Talk:Parental alienation/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Detailed discussion about whether sources comply with WP:MEDRS / WP:RSLAW

Hi Guy Macon, regarding the (now reverted) references that I reinstated yesterday:

1. Richard Warshak is one of the leading researchers into PA, having published over 25 papers, three books, multiple book chapters and made 100s of presentations on the topic, his book Divorce Poison most definitely fits the requirements of WP:MEDRS as a tertiary source. Suggesting otherwise is akin to suggesting Einstein had nothing to do with relativity!
2. Amy Baker is another leading researcher on the topic having published 7 books, numerous papers and multiple presentations to her name. Her books most definitely qualify as tertiary source under WP:MEDRS. Word count: ?? words

I note that you haven't made any edits as yet, all the recent edits to references (including the ones I had reverted above) have been conducted by one editor and that the same editor is going as far as to using popular media articles as cited references in the areas where they have an obvious personal investment which I would suggest clearly fail the test of WP:MEDRS or WP:RSLAW. I trust you will be applying NPOV when you do conduct your proposed cleanup? As noted previous and further highlighted by Skythrops it is virtually impossible to make any sound contributions to this article in the face of the multitude of edits. Once you have conducted your cleanup is there a way to enforce a sensible timeframe between edits to allow for reasonable and intelligent discussion to be conducted? DrPax (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

References

It would be helpful if you would refrain from personal attacks. My "personal investment" is bringing this article up to standard, and we're past the point where insults and obstructionism are going to stop that from happening. If you believe a reference needs to be improved, improve it or tag it so that somebody else can do the work. Arllaw (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(Puts foot down) OK, all personal comments and all responses to personal comments stop now. No comments about "personal investment" and no comments about "insults and obstructionism". Don't talk about other editors, and if you see someone talking about other editors (especially about you) don't respond. Just focus on whether or not particular sources do or do not fail the test of WP:MEDRS or WP:RSLAW. If you really can't stay silent about another editor, we can have a discussion about user behavior on my talk page, but not here. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's start with Richard Warshak and Divorce Poison. DrPax has made an argument that it meets WP:MEDRS. I would like to see a calm, reasoned discussion about whether he is right about that. I am holding off on making any major changes to the article while we seek consensus. I can bring in sourcing experts if we cannot come to an agreement, but let's see if we can resolve this ourselves first. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Macon and apologies. Can I ask that is in the interests of practicality that we keep this discussion to the the content of the lead only at this stage? It is my opinion that if we can agree to the structure and content of the lead then the rest of the article and it's content should follow from there. Hopefully this can avoid a lot of potentially unnecessary debate? DrPax (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting point. You see, I have pretty much zero interest in the actual topic of parental alienation. My parents are no longer alive, I don't have any children, and none of my close friends or relatives are divorced with children. Whatever the rest of you agree on regarding the lead is fine with me, but it should follow the advice at Wikipedia:Lead dos and don'ts and the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. My emphasis is on the two questions of whether the sources meet our standards and whether the claims are directly supported by the sources. And I am asking for input so that I don't get that wrong. Other than that, do what you want regarding article content -- or rather, do what you can agree on. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Warshak, the author of Divorce Poison, is perhaps the most prolific advocate of the concept of P.A., and has written many articles that have been published in journals intended for professional audiences. In contrast, his 2009 book, Divorce Poison, is a non-scholarly, mass market work intended for a lay audience and, as I recall, includes no references. Books of that nature, even if written by leading proponents of a concept, implicate popular press issues. Further, in this specific context, there are plenty of prior and subsequent sources that few would dispute as meeting WP:MEDRS standards in which Warshak shares his perspective so if the goal is to document Warshak's position the book should be redundant. Arllaw (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Macon for elaborating, as noted in the section below it is my opinion that your NPOV makes you ideal for this role. I look forwards to further discussion from other editors about the validity of these reference. DrPax (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all: DrPax says Divorce Poison. meets WP:MEDRS. Nobody has posted any argument that it doesn't. Shall I assume the we have consensus on that source and move on to the next one? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

