Talk:Covert incest/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sources and range of topic

[Moved from user talk page. This discussion is about the article, it belongs here. I've done some editing on this topic, but most of the page was written by others. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC) ]

I have some concerns relating to your recent edits [1] to Covert incest. While it is true that none of the article's sources use the exact language "alleged" in describing the theory, the few mentions of the theory in peer-reviewed reliable sources included in the article effectively make the same claim in slightly different language. See, for example, [2], which describes "covert incest" as

a new term coined in the 1980s by sexual abuse experts [which] is a 'hands-off' derivative defined by a boundary violation between parent and child. (page 233)

Similarly, [3] describes the term, but does not assert it:

Increasing numbers of academic researchers and clinicians have suggested that behaviors such as exposure of a child to parental nudity or scenes of parental sexuality (“primal scenes”) constitute subtle forms of sexual abuse that previously have gone unrecognized... Such subtle sexual abuse—referred to as syndromes like “maternal seductiveness‚” “emotional incest syndrome‚” “emotional sexual abuse ‚” “covert sexual abuse ‚” and “sexualized attention”—may also include less easily defined behaviors such as parent “flirtatiousness‚” or inappropriate and excessive displays of physical affection

The sources cited in the article that actually assert the concept of "covert incest" are pop-psychology books which are not subject to peer review. It's quite a stretch to claim, on the basis of such thin sourcing, that "Covert incest (also known as emotional incest or psychic incest) refers to a type of psychological abuse". The restatement of the conclusions of reliable sources in one's own words hardly constitutes original research -- it's an essential task for the production of a freely licensed reference work, since the precise words of the original reliable sources are usually copyrighted and unfree. The relevance of paragraph you removed from the article [4] is that we are actually using the same study earlier in the article to describe an alleged symptom of "covert incest" -- though, as is clear from the quotation of above, the precise term "covert incest" never appears in the Okami et al study :) Therefore, it's quite reasonable to include the authors' criticism of the symptom that they describe, especially as their critique is derived directly from the conclusions of the study. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You've described two concerns. These are article talk page matters, so I don't know why you brought it to my talk page, but since you did, I'll reply here for now.

1. Use of the word "alleged" in the lede. If you have a reliable source that states the term is "alleged" and does not really exist, then we can write about that, and refer to the source. But without that, what we have are books and articles defining the term, and that's what we can use. There are some books and articles criticizing the use of the term; as such, we can also include those. But while those articles may criticize the use of the concept and the term, they do not change the fact that the term has a definition, and that definition has been published in many reliable sources. To insert "alleged" based on a few sources that don't agree with the many other sources that define the term is original research and undue weight. There's plenty of room in the article for criticism of the concept with due weight.
2. Use of the Okami paper regarding parental nudity is a synthesis. Okami was not studying "covert incest" and did not mention the term in the paper. If the writer of the paper did not make the connection, we can't use it.

To be clear, I'm not taking the position that "covert incest" is a formal psychological diagnosis or syndrome. The term is used in many sources to refer to a particular concept - that concept is what the article is about, so it's defined according to those sources in the lede. In the article there can be (and there are) both supporting and critical sourced-statements, that's not a problem; the article should present all sides of the topic, such as are verifiable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your last edit was much better and corrected the mistake that I missed in the revert. forestPIG^(grunt) 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaving the rest of the paragraph in, you still describe it as off-topic (supposedly synthesis). I think that you have a not-too-good reading of what synthesis is. Whilst it is incorrect to use sources to support a conclusion that they do not, Okami's study addresses the exact same behaviors that are labeled by some theorists as "covert incest", i.e. sexualized behavior and nudity in the family and its effects on children. If we are to exclude every work that does not address the exact, stated concept of "covert incest", we are to reduce the article to a list of sources that are either willing to acknowledge it as fact or attempt to debunk it as a concept. This ignores sources that may be concerned in other ways with what some call "covert incest", because they do not recognize the same destructive properties in it. Such an article is likely to descend into a polarized war between (mainly) apologist POVs and polemic opposition.

