Talk:Sibling relationship

Comment
This Questionable Claim 1) requires Citation at minimum, but really is just 2) not a meaningful statement at all

"psychologists and researchers today endorse the influence of birth order"

1. This broad claim will be tough to find a cite for (because of #2).

a. this sweeping generalization can't be supported by random studies finding specific birth order effect. b. require very specific generalized that generally, the myriad of effects people predict with birth order are generally accepted by most everyone c. Needs to come from each a large meta-analyses, OR an amazon review article with authors of impeccable credentials if they are speaking for all "psychologists and researchers    d. such a cite won't exist because no reputable researchers is going to even know what "endorse the influence of" means, which leads to...

2. This statement is just not a realistically verifiable claim due to vagueness.

a. how do these researchers "endorse" {the influence}? DO they know they are endorsing {stuff}? All of them agreed to endorse {it}? b. what is the "influence"? Birth Order (BO) literature "influence's" scholars? Is BO's "influence" a BO Effect? AS in BO causes change in an outcome variable? c. If it's BO effects, effects on what? All of the things anyone every correlated with BO, like winning Nobel prizes? Higher Intelligence? attachment styles? what effect? d. The one effect you mention prior to the claim is BO effect on Personality, and if that's it, that's not good

IF WHAT YOU MEANT WAS "There is widespread agreement among scholars about the effects of BO on personality" THAT'S FLAT OUT FALSE VirtualSwayy (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing comments
Santrock is excellent, but more sources should be used for this page.

Also, even after edits, the spirit of this page remains elementary. Expansion, and/or re-writing this page would direct this information to a higher-level audience.

I plan on completely redoing this page, almost entirely from scratch. I will create sections broken up by age (childhood, adolescence, adulthood). The current page is very sporadic and has no sensical order and I hope to make it more cohesive and actually provide citations.

I will be working with someone who will include a thorough section on sibling rivalry (which will link to the "Sibling Rivalry" page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacle (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel as if Intrafamilial sexual abuse between siblings should be added into the section entitled "sibling marriage and incest" even if the addition is brief in order to give a more broad look on the different dimensions on sibling incest relationships. Zamora-long (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Zamora-long

Marriage and incest section
It seems that the section on Sibling Marriage and Incest could stand some more/better citations, as well as fewer undocumented assumptions. For instance, the first citation is to an article on the BBC, which is at best a secondary source; further, the author/editor of the wiki article makes categorical assertions such as "children who grow up together do not develop sexual attraction" even though the BBC article cited is careful not to make the same categorical assertion. The citation to the German focus.de is little better than citing USA Today; in other words, little better than citing a tabloid. The statement "incestuous relationships between siblings has also been known to have adverse effects on the parties involved, especially for the victim of said sexual abuse," implies that all such relationships are abusive without clearly stating such or offering a citation supporting that suggestion. The final citation, while perhaps at one time a valid link to a PDF, now redirects to the front page of a website, and so is no longer a useful citation at all. Tony Bragidoccio (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS; we're to be citing secondary sources.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source itself, not a secondary one, so we treat primary sources with extreme caution, and approach other tertiary sources with caution as well.  I agree that many news sources are suspect, if they are "tabloidy"; low-quality news publishing usually constitutues either tertiary sources uncritically parroting material culled from elsewhere, or primary sources making novel, sensationalist claims that can't be traced to more reliable sources.  The BBC article is probably okay, but no publisher is categorically trustworthy; it's the content and its basis that matter.  I agree that the writing in that section is highly suspect on WP:NOR grounds, among others, and may be misinterpreting or misrepresenting some sources, while most of it is simply unsourced. It's a quite long section, but cites very few reliable secondary sources for anything, even a year after you raised your complaint.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've worked on it some, restructuring it so it has some semblance of logical cohesion (without adding or removing any claims, though I moderated a couple to be more limited to the scope to which they really pertain). The "Among children" subsection in particular relies too heavily on primary sources, and doesn't actually tell the reader much at all, other than that various studies use different definitions of abuse. A long litany of what those definitions are isn't useful to readers of this article, I suspect. I think about 80% of the entire section could be deleted with no harm to the encyclopedic value of the article.  The last major paragraph, about child abuse generally, with no connection to incest, seems like a particularly pointless bunch of blather.  It might be correct, but it's not relevant. in the "Among adults" subsection, I also have the distinct sense that something is missing. The anthropologist in me would be highly surprised if contraception and the sexual revolution have not led to a marked increase in adult, voluntary, sibling incest in industrialized countries, and that some studies regarding this haven't already been done. But all we have is an anecdote about a couple in Germany. The idea's varied treatment in popular media is also missing (off the top of my head, it ranges from matter-of-factly sympathetic, e.g. in the John Sayles film Lone Star; to sensationalized and tied to a murder, in Sister My Sister; to a stereotype of evil, e.g. in The Crow). I'd be surprised if arts and humanities journals have never approached the topic either.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Pointless addition
I propose removing the "Motives for communication" section, which consists of the single following sentence, 'Craig Fowler, in his 2009 study "Motives for Sibling Communication", studies whether or not the "interpersonal communication motives of siblings" differ based on the age or gender of the siblings, and also studies how these different communication motives affect the sibling’s satisfaction with their relationship.', plus a citation to the source. This isn't encyclopedic. WP (and our readers) don't care that a study exists and that it studied something. I suspect a conflict of interest, since it seems promotional of the researcher. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. I don't have objection to re-adding something about it, if the relevance is made clear (what did the study conclude?) and it's done within the guidelines for use of primary source material, at WP:RS (note in particular that it requires secondary sources for WP to include any analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Implementing short citations
I've boldly implemented short citations in order to make attribution easier in the text going forward, as well as to compliment the transition from in-text citations that lack an expanded bibliographic entry. I'm making my best attempts to find which short citations correspond to which publications to assist in verification of text. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)