By all means. 'Divorce Poison' is something of a seminal book in this field and its author is widely published on the same subject in well-respected peer-reviewed journals. The works of Amy Baker fall into a similar category. Skythrops (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, unless I see someone disagreeing, Warshak and Baker stay. Any other sources anyone thinks should be retained or removed? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- I accidentally posted my thoughts above the line, a few paragraphs up. I remain skeptical of non-scholarly, popular press books directed at laypersons as meeting WP:MEDRS. I also don't see the need for relying upon such works by authors who have written a panoply of articles on the same subject that do meet WP:MEDRS. They're the sort of references that, even if arguably useful as a starting point, we should strive to update and replace as better references become available. Arllaw (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: WP:MEDRS and WP:RSLAW

When one parent turns a child against the other parent, it's called "parental alienation". It's not a medical condition (though it may have medical consequences), and it's not a legal concept. I don't accept that WP:MEDRS or WP:RSLAW should apply to this article, any more than to an article about a deranged person shooting schoolchildren. Maproom (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Advocates of the concept of parental alienation want it to be a recognized, diagnosable psychological condition, even if they have yet to convince the psychological community to accept that position; but one way or another it is form of family estrangement, even if one that the psychological community at large does not find to be as easily ascribed to a parent as the advocates suggest. Some advocates also want it to be recognized as a form of child abuse. It is a concept that is most often encountered within child custody litigation, it is discussed in case law, and a few jurisdictions specifically address parental alienation within their laws, so whatever its status within the psychological community it is reasonably deemed to be a legal concept.

I don't think that standards should be lowered for parental alienation merely because it has not reached the level of acceptance of an actual psychological diagnosis, and it makes sense to apply WP:RSLAW standards to content addressing legal issues associated with parental alienation. Arllaw (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The alternative appears to be:

* Sources that are advocacy mixed in with the ones that meet MEDRS RSLAW

* Endless discussions, endless debate, and endless walls of text regarding what the content of this page should be.

There appears to be a rough consensus to my plan (See 72 hour warning above) to fix this page, but I will be happy to post an RfC and get the consensus of the community if it looks like I don't have consensus to do that.

Clearly what we have been doing has not been working. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

At this point I don't think we need an RfC; just implement the changes you proposed and we'll work from there. Poveglia (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon, you have my support to go ahead and conduct the changes you have proposed, break out the chainsaw I say! I'm happy to provide input into any subject matter questions you might have along the way. DrPax (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will start this evening after that annoying fellow who pays me is through with me for the day. What? He might be listening? I meant, when I am finished happily serving my wise and beneficent employer... That's my story and I am stickin' to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs)

Ha, damn work! Getting in the way of good fun! DrPax (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

72-hour warning

Clearly what we have been doing has not been working.

At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Parental alienation and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Parental alienation I received some good advice for dealing with this article. So, 72 hours after posting this notice, I will start going through this article and deleting every source that does not comply with WP:MEDRS or WP:RSLAW and deleting every claim not directly supported by the remaining sources that do comply with WP:MEDRS or WP:RSLAW.

The editors who have been working on this page are strongly encouraged to go though it with a scalpel before I come along and go through it with a chainsaw.

Because certain editors like to post WP:WALLOFTEXT / WP:TLDR responses, in this section only (including any newly-created subsections) I will be enforcing a strict 500-word limit per editor (that's total words in this section, not just words in one comment) and collapsing anything that goes over the limit.

You are free to create a new section or add to any other existing section and write as much as you want to write, but not here. You can use [ https://wordcounter.net/ ] to get a count of how close you are to the limit. If you think that you need more words, give me a good reason why 500 words is not enough for you and I will consider raising your limit to 1000 words.

If anyone wants to challenge my decision, please say so, and I will be happy to call on an administrator to tell us whether my decision to bring this article into compliance with WP:MEDRS / WP:RSLAW is or is not supported by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Word count: 292 words

I brought up this article in re: whether WP:MEDRS should be strictly enforced in re: psychology -- I am not advocating, just asking. Beyond that, I'm fine with proceeding, but don't want to set off any explosions if I remove references. Also, should the content (for now) be left unchanged but, as needed, a "citation needed" tag added? Arllaw (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Word count: 55 words

Citation needed tagging would be a good choice for any material that there isn't a dispute over. It would save me a lot of work, because with CN I normally wait a while to see if someone comes up with a citation wheras I intend to simply nuke the claim if it is supported by a citation that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS / WP:RSLAW. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Word count: 359 words

Hi all, and thanks Guy Macon for your input. Apologies for not responding sooner but, speaking personally, I simply don’t have the time to address the multitude of edits that have historically been proposed and made in rapid fire or to respond within the often very limited timeframe between proposal and edit. This point has been brought up in these pages several time in the past. I would support a limit on how often edits can be made to say a couple of weeks at a minimum, preferably a month.

Regarding the (now closed) straw poll, I would support Proposal 2, Despite PA being a well understood psychological process it is almost invariable brought up in the legal context. However there is extensive research in the psychological arena on the topic.

I also support the proposal laid out at the start of this section, I think the "clean slate" approach has a lot of merit.

DrPax (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Word count: 155 words

It's not about a "clean slate". It's about a higher standard for claims made in the article. If claims can be adequately supported, it's best to join the present effort to improve references. If they cannot, work from the assumption that they won't be coming back. Arllaw (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Word count: 102 words

I gave everybody some time to edit the article before start going through it, deleting every source that does not comply with WP:MEDRS or WP:RSLAW and deleting every claim not directly supported by the remaining sources that do comply with WP:MEDRS or WP:RSLAW. Does anyone need more time? I would very much prefer that the people who have been working on the article go through it with a scalpel instead of me going through it with a chainsaw, but one way or another, if it does not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS or WP:RSLAW, out it goes. I suggest that everyone re-read those pages. If I get it wrong I am counting on you to explain exactly how a particular source meets the requirements of WP:MEDRS or WP:RSLAW. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Word count: 428 words

Thanks Guy Macon. I support the use of reliable references and statements in this article (and throughout Wikipedia, naturally). Being a psychological, rather than medical or legal, concept (though one, clearly, used regularly in a legal context), I take it the specific guidelines you're proposing to adhere to are the most appropriate for this page? I'll certainly re-read the pages you've recommended. I've been an editor on this page for about four years and would like to have the opportunity of continuing to contribute to the improvement of this article, but don't have the time to visit or edit every week, and certainly not every day. So, I don't expect to be able to contribute on the timescale you propose.Skythrops (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Word count: 126 words

I think that editors have had reasonable opportunity at this point to participate in the discussions of how to improve the article and its sources, work to improve the sources and tag problematic references, or both. I thus think it's reasonable for you to pull the proverbial trigger. Arllaw (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Update

I am going to be hospitalized tomorrow (I am expected to make a full recovery) and will only have the time to make Wikipedia small edits here and there, so I won't be editing this page for a while. Sorry about that, but what can you do? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Get well. Should we change the template message to "under construction" for now? Arllaw (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I will remove the template. If anyone else wants to do major work and needs time to finish, add the template for yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Source Issues

Does anybody here know the business model of Charles C. Thomas, Publisher? From the company website, it's not clear where they fall along the spectrum from vanity press to a publisher with more established standards for submitted works. Arllaw (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the answer to this question affects Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals, which is very heavily cited within the article. For general reasons, it would be approrpiate to replace or supplement as many of those citations as possible with more current references, WP:MEDBOOK, but if it is determined that the book does not meet WP:MEDRS standards the removal of it as a reference and possible removal of associated content will have a significant effect on the article. Arllaw (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of legal references in the alienation vs. estrangement section that I believe should be replaced with references to reliable psychology resources. Arllaw (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe this is resolved. Arllaw (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There are a few media references in the Family Courts section that I think should be replaced as other sources are located; if we have a Hebrew speaker available, that could be helpful in finding references for the subsection for Israel. Arllaw (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There are some media articles in the controversy section that seem suitable for that section, and it seems to me that a more relaxed approach is needed for some of the references in the Advocacy section. Thoughts? Arllaw (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

