticism and possibly the reference to the RMT could be removed completely - if he says 'the idea of covert incest tears apart families' at some point without comparison to RMT then that's legit in my mind. I don't really care about the FM/RMT comment, it's the criticism that's relevant and I believe I was working with limited text when I first added.
I know that my interpretation is extreme (deliberately so), I used the wording to illustrate my concern in the most obvious way possible.
GP - my initial instinct is alwasy to let the wikilinks do the talking for themselves, but somone pointed out to me that this is not available in print versions. I think the current qualification is long and to some extent needlessly detailed, but some detail seems appropriate given the current text attributed to Pendergrast. WLU (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? The reader can always google the author name. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
On page 50-1 MP makes his comment about the definition being too broad and not inherently harmful (he's talking about Patricia Love's The Emotional Incest Syndrome and the list he cites is pretty stupid - parents had unrealistic expectations, did not want their kid to move away from home, dates were never good enough, was like a best friend, etc which is pretty innocuous, though I can see how extremes would link up to covert incest). On page 52 he talks about how therapists can work with patients to re-interpret old memories as unwarranted evidence of abuse. Other work links to criticism of the Survivor Movement more generally. Generally I'd say his harshest criticism is for the re-interpretation of positive or neutral memories as abusive. The CI parts ends at 56, the index cites other pages. 112 is more on reinterpretation, 188 is how depression leads to reinterpretation of memories to evidence of emotional incest to recovered memories of incest. The rest is a patchwork of Pendergrast's thoughts mixed with case studies I think, and I'm less confident about what is his work and what is quotation. WLU (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the work done on the page by the editors up to this point. The page looks better than it did a few days ago. The minority view in the header has been softened some, so this appears to be an appropriate compromise to me. The section on Pendergrast is also looking better. I agree with Jack-A-Roe when he states that he added the part on FMSF "in service of NPOV." Pendergrast does have an agenda, as does the FMSF, and IMO readers should be aware of this. The inclusion of this information also appears to be truer to the original source.
I agree with WLU's idea that "There may be merit to combining them - my opinion is that Pendergrast's first comment description touches quite closely on Kaminer's. I don't know if they could be combined into one sentence with two references but they seem linked to me. Could Kaminer, Pendergrast's first comment and Bjorklund be combined into a single sentence or short paragraph?" I believe a single sentence at the end of the characteristics' section would be more appropriate, since this is a minority view. We should "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner." FMSF type sources by nature are not usually well-balanced. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I was going to go nighty night but then I read this section and wanted to comment. I'm over the time limit I've given myself, but maybe what I'm saying won't be considered a total waste like it was before Jack showed up and helped clean the article up (thanks Jack). It _does_ look better now. However, I believe the criticisms should be in their own paragraphs and not fused together with the others. Right now, it looks like it's just criticisms, with the non-criticisms as a lead in to refute them. This is totally unfair. So please have them separated out. Thanks.Forest Path (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

{undent}I've added the criticisms section. One thing I'm having issue with is that Pendergrast is supposed to be a member of the FMSF (or the inline citation is misplaced). Looking at the reference, I can't find Pendergrast's name anywhere, so per WP:BLP I'm removing it. If it's a case where the citation has been moved from its original statement or edited into a close, but not identical version, please replace. WLU (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

JAR has replaced the statement about membership with FMSF sourced to Pendergrast's book. Fine with me. WLU (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks way better with the criticisms section back.Forest Path (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


