User talk:RKS182

Parental Kidnapping
I notice from Child abduction that you have created Parental Kidnapping. I'm not sure whether the distinction requires two articles, but that can be sorted out later, and certainly the initial article looks good, although you seemed to add a fair bit of information on the same topic to both articles. We generally avoid duplication, just giving a brief overview in one article with a link to the other (see Adaptation for how the "Main article..." is done with main). I have no particular knowledge of the topic, but I would ask you to avoid problems with external links. In particular, there are too many links to thepkpapers.com, and some of the other links may not add encyclopedic value to the article. While some links are useful, Wikipedia is not a directory, and we do not want to encourage every organization related to this topic to add links to their site. Re thepkpapers, the correct way to link is to add substantive information to the article, giving a reference to the site (but only for reliable sources). Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * THANKS. The duplication is temporary. I had not expected it would be so easy to create a new page. Concerning the need for a separate page for parental Kidnapping (or perhaps "Parental Child Abduction" should be the name), I'm sure you will agree when you see the depth and complexity of the subject -- a topic which is getting increasing attention these days.


 * Concerning the linking to thepkpapers.com. I need direction on this. Here is the condrum: only one secondary source has been published on the HISTORY of the subject and it is unreliable in the extreme. I avoided -- until now -- trying to do any Wikipedia editing becauuse it which would be considered "original reasearch" in light of the fact that few of my important primary sources have been available to readers (until they were posted on thepkpapers.com) On thepkpapers.com, I have posted over 100 primary sources (painstakingly rendering images of newspaper text into searchable text) as a means to overcome the "original research" problem -- allowing me to send readers to the only accessable current publication of the primary source . I intend to take a conservative approach by always sticking to facts that are found in my sources. I 'm not sure how to deal with linking. Please take a look at thepkpapers.com "INDEX OF LINKED HISTORICAL TEXTS". The site is meant to be a reference database (including original interpretation) but also as a place where rare historical texts are made available. THe PK Papers is not itself an organization, nor promotes any organization. I will try to adapt to the W protocols. I suppose the simplest way to express the approach to linking I am trying at this point is to state that ALL the links to thepkpapers.com are (and will be) specifically to PRIMARY HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS only (and the INDEX page that collects them). --RKS182 (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One incidental point: When replying on a talk page, it is convention to indent your reply by adding an extra colon at the start. I have edited your reply above to show how you might have done it (hope you don't mind – we normally avoid touching other people's replies).
 * The Internet is occupied by a very large group of "interesting" people, and many of them end up here pushing strange points of view, and often add links to dubious web sites. Therefore, Wikipedia has had to develop a range of policies/guidelines, and I strongly recommend that you spend some time looking through WP:RS and WP:COI because there is a potential for a problem. In principle, one can ask at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for opinions on whether a particular reference is reliable, and at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for guidance about a possible COI.
 * I'm not sure of the best way to proceed. However, more than one external link to a site is strongly discouraged in general because the preferred method is to incorporate encyclopedic information into an article and add a reference (then each reference can link to a site). There is no deadline here, so you don't have to do everything perfectly. I'm just alerting you to some issues that you will need to consider in due course.
 * One other point: the naming conventions specify that a "Title should be like this", and "Not Like This" (except for proper names). The same thing applies to section headings. Again, there is no need to be concerned about these details at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. It is better that I deal with the links/references issue early on. That will save a lot of time and will influence other things I work on (related to history of parental kidnapping). Actually the PK Papers link "Index of Linked Historical Texts" will cover all or most of the verification issue. But I don't know how to assure a reader/editor that each historical text referred to is available at that site. If I do not specifically point to a genuinely available text no-one will know whether I just made it up -- and more importantly those who really want to learn about the issue will not know specifically that they can get to the text (and all others cited) pronto with ease.


 * Do I perhaps link each source in the body of the text to the "Index of Linked Historical Texts"? It one were to follow the link it would me necessary to locate the desired item on the (long and growing) index in that case? This solution keeops the the "one link" idea.


 * Or perhaps the individual links for specific sources could be overlaid with the name of the source in the body of the essay? But that still would be multiple external links - even though they are incorporated ones.


 * In General: The problem is one that is inherent to the social "sciences." They are usually wrongly treated as if they were hard science, allowing for no end of mischief deriving from misplaced confidence in favored secondary sources. For example the google model -- based on quantity of footnote references -- is good for establishing "value" from a hard science perspective, yet in social sciences the opposite often holds. These soft science scholars (which is what "social historians" are) will often repeat faulty generalizations, or supposedly representative cases and examples (which are not at all representative) from academic generation to generation, perpetuating fake "facts" over a period of decades, that are endlessly cited in "the experts say" usages in the popular media, resulting in utter mayhem. My entire project -- which I work on full time -- is designed specifically to overturn myths and ideology-based falsehoods and distortions that in the end have a profound harmful influence on public policy, in other words on most people. This is why it is so important for me to try to made hard facts (documentation) easily available.

I'll be following up on Naming and other issues you point out. --RKS182 (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No split yet
The child abduction article is only 14k bytes long. I suggest you improve the kidnapping by parent (a pedant would say that "parental kidnapping" is ambiguous - it could mean the kidnapping of a parent) section within that article. Discuss at talk:child abduction whether there is a need for a separate article. &mdash; RHaworth 17:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To help anyone following this, the split started by RKS182 is here (that is an old version which should not be edited). Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)