In reviewing sources, some content needs to be edited to be consistent with what the source actually says. Also, several remaining references, including heavily-used references, seem dubious by WP:MEDRS standards. If others join in the effort to improve and update references, perhaps those issues can be addressed as part of the process without triggering controversy. Arllaw (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Arllaw, About C C Thomas: this is an old family publishing company that in the past specialized in medical and psychological topics. The current EIC is Michael Thomas. Having years ago had the impression that they would publish most reasonable things within their range of interest, I recently queried M. Thomas about a project I'm working on, but got no response whatever. That suggests to me that it is not a vanity publisher, because if it were they would have been delighted to take my ms. and a stack of cash. However, I think they may have gotten stung with that Handbook. One of the chapters contained quite defamatory material about someone who has been active in anti-PA circles, and the ensuing lawsuit ended with Thomas having to remove all that material. They did not reset the book but just left blank pages. (Not really relevant to your comment, but interesting I think.) With respect to your other statement about "mainstream", I do see what you mean.JeanAMercer (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to take a position on the book in relation to the present issues with the article, but I will refer to WP:MEDBOOK as indicating that books are a good place to start when building an article but not so good as a place to finish; if those references can be replaced with current reliable sources, that would be a good thing. Also, in my opinion there is an over-reliance upon that book which could also be addressed through a general effort to improve references, preferably neutral references. Arllaw (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to retract that last statement and take a position, as having looked more deeply at the book at issue with an eye toward reconciling some of the article's claims with what sources actually say, I find it to be a work of advocacy as opposed to objective scholarship or an academic work. If the sole support for a claim in the article is the book, I would question whether the point is adequately supported per WP:MEDRS. Arllaw (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Several articles by Richard Gardner are used as references in the article. Other than for purposes of history, given the age of the articles and the evolution of theories of parental alienation since Gardner made his proposals and articulated his theory of parental alienation syndrome, I think those articles remain appropriate only for the history section and, within the larger article, should be replaced with current reliable sources. Arllaw (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

As you have brought up the fact that the Handbook is a work of advocacy, I must confess that I do not understand Wikipedia rules about this kind of thing . When does one stray into OR? Some articles that have been referenced (and the connections of the lead para with their conclusions nicely critiqued, thank you Arlllaw) are problematic because the study designs do not allow for the conclusions they draw. For example, the Verrocchio paper is a quasiexperimental comparison of depression in a group that reported much earlier experience of PA relative to another group that reported less. It was concluded that PA exposure caused depression-- whereas in fact it is equally likely that depression in adulthood causes bias in recall of negative childhood events. ... There are also problems of logic that need comment in various referenced articles. The claim that PA is a form of child abuse (so essential to persuading a judge to order a custody change) is in fact logically spurious. The argument seems to be that if A is followed by C and D, and if B is followed by C, then A and B are the same thing. This appears in this form: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are followed by problems of mental and physical health. PA is (per Verrrocchio) followed by problems of mental health. Therefore, PA is an ACE. (This is similar to the argument that refined sugar use is followed by dental caries and increased risk of diabetes, and genetic factors are followed by dental caries, so refined sugar use is a genetic factor.) ... These problems of logic are on top of the fact that the empirical work presented is in forms subject to bias as well as often involving very small Ns with all the problems Tversky and Kahneman have pointed out. ... What is one allowed to say about these things on Wikipedia? Are these reliable sources, when they are subject to such criticism? And is what I've just said different from your conclusion that the Handbook is a work of advocacy?JeanAMercer (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Do our pages at WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V answer your question? This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't draw conclusions like "...problematic because the study designs do not allow for the conclusions they draw" or "problems of logic". You either find a reliable source that directly supports a claim or you remove the claim. You do not decide that the study designs do not allow for the conclusions they draw. That's WP:OR and is not allowed. On the other hand, if you find a reliable source that says that the study designs do not allow for the conclusions, you can report what that source claims.

I know that Wikipedia's rules seem strange when you first encounter them, but they really are the best way to build an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I am going to include my comments here as well, as it may seem more approprite to some.

There seems to be some heated debate about this article, and I was asked to take a look from a scientific perspective as a psychologist.

At first blush, I would say that any references to this subject being related to Psychology (with a capital P!) is not appropriate, as all things related to "alienation" have been rejected by the general professional psychological community (with the notable exception of a small handful of outliers - very similar to the small handful of scientists claiming to be climate change deniers.) Despite attempts by these few people to have this subject classified as a mental condition (of the child) they have been rejected by the American Psychological Association, and specifically excluded from The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5). Similarly, no international psychological association has accepted the legitimacy of this "condition."

In addition, I went through the references included with this article in some detail. I would note that many references have been written by attorneys and law firms, rather than by scientists. If this is an article about "The Legal Defense Known as Parental Alienation," this would seem appropriate, but does not seem appropriate for an article about a scientific subject. Indeed, it appears that most of the defenders of this subject are attorneys, rather than scientists. One of the references cited multiple times is by an author who reports that he is a psychologist AND a family attorney, so I am not convinced at this time that his writings should carry much weight.

