Talk:Covert incest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives

Archive 1


Contents

[edit] External link

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)

[edit] 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, [1] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)