What do people think of the external link? There's no real scholarly information on covert incest, but a bunch of testimonials, links to unreliable sources, some fora and adds for books which I think are already sources on the page. I didn't mind it that much when the page was in pretty poor shape but now that the contents and sourcing has expanded, it may have a domain name but I don't know how much it adds besides advocacy. WLU (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but the link may qualify under "What should be linked....Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article."
Also this site http://www.alwaysyourchoice.org/ayc/articles/incest_covert.php may be a possible EL. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Unsourced, adds nothing beyond what covert incest would include as a featured article. The current page is better than what that offers. WLU (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Is there a different way to provide readers with additional resources on this topic in an encyclopedic manner? ResearchEditor (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to have an external links section if there's no good external links - it says in WP:EL that a short EL section is not a reason to have more. If we can't find good weblinks for covert incest, we shouldn't put some just to have them. It's not a very prevalent or researched concept compared to many others in psychology, medicine or even abuse so having a link just to have a link is kinda silly and not in keeping with the guidelines. WLU (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a short section is not a reason to have more. I am wondering if others have an opinion on the one EL on the page. ResearchEditor (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to wait a bit longer if you still have questions/concerns. Failing any interest or responses from extant contributors (or a lack of unanimity), a RFC or posting on WP:EL might be an idea. I really, really don't think there's any value in the link based on WP:EL. WLU (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me, the external link isn't a problem. It could be useful to people who want to learn more about the topic than what we've presented. It's not a spam link like several others I found when I googled. I'm generally middle-of-the-road about EL's - I don't like spam links or links that undermine article content, but also I don't think links need to be kept to a bare minimum. So, I'd keep this one, though I wouldn't make a big argument about it if lots of other editors wanted to remove it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The problems for me are WP:ELNO 1 and 4 a bit. Per WP:EL#What to link, it's not an official website, not a hosted score, it's not neutral, it's not meaningful content (the pages are short, or are personal essays), it's advoacy, it seeks money, sells books, and generally adds nothing that's reliable. I'm still against the link on the page, is it worth a posting on WT:EL or a RFC? WLU (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't sell books, it just sends you to amazon. I think the link should be included, since it lets people who want to seek out support find help and more information.Forest Path (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It sends yo to Amazon and makes a percentage of every sale Amazon makes, so it is selling books. Basically the link has no encyclopedic information, is not a reliable source. DreamGuy (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that you deleted it - I don't find the link to be a big issue so am not restoring it at this time, though I also see no reason for it to be deleted. To be fair for the people running that website, there is no way they are doing it for the profit. it doesn't look like their links are affiliate commission links and even if they were, they'd make like $5 a year. That website is done as a service - whether appropriate for Wikipedia or not is a separate question, but there's no way it's a commercial link. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think that all of the points above make a lot of sense. What Jack-A-Roe states seems to fit my opinion the best at this point, though WLU makes some very good points above. IMO, it might be a good idea to get other opinions on this. If others believe it is worthwhile, I am for WLU's idea of a WT:EL. ResearchEditor (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum and forums are not encyclopedic sources of information. Wikipedia is not a place to seek support, only information. I'll start looking for an appropriate venue, WP:EL usually doesn't get many bites so I might try for a RFC. WLU (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add an external links subsection for support sites? That might solve the issues. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:ELNO # 10 is pretty clear - no social sites or fora. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as 'useful' as web fora may be to survivors they are not informative (with reliable information that is) and are a brief google search away anyway. External links sections with forum sites are magnets for others to get added. Wikipedia is not a forum, advocacy site or a social networking site and I don't think it should link to them either. Besides, it's got a ridiculously small amount of content and none is verified. Aside from a matching domain name what does it offer? Can anyone point out a case where it meets the criteria for what should be linked or consider? It's not an official site, it's not a book or score, the information is unverifiable and we can't tell if it's accurate or neutral (plus, much of the content essentially duplicates what's already on the page), reviews or interviews don't apply 'cause it's not a person or piece of art, and there's no indication that it's a knowledgeable source (in addition to being uquite minimal). I don't see a reason to keep it. WLU (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am going to have to agree. We are not a support site. Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And we just got a 3rd opinion, User:DreamGuy just removed it. I'm fine with it, and based on the site and WP:EL, I'd rather consensus were reached before adding it back; please base discussion on WP:EL and if another external link is selected, please ensure it meets with WP:EL. WLU (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with WLU. There's nothing going on here that couldn't wait for a consensus. Let me remind User:DreamGuy of WP:IGNORE which states that Ignore all rules was [and according to Jimbo Wales "always has been."] Wikipedia's first rule to consider. WP:EL is not a rule nor even a policy. It is a guideline and therefore is even more flexible and open to interpretation. For this reason, it is advisable, when considering the removal of content added by a fellow editor, to provide an opportunity for all editors to express their opinion and to reach a consensus before acting. Hey WLU, where was the third opinion given? Mmyotis ^^o^^ 17:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
All editors involved here haven't reached consensus so for someone to just remove it once again goes against the spirit of collaboration. I don't remember seeing a third opinion requested or given here. I just saw DreamGuy pop up and delete the link. Sounds more like a proxy for WLU. Forest Path (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Forest Path, I went through the drug related articles and was unable to find any support links. This would indicate that at this point, general practice is not to include such links. Thats just how it is, unfortunately. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If you go to Incest, you'll see a list of external links to support groups. I also saw a discussion about it on the talk page: Talk:Incest#Support_Organizations. Forest Path (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)DreamGuy removed the link before I sought a 3O, so I didn't bother. Since DreamGuy didn't have any input to the previous discussion, hence independant of previous discussion, I don't see a need to seek yet another informal venue for removal. I'm satisfied, if anyone else wants to seek further input then the channels are there. Given what I see as the arrival of an inevitable outcome, I would rather not bother to take the time. WLU (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not 100% for or against the link. However, I find it troublesome that the link was deleted before discussion was completed. As Mmyotis stated above "it is advisable, when considering the removal of content added by a fellow editor, to provide an opportunity for all editors to express their opinion and to reach a consensus before acting." I hope that this will be fixed and the link will be restored at least temporarily until the discussion is completed and if possible an agreement is reached. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I was here long before any of you guys came here so let me tell you a little history of this topic. It used to be a subsection of incest. During that time, CovertIncest.org was listed along with the other support sites. Then this topic was split off and became it's own article. The link went with it. And now, some are saying this link doesn't belong here. Well, can someone explain to me why support sites are okay under incest but not under covert incest? I'm very confused. Forest Path (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and lookie here. Under Rape, the external links section has three subsections: Further research and information, National organizations, and Support resources. So now that's two entries. Oh, but covert incest is different and doesn't even deserve one external link because people can just go google it (sarcasm). Well, please go over to those two topics and tell the editors that. Forest Path (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Other pages do not matter. Refer to policies and guidelines. The external link should be included if its existence helps make the article. Anyone who thinks it improves the article should explain how it improves the page. Please refer to policies and guidelines.
And to re-iterate, this is a publically editable encyclopedia. Anyone with an internet connection can add anything to any page, or delete it. How does it improve the page, considering wikipedia is not a soapbox or advocacy site, not a self-help or do it yourself book and not a discussion forum, but an encyclopedia? The only reason the page can be included is if we agree to ignore all rules, but IAR isn't a loophole to get unnecessary crap stuffed into the page. Per what IAR means, "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia". So justify before ignoring. WLU (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I was not talking to you, WLU. You are mind is already made up. I would like the others to respond. Geoff Plourde said he couldn't find other topics with support sites listed. But I found at least two. This is in response to him. I would like an explanation as to why there is a double standard in Wikipedia. Forest Path (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and all my previous arguments - references to other pages are worthless. Also note that rape no longer contains advocacy sites. WLU (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed rape no longer contains advocacy sites because you removed it. Now do you think it's possible for you to give others a chance to voice their opinions? Again, to everyone other than WLU: why is there a double standard in Wikipedia? Forest Path (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that _I_ requested mediation and the cabal is open. I think we should give Geoff Plourde the courtesy of trying to find a solution that all of us can live with. Forest Path (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This information is for Geoff Plourde and anyone else who's mind is not 100% made up: Child abuse also contains external links. And notice that Child sexual abuse points to DMOZ. Forest Path (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
But there is no double standard now, so your argument is moot. Both of those pages contain DMOZ links because there are exact pages that discuss those exact topics. Covert incest does not have an equivalent DMOZ page, so there's no benefit to linking to it. And no-one has provided a reason to link to the page yet. WLU (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you not believe in giving people the opportunity to speak for themselves? Do I need to take this offline with Geoff Plourde? Domestic violence is another one. The list is endless. Forest Path (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason this article has no external links is because it is being vandalized by those who apparently have pro-incest biases, and are seeking to suppress information on the topic from sources which do not fawn over how beneficial child molestation is. Any links removed without consensus and despite being approved by WP:EL policy will be considered vandalism and reverted. If it continues, I will personally contact relevant support groups and have them monitor this article for neutrality (delicious irony, anyone?). There's a reason that there is an external link policy, and it should be followed. If you don't like the links, but can't remove them due to policy, why don't you manifest your biases by adding appropriate links of your own, such as NAMBLA, etc? You're not fooling anyone here, so quit falsely citing EL to justify vandalism.71.63.45.9 (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

