Talk:Incest - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:11, 30 December 2021 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Incest/Archive 3) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:11, 30 December 2021 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Incest/Archive 3) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Incest article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about incest. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about incest at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality High‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Anthropology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Template:Vital article

Zoroastrian section

Openlydialectic, regarding this, why did you remove "Zoroastrianism," and why are proposing that this small section be made into its own Misplaced Pages article and suggesting that it be named "Xwedodah"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Regarding Zoroastrianism, I didn't remove it, I moved it into the second sentence. As to why I did that, that's because Zoroastrianism and Ancient Persia in this context are not synonymous. That is, Zoroastrianism developed after the ancient period of Persian history had already begun. So why did I put Ancient Persia there instead of Zoroastrianism? Because that's what's claimed in this book I used as a reference for that very sentence (page 21, second paragraph)

As for a standalone article, there's clearly enough material to write one (just type Xwedodah into Google Scholar), and we have standalone article for concepts of incest in other religions (e.g. Mahram) Openlydialectic (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Openlydialectic, I understand going for accuracy. But Zoroastrianism aside (and with subsequent edits included), you changed material that was sourced. If there are conflicting opinions on the topic, it should be presented with WP:Due weight. Per Due weight, if one view is a tiny minority, it need not be mentioned at all. There is a lot I don't know about religious topics, though, which is why I might bring WP:RELIGION into this. As for splitting the section, I questioned you asking for a split because the section is small and the article should be created first. It is not ideal to split that small section off into its own article and have the material excluded from this article or have have a single sentence while the stub article details the rest. See WP:No page, WP:No split, WP:Spinout and WP:Summary style as a whole. On a side note: Since this article is on my watchlist, there is no need to ping me to this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I think you deeply misunderstood the situation. The original sentence, which referred to Zoroastrianism instead of Ancient Persia, was referenced by that exact source. I didn't change the source.

As for whether the section should be splat, what I meant by adding that template is that perhaps someone more invested into the topic can make a standalone article about that peculiar tradition and make it bigger than the current section of this article because all the necessary research is there, just someone needs to invest the time to write a Wiki article about that. I am not sure that the current rules indicate that the split template should only be used to indicate that a section of an article is too big and therefore should be splat from it, or, at least in my experience tells me that that template is mostly used to indicate the same thing I used it to. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Openlydialectic, this edit shows that the "Sex and Punishment Four Thousand Years of Judging Desire, Eric Berkowitz. pp. 21–22, 2012." source was already there. Whoever added it apparently added it to support the Zoroastrianism part. You changed the wording, and added a template/URL version of the source. Then you made other edits to the section. That is what I mean.

As for splitting the section, the template suggests that the section that is there now needs to split out into its own article. In my experience, that is how the template is usually used. Like I stated above, the section does not need to be split out at this point. Not in its current state. I feel that the tag should be removed. It will just sit there for years perhaps. I've seen such tags just sit there for a long time before eventually being removed. And if someone takes up the suggestion, they might just create a stub, taking the whole small section with them. But I understand you wanting to encourage someone to create a substantial article on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I "changed the wording" of the sentence because it incorrectly represented what's written in the book that sentence was sourced by: the book's sentence talked about Ancient Persia, but the sentence on Misplaced Pages, which I changed, replaced it with Zoroastrianism. As for the template, I'll replace it with Expand Section one instead. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Mother-Son

New to Misplaced Pages editing but concerned about the following in the 5th paragraph of the between adults and children section: "Research by Leslie Margolin indicates that mother-son incest does not trigger some innate biological response, but that the effects are more directly related to the symbolic meanings attributed to this act by the participants."

For such a sensitive subject, a casual reading of this seems to suggest that mother-son incest isn't psychologically damaging to the victims like other forms of adult-child incest or indeed doesn't have a victim. Especially given where that sentence is placed, just after the sentence about impact. The body of scientific evidence in this area seems to be against this implication. Indeed Margolin article starts by saying "The idea that mother-son incest is the most damaging form of incestuous behaviour has been commonplace in psychiatric and sociological literature for the last thirty years." and indeed the majority of recent studies since Margolin's seem to fall in line with this as well. Margolin's study does not even clinically asses survivors as other do but merely draws on "case material". It seems to be an article that goes against the grain almost for the sake of it and is at odds with the literature. It should not be the only reference.

I suggest either citing an article contradicting the Margolin article to counterbalance eg: or

Or, as I personally think is more appropriate we can remove the citation and sentence completely and just talk less controversially about rarity and under-reporting citing possibly: , letting the "impact" section stand to refer to mother-son incest as well. However, the underreporting bit would better fit at the top of the first paragraph, after the section on Father-son incest, so the 5th paragraph we could just leave as one sentence.

Happy to edit the main page myself but didn't want to just wade in on what must be a heavily monitered article.

OeColonus (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Westermarck effect

Should there not be some mention of (or section on) the Westermarck effect here, rather than it merely being listed among the related articles? Alathean (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Alathean, yes, that would be very good. Crossroads 18:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Inuit and Bali

@Crossroads: this content has been in the lead for almost a decade. I decided to put it in the body as well because that's how it's supposed to work. Perhaps that was not the right section. Would it be more suitable in the History section? The lead uses present tense, but the body content is talking about it as a historical thing. I do not know which is more accurate. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead just says, "Some societies, such as the Balinese and some Inuit tribes, have different views about what constitutes illegal or immoral incest." I didn't notice it was referring to that in particular. Thay phrase between the commas could certainly be deleted as undue weight on random cultures. Do the sources definitely discuss this custom in the context of incest? I think they would but worth making sure. I certainly don't think this bit belongs in a section that is about child sexual abuse; as I said, it seems WP:UNDUE about these two random cultures and could be seen as countering or trivializing the material above it. Crossroads 05:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Talking about the "different views" of the Balinese and Inuits in the lead and not explaining what those views are in the body was what caught my attention, so I copied the relevant passages from Incest taboo. If it has been due in the lead for a decade, it should be due somewhere in the body. The source on Inuits does not mention incest, the one on Bali does. At any rate, for a proper due analysis the totality of sources should be consulted. A Google Books search for "Bali/Inuit" and "incest" returns many results, which go beyond the mother and son thing covered here. I think we have two options: cover this in the History section or remove the cultures form the lead. What do you think? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support removing the two cultures from the lead. No need to single out these two out of the thousands that exist. Crossroads 06:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for discussing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Biblical references" section

Couple of things there. First, Cain was exiled, so couldn't have had relations with his mother Eve, which was already forbidden anyway since she was Adam's wife. Second, Genesis clearly states that Adam and Eve had other unnamed sons and daughters, so that's not conjecture as the section makes it seem. Misplaced Pages editors need to get their act together. 67.4.83.66 (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Incest

Incest is only incest if it involves sexual relations. I.e. Kissing doesn’t necessarily count as incest but sexual intercourse does. Savagejulian101 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"Consanguinamory" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Consanguinamory and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#Consanguinamory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ★Trekker (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories: