Talk:Covert incest

Criticisms
The page really does need more criticisms of the concept, and they should be integrated throughout rather than placed in a ghetto section. I've attempted to add a link to an ezine articles page as a parity source (as most of the discussions seem to be popular books rather than scholarly press) but ran into a blacklist problem; I've placed a request to whitelist the page and in the meantime added a placeholder url. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I see that you also made changes to the article, as seen here and here. The article is on my watchlist, but I'm not tied to (meaning invested in) the article; so I've never really considered its format. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Request was granted. Yup, I've made the changes, and I think I'm pretty much done.  The article is very stubby; it's almost a lead-only given there is only one section.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

What is this?
Why does it sound like pseudoscience to me? User012008 (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It is in our western-industrialized-massmedia-leaded knowledge "pseudoscience", but also as psychoanalysis, astrology, homoeopathy and others, which "works" but without a real "scientific" evidence - except of very difficult explanations such as field theory for example. Other, mostly older and more heart- and musically-leaded cultures may see those relations as obviously evident. 2003:EC:3F2A:6EA4:89D9:A376:57:4FFB (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)