(undent)Polling is not a substitute for discussion and wikipedia is not a democracy. I'm responding to every single one of your points I believe. What do you want me to do? I'm reading your posts, and responding to why I make specific edits and why I believe they are a good thing. I keep referring to policies, guidelines, essays and even wikiprojects, which is what generally guides my edits. I'm providing an extensive list of reasons why the link should not be included, I've yet to see a good reason to actually include it and mediation isn't going to help much. It's an informal process designed to get two people to agree. The best anyone is going to offer, based on this discussion, is 'well, it'll stop conflict on the page'. Putting a poor-quality external link on the main page because it might otherwise hurt someone's feelings, or because someone else really, really wants it, is not a good way to build an encyclopedia. Go offline with whoever you wish, I don't understand why you think the link is a good one. Because it advocates a particular viewpoint? Because it has the same domain name as the article? And as much as I appreciate you pointing to pages that need to be cleaned up, [2] you can do so yourself if you'd like, but not much is going to change. Generally the cleanups are quick and easy because the sections you point to are bloated with inappropriate links. People's first instinct on wiki is usually to add some unhelpful external link, because wikipedia gets a lot of attention. Not a good option, which is why the EL sections need to be monitored and periodically trimmed. WLU (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be about collaboration. And no, I will not 'clean up' those articles because I don't believe they need to be cleaned up. Good luck tracking all those pages on your watch list to make sure everyone complies with your 'orders'. I have asked for the input of others and all I get is more from you. What do you want me to do, you ask? How about backing down and allowing others to say something for a change instead of trying to dominate the conversation. We all know what you think, you've said it a million times. But I don't know what the others are thinking now. And you do not speak for the rest. How about if you go take a break and get some fresh air? Forest Path (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia with reliable sources and meaningful information. And I'm not preventing others from commenting, nor deleting their comments. I am replying, with policy and guideline based reasons. Anyone wishing to comment is free. You are free to provide your own reasons for wanting the external link. And actually, silence implies consent. The lack of comment or reverting by other editors means a de facto acceptance that the link should be removed. My lack of silence, my ongoing rebuttals of your points, indicates I disagree with your position. I disagree, so I say so. If you gave any indication of having acknowledged and read my posts, the policies and guidelines referred to or to have found any reason to include the link, then I might stop repeating myself. WLU (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand your points clearly. You do not need to repeat them over and over. I just don't agree with them. But I understand what you are saying. I also understand that you understand what I'm saying. So can we please stop wasting all this space? Forest Path (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not being clear enough, so let me say this. I understand that you disagree with me for including the link. So you do not have to keep telling me this over and over again. I am not benefiting from having someone say something over and over again. in fact, it is insulting. You repeating over and over again is not winning me over to your side. I'm only skimming your responses. So all that you type is really not even going into my head. Forest Path (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section removal