Lets not get into explaining what would happen if your rule were applied to Flat Earth. forestPIG^(grunt) 00:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your claim that "Okami was not studying 'covert incest' and did not mention the term in the paper. If the writer of the paper did not make the connection, we can't use it.":

(1) Based on the quotation of the Okami study provided by Kristen, the paper references "emotional incest syndrome". The article Covert incest expressly describes "emotional incest" as a synonym for covert incest, sourced to works written by the advocates of the term. Mere synonym substitution does not rise to the level of original research. Kristen's statement that "the precise term 'covert incest' never appears in the Okami et al study :)" could be an attempt at humor, designed to ridicule your claim that because the reliable sources in the article don't use the word "alleged" verbatim in describing covert incest, we can't use it either, and appropriately denoted with a smiley-face emoticon. I would never have made such a comment, based on the potential for misinterpretation. Furthermore, if we did confine ourselves to verbatim copying of source material, we would be engaged in massive plagiarism and copyright violations, not legitimate research and encyclopedia editing.

(2) You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Okami paper describes "the denomination of children seeing their parents naked or having sex as 'covert incest'", or it doesn't. If it does, then the paragraph you wish to excise is relevant to the article. If it doesn't then the article cannot use the Okami paper in describing covert incest: we absolutely cannot write

Covert incest is characterized by ambiguous behaviors which are inappropriately sexualized.<ref name = Coleman/> They can include 'accidental' touching,<ref name=Coleman/><ref name = Potter/> [[voyeurism]],<ref name=Coleman/><ref name = Potter/> sexualized or [[Sexual objectification|sexually objectifying]] comments,<ref name=Coleman/><ref name = Potter/> ridiculing the physical changes that accompany [[puberty]],<ref name=Coleman/><ref name = Potter/> exposing a child to [[Pornography|pornographic]] material,<ref name=Coleman/><ref name = Potter/> unusually strict dress codes<ref name=Coleman/><ref name = Potter/> sexual hugs or touching<ref name=Coleman/><ref name = Potter/> inappropriate or intrusive [[hygiene]]<ref name = Potter/> and exposing a child to parental nudity or sexuality.<ref name = Okami>{{cite journal |author=Okami P, Olmstead R, Abramson PR, Pendleton L |title=Early childhood exposure to parental nudity and scenes of parental sexuality ("primal scenes"): an 18-year longitudinal study of outcome |journal=Arch Sex Behav |volume=27 |issue=4 |pages=361–84 |year=1998 |pmid=9681119 |doi= |url=http://www.kluweronline.com/art.pdf?issn=0004-0002&volume=27&page=361}}</ref>

What you seem to want is for the Okami paper to exist in a weird quantum superposition, whereby it simultaneously relates to covert incest, for the purpose of writing Covert_incest#Characteristics, yet does not relate to covert incest, for the purposes of Covert_incest#Criticisms, a position which I find to be highly untenable. John254 02:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that I support the characteristics section as it is currently written. I didn't write it, and I'm not at all sure it's correct as currently presented. There's no quantum superposition on my part because I don't think that source belongs either of the places it's used - I'm not suggesting removing it only from one of them. The source does not mention this topic at all; it's a study of certain specific behaviors (parental nudity, etc), but it does not gather them together under a single psychological term. It's just a study of the behaviors and their sequelae. Since the source does not discuss this topic, it should be removed from both places. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since you did in fact remove the Okami study from only one section, it's quite reasonable to infer that you didn't object terribly to its inclusion in the "Characteristics" section until now. It would have been rather difficult to miss the presence of the study in the "Characteristics" section, since the edit summary Kristen used in adding it to the "Criticisms" section expressly noted [5] its prior presence. Moreover, the reference markup she used left absolutely no doubt about it: "<ref name = Okami/>" In any event, your comment is completely unresponsive to my argument that the Okami study does in fact "mention this topic" by means of the use of the synonym "emotional incest" (see Kristen's quotation from the study) which is also employed by advocates of covert incest -- see, for example the "Dad's Little Princess / Mom's Little Man" section in [6]. John254 05:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, whatever happened to the good old days of assuming good faith? I did not catch that the blockquote was from that study, and I did not search the article for every use of the study to remove it, I just made an edit when I noticed something that seemed off to me. If the study uses the term "emotional incest" in its text, then I don't see a problem with the study being referenced. You may feel it's reasonable to infer things about what's going on in someone else's mind, but the inference is completely yours and has nothing to do with me. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The page needs a significant rework, but I don't know how to go about it - the page is clearly in my mind a fringe topic, but unlike many it doesn't seem to get criticism coverage in the pseudoscientific press. I know alleged was totally my own interpretation but I can't think of what to do about it and am quite concerned that the page is currently gross undue weight on a concept that has no scholarly play. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree there are problems with the article. The use of the word "incest" in the term implies there is a sexual aspect, but much of the writing on this topic is not about sexual issues and focuses primarily on emotional boundary issues and their effects on children in dysfunctional families. Some writers do use the term with regard to sexualized comments, or parental nudity, or inappropriate touching; most do not consider those to be the most important aspects. Most sources describe an emotional/psychological boundary violation that occurs when an adult, usually a parent, depends on a child for emotional support that the child is too young or immature to provide. This is described as overwhelming to the child, resulting in various symptoms.

There are many reliable sources for this topic, but as often happens with psychology topics, many are clinical rather than academic. That does not make them unreliable and does not indicate that the topic is not notable. The term has been described by numerous therapists as a not-uncommon emotional dysfunction occurring within families that is harmful to the psychological development of the affected children. Is it a form of incest? No, it's not, and the article should not take that approach. Are there sexual components? Sometimes, with different sources ascribing differing importance to that aspect, but in most sources that does not appear to be central issue. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To call non-peer-reviewed books "clinical" sources abuses the term. Psychologists in clinical practice are not without access to the academic press: peer-reviewed journals in this field do not restrict submissions of papers to academic psychologists or discriminate against clinicians. However, academic sources will refuse to publish material which lacks scientific merit. Without peer review, the authors can write anything that their publishers are willing to print. Non-academic publishers may not evaluate content for validity, but simply on the basis of whether they expect it to sell. This is why Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources provides that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." While the policy also concedes that "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications", this provision is intended to address situations in which "reliable non-academic sources" are merely restating in colloquial language material which is reasonably believed to have already been published in peer-reviewed academic sources, so as to render more it accessible to readers who may have difficulty in comprehending the complex language and specialized terminology often found in academic publications. Alternatively, local non-academic reliable sources may utilized for describing subject matter which might not reasonably be expected to appear in academic sources, such as the particulars of local history. However, "Material from... non-academic sources" which proposes entirely new concepts in "history, medicine and science" that would never see the light of day in academic sources is not considered to be reliable for any purpose except describing the the claims presented, and even then only when the concepts are otherwise notable -- for instance, covert incest is notable because because a few academic publications have noted the presentation of the theory in non-academic books, though they haven't published any claims of the theory's validity. We certainly shouldn't be presenting covert incest as a legitimate psychological theory until such time as a peer-reviewed academic source is willing to publish it. John254 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to neutralize the introduction somewhat [7]. This article is in a sad state when we're giving far more column inches to a fringe theory than its critics :( Kristen Eriksen (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat arbitrary start to hide

That's really amazing WLU. Let me remind you, it was you would rewrote this page because you thought it was so bad before. You rewrote it, then others added to it (which you encouraged), and then it became too neutral for you so now you want to rewrite it again. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reality, we cover what's written about it, not how editors wish was or wasn't said about it. It should be up to the person reading the article to reach a judgment as to its validity, not for the editors to make the decision for the reader. Forest Path 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Undent, I did not start this discussion so please do not single me out, if you have contributions to make Forest Path, make them to all editors instead of blaming me. I don't need reminding of anything, but I do need some reliable sources. Even clinical topics, generally more case-study type stuff, can be published in reliable sources (J. of Clinical Psychology and similar); the pop psych sources are given way too much space, to the point of making the page an WP:UNDUE violation in my mind - this topic is not of significant interest in scholarly sources, and the original author (Adams) didn't appear to do anything much in the peer reviewed journals. I think a thorough gutting and minimal discussion might be the best - we've expanded and it's easier to trim. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough WLU. So to everyone else, may I remind you that whether you think it's in a "sad" state or what not is your opinion and has no relevance to this discussion. If you are unhappy about covert incest, please take it somewhere else. This is not the proper vehicle for it. Here we deal with what's being written about it. Take your opinions about fringe theories elsewhere. Stop using Wikipedia to shape reality because you don't like the reality you live in. And as an aside, for Christ's sakes, it's just a word. You don't like it? So what. There are many words I don't like, but I'm not going to lose sleep over there being entries for it on Wikipedia. Please take a few deep breaths and get away from the computer. You may be surprised to find there is a very rich and diverse world out there with lots of different views and beliefs quite alien to yours, but alas, that's the way it is. Forest Path (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, Forest Path, it strains our credulity to make an edit like this, then sanctimoniously claim

that whether you think it's in a "sad" state or what not is your opinion and has no relevance to this discussion.[8]

If you condemn a young woman for a candid expression of emotion on this talk page, then I find your conduct to be unworthy of a gentleman -- but that's not what this discussion is about. As has been exhaustively described by myself, Kristen, WLU, and forestPIG, this theory is fringe because it has only been proposed in non-peer-reviewed, non-academic books which do not qualify as reliable sources for science. The only study in the article that was published in a peer-reviewed journal and experimentally evaluated any portion of the covert incest theory debunked it. In marked contrast to your original research, our edits to this article have upheld Wikipedia's standards for source reliability. John254 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well excuse me, I added it back in because someone else took it out. I was NOT the original one who added it. Check the records before you accuse me. And quite frankly, how do you know she is a "young woman?" Do you guys all happen to know each other or something? Seems that way. Anyway, I was told by WLU many months back when _I_ expressed a candid expression of emotion that it was not appropriate and had no relevance here. So I'm just throwing it back at you guys since this is what I've learned from WLU. Anyway, seems like you guys already have your mind made up about covert incest, but this is not about your opinions. If you want to talk about that, please start a blog.Forest Path (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Kristen is described as a young woman on her userpage. In any event, there is a very substantial and obvious difference between an expression of emotion on a talk page [9], and actually using one's experiences as original research to support an edit to the article itself [10]. John254 05:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Argue all you want John, but you are making mountains of mole hills and you know it. What I said to someone else at another time on here is of no relevance to what we are talking about here today. But you are focusing on that to discredit me, I presume. Well, nice try, but my point still stands. We are supposed to talk about the article, not focus on editors here. Whether an article makes you happy, sad, laugh, cry, angry is besides the point. If one can't make an argument without referring to one's own current emotional state, then I think you really don't have a case.Forest Path (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We would hardly be "talk[ing] about the article, not focus[ing] on editors here" if we accepted your fallacious argument that because one comment by Kristen included an expression of emotion, we should therefore ignore or invalidate every argument that she made here, even to the extent that such arguments related to objective source quality issues, and were not predicated upon her "current emotional state". John254 06:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You, John, are putting words in my mouth. I never said we should ignore and invalidate every argument she has ever made. I made a comment about her "sadness." Say what you will, but that is all. I never said she is a bad person or stupid or emotionally unstable. If you read any of that, it came out of your own projections. And quite frankly, you sound extremely defensive of her and I must suggest you look at this dispassionately and objectively. Hopefully, this is not the case and you just come off that way to me, but the fact that we arguing about something I said to someone else who is not even here to participate in the discussion is rather absurd.Forest Path (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

To review, you stated that

If one can't make an argument without referring to one's own current emotional state, then I think you really don't have a case.[11]

in the context of discussing this comment by Kristen. Your comment was therefore reasonably construed as an assertion "that because one comment by Kristen included an expression of emotion, we should therefore ignore or invalidate every argument that she made here". It isn't very productive to argue against the construction of your words according to their ordinary and obvious meaning. John254 06:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!!! No, that is completely made up. I was making a general point. Other people have come on here previously saying how they don't like this and that and it's making them upset. And this is a very valid point because it happens over and over and each time whomever is upset thinks the sky is falling and that if this Wikipedia entry doesn't change, they won't be able to make it to tomorrow. Look, maybe you don't get it, but Kristen is not someone I'm going to lose sleep over. I'm not obsessed by what she thinks. Really. "Ordinary and obvious meaning..." Okay, whatever. Listen, I really don't have time to argue with someone who wants me to be someone I'm not, so go ahead. Make up your reality as you see fit. But I will continue to post here and make my points, whether you like it or not. So either get used to it, or keep getting frustrated. Your choice. Now goodnight. Enough fun for me.Forest Path (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Undent. In general, points that do not demonstrate an understanding of and appreciation of wikipedia's policies and guidelines carry very little weight. Disparaging other editors, and this goes for everyone, isn't a P&G, but it is prohibited by WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The page needs to be built around reliable sources to verify the text, being careful not to give undue weight to a fringe theory that is generally not not supported or used in the mainstream scientific press. Let's work from there. I have hidden large swaths of previous discussion that in my opinion were not geared towards improving the page. If anyone has anything really relevant to say about sources and content, please do so below this section. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're still discussing it, I'd love a full copy of Okami et al. and Jacobson e-mailed to me if someone could do so (JAR already has my e-mail, anyone else e-mail me and I'll bounce it back to you, you can't attach from wikipedia). Jacobson, since it explicitly discusses covert incest, would be particularly nice. From my understanding, I would think the use of "emotional incest" would be sufficient to include Okami, but I wouldn't give it the current amount of text - I'd basically say "aspects of CI that have been investigated have not been supported". Since it's not an overall highly-used term, there's no much chance that there'll be a lot of discussion or debunking. Even giving a lot of text to debunking is somewhat UNDUE. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Trimming

I'm trying to trim out the less reliable sources, particularly when there are more reliable sources that make the same points. In doing so, I came upon this link - Harvard University Press is obviously reliable, the book is explicit on involving covert incest, but it seems to use "seductive fathers" as a euphamism, or perhaps synonym? It discusses a group of only 20 patients, but there is a lot of overlap between what is mentioned in the source and Adams' original preconceptions. I'm surprised with this as a reference, there's not more significant interest from mainstream research, and wondering if we're missing a scientific term that is analogous to the pop psych term. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Other reliable sources (probably not comprehensive, I'm basically brainstorming) - [12] (page unavailable right now, also old); Jacobson; as a criticism, Potter-Efron, sage publications. My thinking is that the page should be built around these references, probably plus Adams used judiciously as a "proponents point of view" reference. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly reliable - Guilford press, [13], WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)}

If we're going to trim, then the whole parental nudity stuff under criticisms needs to be condensed. There is no point in having a whole paragraph for it, in addition to a quote. This is undue weight. This should be reduced to one sentence at the most.Forest Path (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, pending more information from those sources. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Expert tag

Can we remove the expert tag? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea: how about taking out the expert tag and putting in the controversial tag on the talk page instead? Forest Path (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In order to do that there would need to be a case made that the current page contents are controversial, which would take place in a separate section. I do not believe the controversial tage is needed as based on the reliable sources I've seen to date it seems to adequately represent the issue as a fringe topic. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree about it being a fringe topic. I would rather have some indication on the talk page so that the next time some new person comes on here and has a freak out we don't have to keep going through this cycle over and over again. But if you don't mind this back and forth indefinitely, then yeah, just keep the way it is. Forest Path (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the contents of the page, read the dispute resolution process or post on WP:FTN. It shouldn't go through another cycle anyway - the page is a fringe topic and receives virtually no play in mainstream scholarly journals, so it's pretty much dead as it is. But wikipedia is not done so it can always be updated in the future. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not debating whether this is fringe or not. I know your views and you know mine. So let's please just skip that because I find it rather pointless (i.e. it doesn't go anywhere). My point is the constant changes, the see-sawing back and forth, the renewal of calls for the page to be rewritten, etc. What can be done to stop this from happening over and over again? From what I've seen this time around, I'm no way convinced that it won't happen again. In fact, I would be willing to bet it will. Forest Path (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. Shorter, more accurate and easier to protect from POV intrusions. The lest thing we need is an expert. forestPIG^(grunt) 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Tag removed. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A Difficult Topic

It would help to remember what happened after S. Freud was forced to retract his paper Aetiology of Hysteria (in which he proposed that what was then called hysteria was a result of child molestation). See: The Assault on Truth; Jeffrey M Masson (republished). To rehabilitate himself before the medical community of Vienna, Freud subsequently theorized that childhood memories of sexual assault were fantasies of childhood desire. As a result the subject of child molestation became invisible--it was defined so that it "didn't exist". It wasn't until the 1970s in discussion groups of women's lib, as women swapped notes of their personal experiences, that the denial was broken.
Wikipedia rightfully demands published resources to ensure (or at least increase) objectivity, but with a subject that's still as taboo as is incest, that's hard to come by.

Some suggestions to improve the article:

• Read the WP entry on Incest. What's the difference between covert and overt incest?
• Incest is rejected almost universally and is therefore almost always covered up. (The exceptions are when it's been used to maintain political power within a family--e.g. Ancient Egypt)
• Distinguish between Role Reversal and Sexualized Interaction initiated by the parent (in role reversal the parent demands that the child take on adult-like responsibilities, so that the parent can take the role of dependent child--not so that the parent can grow and become mature, but so they can avoid growth and maturity). Forcing a child to take on adult responsibilities too early blocks the child's normal, healthy development. But role reversal isn't always sexualized.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nudity

This is a comment on the blunt assertion in the article that the exposure of children to parental nudity and sexuality is an aspect of covert incest (without even the word alleged). I'm a layperson. I find it unbelievable that a psychologist could call the mere fact that children see their parents naked "covert incest". I used to see my parents naked quite often as a child. They certainly didn't show any sexual interest in me or sexualize the relationship or cast me as a surrogate partner. I'm not aware that Freud or psychanalysts connected the mere fact of experiencing the "primal scene" (a Freudian term) to sexual or emotional abuse either. Please point me to any scholars that do.--87.162.1.191 (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence. It was part of the criticisms section, but it was addressing a criticism about something that is not stated anywhere else in the article. I don't see anything in the article at this time that defines nudity in general as an aspect of covert incest, and that's appropriate because that's not the definition, this topic is about psychological/emotional interactions. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Proponents"?

On the second line, the article says "Proponents of the concept describe the relationships as harmful and one-sided...".

Unless I've misinterpreted something, shouldn't that say 'Opponents'?--Tharwen (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Use/mention error

The ever popular use/mention error: This article is not about the term covert incest. This article is about covert incest. There is a difference. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. :) The first sentence should be rewritten. --95.34.142.247 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi 95.34.142.247! Thank you for your comment. I rewrote the lead. However, next time, why don't you try to fix it yourself? With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 07:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat off message

Two important points are not covered in the article:

Unintended. Unlike incest, covert incest is often unintended. Parents' often see it as a positive (My daughter and I are best friends). This point was raised before but not developed [Involuntary_covert_incest]

Contributing factors. Covert incest is far more likely in the presence of mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and high conflict divorce.

I made the following edits to provide a better platform for developing the topic going forward:

1. New Section → I created a [Contributing factors] section to discuss mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and high conflict divorce.
2. Introduction → Added that it is a "maladaptive parent skill" and that "the damage to the child is downstream (adulthood)". Added graphic to highlight the point that this is “non-sexual” as the term is misleading and often misunderstood. Covert incest literally means hidden (covert) sexual intercourse between persons too closely related (incest). Emotional incest is a better term.
3. See also → Removed links that did not directly pertain. Jocasta complex relates to “sexual” incest. Narcissistic abuse where there is no mention of incest in the article. Generally, Borderline personality disorder is the personality disorder most commonly associated with emotional incest.
   

Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)