I would be more than happy to go through each reference carefully, and debate whether they are appropriate, or even legitimate. In the meantime, I will work on some possible article edits that can be discussed here, in the context of science.

In the meantime, I've looked at some of the sources, some are good, and some clearly are not good from a scientific perspective. The article should be tagged until we can work through these. I'm on leave at the moment, so I do have some time to apply to this.

Dr.John.Anderson (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Dr.Bob.Anderson 17:09 UTC 18 October 2019

I have been trying to add additional and improved references to the article, and am striving to meet a higher standard. The characteristics section would benefit from some additional quality references. The diagnosis section needs to have additional reliable sources added, or should be edited down to include only those claims that can be properly supported. The theories section would benefit from significant revision for both content and clarity, as well as either having its claims supported by reliable sources.

As for other sections, I think that they are much improved but it's progress, not perfection. It would be appreciated if others would join the effort. Arllaw (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Article structure & further development for 2020

Following Guy Macon’s planned reference review (get well soon) and Arllaw’s removal of a number of ongoing discussion sections from this page (re article structure & opening paragraph, for instance), I’m (re-)posting what I believe to be a reasonable structure for the overall page, based on extensive, past discussions as well as Wikipedia guidelines. Comments welcome.

1. Opening paragraph

2. Characteristics (behavior of child, ‘alienating adult' and ‘alienated adults’)

3. Causes

4. Prevalence

5. Consequences

(the effects of parental alienation on children, parents, families and society as a whole)

6. Diagnosis

7. Treatment

8. Prevention

9. History (including controversy)

10. Activism

11. Current status

11.1 In psychology (latest research, DSM-V, ICD-11 etc.);

11.2 In law (international definitions of psychological abuse, family violence etc.; offences/crimes (Mexico, Brazil, USA/UK/Australia etc.); international Conventions; legal precedents and treatment of PA in various jurisdictions;

12. Related concepts (including relationship between alienation & estrangement etc.)

13. References

14. Further reading

15. External links

Given the new, extended sections on such issues as Activism and Controversy (with substantial paragraphs attributed to just one reference – and that by the Wikipedia editor herself – and just one journal, renowned for a particular stance towards - or rather against - PA), it would be useful to bring back some balance/NPOV and refocus on what parental alienation actually is (Characteristics, Causes, Prevalence etc.). There are an increasing number of reputable publications on these subjects.

With respect to the opening paragraph, I believe there’s been more than enough debate and consensus which, though now archived, could be summarised by saying that it meets Wikipedia’s guidelines and has been supported by multiple authors, e.g. “I would like to propose the following rewrite of the introductory paragraph” Skythrops 04:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC); “I like the new opening paragraph” Hotornotquestionmarknot 02:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC); “given the consensus around the first sentence I will update the intro accordingly” DrPax 22:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC); “In this article, we now have an excellent lead paragraph” Martinogk 15:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC).

One editor, Arllaw, has, this year, consistently rejected this long-standing consensus and sought to change the text [“the opening paragraph … really isn't very good” Arllaw 00:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC); “pretty much everything in the present opening paragraph is wrong and needs to be corrected” Arllaw 13:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)]. In determining what weight to give to one editor’s objections to this consensus, it’s important to note (and please recognize that these comments are not "a personal attack") that this opinion is based, quite explicitly, on premises that are incorrect: for instance, “The heavily referenced Dr. Warshak acknowledges that parental alienation can be justified” Arllaw 13:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [This is a misinterpretation of all of Warshak’s work on this subject; in fact, it’s the antithesis of Warshak’s thesis] and that “All credible sources agree that parental alienation can result from causes that range from valid to unjustified” Arllaw 13:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [Again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of parental alienation (and an inaccurate characterisation of the literature); parental alienation is a term that only applies when a child’s behavior towards a parent or others is unwarranted.]

Given the extensive debate, long-standing consensus and relatively well-referenced nature of the opening paragraph, I think it would be useful to move on to the body of the article; agreeing a structure that works best for all could be a good way to make progress. Skythrops (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Before we rearrange the deck chairs, we should start with the completion of the reference clean-up and correction of the many factual errors that persist in the article. Please don't make personal attacks on the talk page. Arllaw (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be some heated debate about this article, and I was asked to take a look from a scientific perspective as a psychologist.