It would seem that the critism section is writen by someone with a personal vendetta, and is largely based on unrelated research linked only by a single person, whom the editor admits is a member of an activist organization that defends parents accused of molestation by their own children. The references given to justify correlating the two seperate phenomenon purport to be from books, however no page numbers are provided. These do not appear to be legitimate. I am wary of this entire section, as it seems to lack the necessary references and relevance to constitute it's inclusion. As it stands, the only uncontested references are by a single person with a clear bias against the validity of covert incest, due to their desire to defend accused child molestors. I will be reviewing this further, but if someone who has further experience than I wishes to comment on this matter, I'd appreciate it very much.71.63.45.9 (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

What do people think of a peer review? JAR, RE, FP, does anyone else have any sources they want or expect to add? I've always wanted a peer review and it'd be a good way to get some outside input. WLU (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be interesting, but I don't think the article is ready yet. I'm sure more sources can be found, but it will take time. The peer review page states "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate". We've made a lot of progress, but to my view, we have a ways to go yet before the page fits that standard.
Regarding the Mediation request that's pending - I wonder - is that still needed or has that issue been resolved? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys have done an exemplary job of working from your individual perspectives to reach a consensus based article. There may be more work necessary, but I like what I see. The article is informative and the presentation neutral. I agree there's a problem with the lack of real scholarly information, but you can only work with what you've got. Maybe someone will come up with better references, but as it stands now I think the article fairly represents the subject as it is understood by this group today. At least, that's my opinion. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 20:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO, I agree with Mmyotis above. And the addition of JAR as an editor to the article has helped resolve many of the issues and also brought in some reliable sources to the page. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if the mediation is still needed or not. Let me sit on it. All I can say is nothing jumps out at me anymore, which is a good sign.Forest Path (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If you decide its unnecessary, I will be happy to close it for you. Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I see no need for mediation. WLU (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Page hasn't changed and talk page hasn't either in more than a week. Meditation is probably unneeded. WLU (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

