Talk:consanguinamory

RFV discussion: July 2017–February 2018
Used on a few websites. Nothing on Google Books or the Usenet part of Google Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The entry also needs a tiny bit of cleanup, but I should say that the sites provided are probably good for the entry to be kept. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be anything durably archived there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Does archive.org count as durably archived? Here are 5 links from 5 different sources archived on archive.org:
 * Doe, Jane. "FAQ – Consanguinamory". Consanguinamory. Retrieved July 28, 2017.
 * What does consanguinamory mean? It simply means ‘love of family members’, and by that I mean romantic love.
 * PinValentine (June 24, 2014). "Should incest be accepted and legalized". Debate.org. Retrieved July 28, 2017.
 * Consanguinamory is not always between brother and sister. It can be cousins, aunt and nephew, father and daughter, etc...
 * Swift, James (August 27, 2016). "An Interview with An Incest Advocate". Uncommon Journalism. Retrieved July 28, 2017.
 * I would also include relationships between first cousins as consanguinamory too, although some may disagree with me on that point.
 * Pullman, Keith (May 22, 2011). "Still No Good Reason for Laws Against Consensual Incest". Full Marriage Equality. Retrieved July 28, 2017.
 * Consanguineous sex should not be a crime, and consanguinamory should be celebrated. Only abuse and assault, including child abuse, should be a crime when it comes to incest.
 * Manifesto, Final (December 18, 2015). "Help for Family and Friends of Incestuous Siblings". The Final Manifesto. Retrieved July 28, 2017.
 * “Incest” is too loaded a word for intelligent discussion, and I only ever use it for sexual abuse. If I say “consanguinamory”, assume I am talking about consensual sex.
 * The word also appears in print in at least one book, possibly more:
 * Rinella, Diane (August 6, 2013). Time's Forbidden Flower. Midnight to Six Publishing.
 * Whenever you read about sibling consanguinamory there are crazy theories, like our family must have been dysfunctional, or we are perverted, or some other ridiculousness.
 * It's derivative "consanguinamorous" has also appeared on news sites, for example:
 * Parry, Ryan (August 8, 2016). "New Mexico mother and son fell in love and will go to JAIL to defend their relationship". Daily Mail Online. Retrieved July 28, 2017.
 * Well why not consanguinamorous people like us? We are all adults. We are not pedophiles, there's no domestic issue we are in love, we want to be together but we are related
 * Blankley, Bethany (September 12, 2016). "Next Up: Legalization of Incest, Necrophilia, Pedophilia, Zoophilia and More". Charisma News. Retrieved July 30, 2017.
 * Now, incest activists in the consanguinamorous community argue it's their turn to have their sexual preference and lifestyle choice validated socially and legally.
 * -- Loveislove89 (talk) 1:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Might as well face it, you're addicted to love! I mean: might as well keep it. But I don't think it's durably archived. Wow, you know things are bad when even stick-up-the-arse Equinox is starting to trust Internet sources. Equinox ◑ 04:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Archive.org is not considered durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Unstriking. Is there even one durably archived quotation? Archive.org is not durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * From [Criteria for inclusion] : Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time, so that someone referring to Wiktionary years from now is likely to be able to find the original source. As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google. Print media such as books and magazines will also do, particularly if their contents are indexed online. I take this to mean that just because the sources are not permanently archived, they still count if they are the only sources possible. Archive.org is not permanently archived, but it does make it possible to check sources over time, which is the intent of the rule. Kiwima (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. The key word in the passage you've quoted is "easily accessible" (i.e., online in a semi-permanent form, like Google Groups or Project Gutenberg). Being easily accessible is just something desirable, but being durably archived is a requirement, as you can see from the sentence immediately before the passage you quoted. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the cites that are not durably archived and added some cites that are. I have merged the two definitions, so this is now cited Kiwima (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)