At first blush, I would say that any references to this subject being related to Psychology (with a capital P!) is not appropriate, as all things related to "alienation" have been rejected by the general professional psychological community (with the notable exception of a small handful of outliers - very similar to the small handful of scientists claiming to be climate change deniers.) Despite attempts by these few people to have this subject classified as a mental condition (of the child) they have been rejected by the American Psychological Association, and specifically excluded from The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5). Similarly, no international psychological association has accepted the legitimacy of this "condition."

In addition, I went through the references included with this article in some detail. I would note that many references have been written by attorneys and law firms, rather than by scientists. If this is an article about "The Legal Defense Known as Parental Alienation," this would seem appropriate, but does not seem appropriate for an article about a scientific subject. Indeed, it appears that most of the defenders of this subject are attorneys, rather than scientists. One of the references cited multiple times is by an author who reports that he is a psychologist AND a family attorney, so I am not convinced at this time that his writings should carry much weight.

I would be more than happy to go through each reference carefully, and debate whether they are appropriate, or even legitimate. In the meantime, I will work on some possible article edits that can be discussed here, in the context of science.

Dr.John.Anderson (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Dr.Bob.Anderson 16.41 UTC 18 October 2019

Past discussion should reflect the split nature of this article, part psychology, part law. One recent goal is to review the medical/psychological claims associated with parental alienation to ensure that any such claims are supported by reliable medical sources, WP:MEDRS, and also that legal claims are supported by reliable legal sources, WP:RSLAW. While there are some lawyers who defend the concept of parental alienation (above and beyond its use as a descriptive term), it seems to me that the leading proponents of P.A. are a relatively small group of psychologists, many of whom earn fees as expert witnesses in child custody cases or through treatment programs for children who are supposedly affected by parental alienation.

I would encourage you to take the initiative with further clean-up. The process of trying to bring references up to standard, with the consequence of having inadequately supported material removed, has been ongoing for quite some time, so for claims that have been tagged as inadequately supported there has already been considerable opportunity for revision and correction. If there are assertions that are reasonable but not adequately supported, we could discuss the changes here such that there is an opportunity to provide better sourcing. But I think that the claims that are at odds with referenced material, or the claims that are not adequately supported to Wikipedia standards should be corrected, revised or removed. Arllaw (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer not to delete material from the article. I would like to have others join in the effort to improve references, and would prefer that removal of unsupported content be handled by somebody who is an outsider to the controversy. However, if no action is taken to provide improved references, it seems inevitable that some content will end up being removed. Arllaw (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Dr. John Anderson and anybody else who is following the effort to improve this article, is the article sufficiently improved so as to justify removing the "cite check" tag, with the section-specific tags remaining in place until those sections are improved? Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Revising the Lead

Following up on the suggestions of Dr. Jean Mercer, and consistent with the conflict between claims made in the article and the references cited as observed by Dr. John Anderson, I propose the following as a new lead for the article. The proposed revisions bring the text into alignment with the cited sources, as well as covering the controversies and to the extent possible separating legal and psychological issues.

Parental alienation describes a process through which a child becomes estranged from a parent as the result of the psychological manipulation of another parent. The child's estrangement may manifest itself as fear, disrespect or hostility toward the parent, and may extend to additional relatives or parties. The child's estrangement is disproportionate to any acts or conduct attributable to the alienated parent. Parental alienation can occur in any family unit, but is believed to occur most often within the context of family separation, particularly when legal proceedings are involved, although the participation of professionals such as lawyers, judges and psychologists may also contribute to conflict.

Proponents of parental alienation assert that it is primarily motivated by one parent's desire to exclude the other parent from their child's life. Some assert that parental alienation should be diagnosable in children as a mental disorder. Some propose that parental alienation be recognized as a form of child abuse or family violence. They assert that parental alienation creates stress on the alienated parent and child, and significantly increases the child's lifetime risk of mental illness.

Parental alienation remains controversial both within the psychological community and the legal system. The psychological community has not accepted parental alienation as a diagnosable mental condition. Critics within the psychological community note that alienating behaviors are common in high-conflict family situations such as child custody proceedings, but that the estrangement of a child from a parent remains rare. They assert that the research performed to date does not support the theory that parental alienation results in the harm described by proponents. They also express concern that a parent who has caused a child to become alienated, for example through acts of domestic violence or child abuse, may assert parental alienation to convince a court that the child's justified response to the abuse is the result of the other parent's misconduct and to potentially gain custody of the child. No diagnostic criteria have been established for parental alienation, and proposals made to date have not been established as reliable. No program of treatment has been demonstrated to be safe or valid, and proponents of parental alienation theory agree that more research into treatment is necessary.