recent reversion of unsourced statements

I have recently reverted a few changes by an anon IP about role reversal. This would be an interesting topic for the page if reliably sourced. "The most common covert incest role reversal is that of child as 'spouse' for the abusive parent. In other forms of covert incest, which often occur simultaneously, the abusive parent forces the child to parent the parent, to parent the child himself or herself and to parent the child's other siblings. In addition, the abusive parents often use, misuse and abuse their children for other reverse-role relations such as as a covert 'lover', as a 'special' confidant or as a 'favorite' friend. Like child-as-'spouse' abuse, these role-reversals also covertly rape the child by making him or her responsible for the abusive parent's well-being rather than vice-versa." ResearchEditor (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

About the somewhat-recent rewrite

I would just like to sincerely thank WLU, Jack-A-Roe, and the others who have contributed to the total rewrite of this article. It was by pure chance that I stumbled upon this page but I was disgusted by the way it was written originally. The new version is incredibly informative and the lack of bullshit is great. Thanks for the hard work guys. lunisneko(talk) 17:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous terminology

This is the most ridiculously poorly worded term I've ever come across on Wikipedia, and I've seen some stupid ones. The academic who came up with the term should have their tenure revoked, and be banned from scientific journals of any kind.

If "covert incest" doesn't involve incest, then it should not be the name given to this form of abuse. It's clearly an attempt to garner more attention for their work than they would otherwise would have achieved if it were given a more reasonable, rational name. I don't see why the person who came up with it couldn't have used a name drawn from myth, literature, or something similar. Sheesh.

The article fails to mention the originator of the term. Seems like something that should be included. I'd definitely like to know, just so I could tack them to my list of idiots working in the field of psychology who like to sensationalise their work. 92.11.156.11 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is based on the sources available. To change the page, seek more sources, as opinion alone is not sufficient. WLU (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
My first thought is that the Wikipedia article is the first hit in a google search, so the term would be a neologism. Perhaps there is a more commonly used term, but the term does seem to be used, at least in the pop psych literature. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminology assistance

As noted above, there is a concern about the legitimacy of this subject within the field of psychology and especially with the term "covert incest". Expert opinion would be helpful in pointing us to references that define a more appropriate term for this field of investigation. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone thinks a term is "ridiculous," doesn't make it so. By implying that there is a "more appropriate term," you have shown your bias. The point is the term exists and is being used. Wikipedia is not a platform for editors to push for what terms should or should not be used. If it is being used, it should be mentioned. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to shape public opinion, although it seems like everyone wants to use it as a vehicle for their own political agenda. Forest Path (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms sources

[3], [4], p. 115 WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 14:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

71.237.247.228 (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)B 12/7/08: This is hardly a "fringe topic" it is simply a newer realization in the ways children can be damaged by parental relationships. Many victims of physical and verbal abuse say the verbal part was actually the more lasting in their lives. A child is forced into an unhealthy position by being made the "friend" of one of the parents and takes on responsibilities of an adult long before they should. They are often jealously guarded from forming other age-appropriate relationships because the parent does not want to lose their special "friendship" with the child. The parent usually has few if any adult friends and involves the child in a therapist/companion relationship where he/she discusses in detail their marital or dating problems. The child in unable to grow emotionally in their own childhood because they are thrown into a higher maturity than is appropriate. They do not learn to properly socialize because they are their parents "best friend." The child is given little privacy and expected to be open about their own nudity as well as the parent's. The parent may make comments about their developing body in a sexual context further confusing the child. What is the sickest part of this is that it often can create a guilt complex in adulthood where the child still puts the parent ahead of themself and their own life. I don't think I need a source, I lived it. The other thing I have heard from others which I did not experience is that if this closeness goes unbroken through puberty, an inappropriate sexual desire for this parent forms because the child feels like the parents partner rather than child.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Covert_incest/Archive_1&oldid=1136640542"