The theory of parental alienation has been asserted within legal proceedings as a basis for awarding custody to a parent who alleges estrangement, or to modify custody in favor of that parent. Courts have generally rejected parental alienation as a valid scientific theory, but some courts have allowed the concept to be argued as relevant to the determination of the child's best interest when making a custody determination. Legal professionals recognize that alienating behaviors are common in child custody cases, but are cautious about accepting the concept of parental alienation.

References

Please share thoughts, feedback, any concerns about the references used, additional references, and the like. Arllaw (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Anybody? Arllaw (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The new/proposed introductory paragraph introduces multiple inaccuracies and ambiguities and contains some information more appropriate for the body of the article. The previous, long-standing introduction was better. It was succinct, clear, and well supported by references and, importantly, by long-standing consensus of multiple authors. See a long history of comments above in support of the original text (including those now deleted/archived by Arllaw). This change is not consensus editing and unfortunately has not improved the article. Skythrops (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The new intro is accurate and consistent with the references, while the prior one was not. It's also consistent with the content of the article, while the prior one was not. If you can in fact document any issues with the present lead and references, by all means -- start contributing to the conversation or initiate a RfC. Arllaw (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead Section / POV

In light of recent changes made to the lead (since reverted) I thought it might be helpful to start a discussion in relation to the lead, and to the issue of controversy as introduced by those changes. Specifically:

Parental alienation is an extraordinarily controversial theory that primarily exists within the legal system that describes a process through which a child becomes estranged from a parent as the result of the psychological manipulation of another parent. It is a theory not accepted by the general scientific community, and the theory has been repeatedly rejected for inclusion in the American Psychological Association's DSM-5.

References

The lead should reflect the content of the article, so before significant changes are made to the lead it is important that they first be made (and supported by reliable sources) within the article. The changes at issue raise issues of neutral point of view issues, which is why the reversion occurred, and it is important that editors strive for neutrality in editing even when one has strong feelings about a subject or independent expertise -- because even if an editor is a subject matter expert, content must be supported by reliable sources. Although this appears inadvertent, another issue with the changes is that as made they suggest that they are supported by the Jaffe article.

Given the history of controversy surrounding this article, it will generally be helpful to discuss significant changes to the lead here before they are implemented in the article. However, pending any discussion the ground work can be laid by adding appropriate, properly supported content within the article. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Parental Alienation can be clinically diagnosed"?

@Dr.John.Anderson:

Do the sources in this edit[1] (the very first edit by this editor!) support the claim "Parental Alienation can be clinically diagnosed"?

Previously on this talk page the following comment was made:

"At first blush, I would say that any references to this subject being related to Psychology (with a capital P!) is not appropriate, as all things related to "alienation" have been rejected by the general professional psychological community (with the notable exception of a small handful of outliers - very similar to the small handful of scientists claiming to be climate change deniers.) Despite attempts by these few people to have this subject classified as a mental condition (of the child) they have been rejected by the American Psychological Association, and specifically excluded from The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5). Similarly, no international psychological association has accepted the legitimacy of this "condition." [2]

This seems to contradict the claim that Parental Alienation can be clinically diagnosed. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Craig Childress's monograph presents his own conception of what he calls "attachment based 'parental alienation'", his having rejected the model proposed by Gardner:

While the clinical phenomenon identified by Gardner is valid, the PAS model he proposed is not based in any established or accepted psychological principles or constructs. None of the symptoms proposed for PAS represent defined constructs in clinical psychology, nor are the concepts of “brainwashing” and “deprogramming” defined and accepted constructs in clinical psychology....

Over the decades since Gardner first proposed the PAS model, proponents for the construct of “parental alienation” have tried to establish a research-based foundation for the validity of the anecdotal clinical indicators identified by Gardner, and they have tried repeatedly, but without success, to have the construct of “parental alienation” included as a recognized diagnostic entity within the DSM diagnostic system of the American Psychiatric Association.... However, within clinical psychology the construct of “parental alienation” still lacks a clearly defined meaning, which limits its usefulness as a clinical construct for diagnosis and treatment....

An attachment-based model of “parental alienation” returns to the roots of the clinical phenomenon identified by Gardner and redefines the construct of “parental alienation” from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs of the attachment system, personality disorder characteristics, and family systems constructs.

Childress is thus describing his own model of parental alienation, which differs from the theory presented in this article. To the extent that he has a theory for the diagnosis of what he calls "attachment based 'parental alienation'", it would not carry over to the diagnosis of a Gardner-based theory as he rejects that model of parental alienation. Further Childress's monograph presents reliable source issues, and I don't see that Childress has either gained acceptance for his theory within the community of PA proponents or that it has been published in a reliable journal or by an academic publisher. Childress's theories have been previously discussed in relation to the article, and it appears that @JeanAMercer: is familiar with them, so perhaps she has some thoughts that could help clarify the matter. Arllaw (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Sorry to have been inactive here, but I have been working on a professional journal article about this topic. Let me comment first on identification of PA (I do not say diagnosis) from the Childress perspective. Childress proposes to use the ABAB single case design as a test. This is a common way to get information about whether a treatment works in a given case. The child receives condition A (in this case, presumably contact only with the preferred parent) and his or her behavior and attitude relevant to the relationship with the nonpreferred parent is noted. Next, condition B (in this case, total separation from the preferred parent, contact only with the nonpreferred parent) is introduced, behavior and attitude noted. Then back to condition A, followed by another condition B. If the concerning behavior that is present in condition A lessens or disappears in condition B and returns when A is re-introduced, this is taken as evidence that treatment B is effective. However, this conclusion is only justified if the treatment variable B has been isolated, and all other variables remain the same in the two conditions. Childress's description does not include isolation of the treatment variable. Children subjected to the treatment (High Roads) experience a workshop, separation from the preferred parent (plus home, friends, ordinary habits), assurance that they will not see the preferred parent unless they behave as told and even then not for months, and in some cases frightening events as they are taken and moved by youth transport workers. Condition B is different from A in multiple ways, not just the part described as treatment, so the ABAB set-up does not in fact permit anyone to identify which experience (if any) brought about the desired change. BUT-- all this is simply about whether an ABAB design can show whether behavior and attitude have changed. Childress also appears to propose that this design can show whether the child's attitude was a matter of PA to begin with. It is difficult to know what he actually means, but he does seem to be saying, as he stresses the ABAB design, that if the child's attitude changes in the desired direction in the B condition, that means that PA has been identified. Once again, the problem is of isolation of variables. As even most proponents of PA acknowledge, rejection of a parent may be caused by a number of factors, not just by actions of the preferred parent. A child who rejected an abusive parent might well behave as differently and positively as he could toward that parent after being taken from home, forbidden to have contact with the preferred parent, and told that it may be months or years before contact with the preferred parent and preferred home will occur.

However, Arllaw, I do not know how to present this in Wikipedia style. It seems to me that what I say here is OR by Wiki standards. Childress is a very minor figure in the PA world so there are no extensive critiques of his ideas. (Just out of curiosity, though, is his self-published book even appropriate material to be cited here?)

Now, to go on to talk a bit about the "diagnosis" or identification question, there is no established protocol for identifyng PA. But I don't know how to cite the fact that nobody has described one. Psychological tests like the MMPI and the Bricklin have never been shown to correlate with the identification of PA, which is a forensic term, not a term in clinical psychology. (Actually PA is no worse in terms of testing than most child custody issues, whose faults have been commented on repeatedly over the last 15 or 20 years.) Richard Warshak's recent publication describes the children as having been identified as PA by the courts, not by any objective measure. Once again-- is it OR to say that there is no evidence or even anything that claims to be evidence? I don't know how to handle this in this article. I have talked about it in the article I mentioned working on, but that is only just submitted to the journal and not even reviewed, much less published. JeanAMercer (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that by WP:MEDRS standards, care needs to be taken not to include the positions of people whose theories have not been the subject of peer reviewed studies, and whose views have little to no mainstream acceptance. If we're to the point of working from judicial findings, that of itself seems to be an abandonment of the idea that we're dealing with a concept that has a psychological or scientific basis. Also, where an expert testifies in court to describe to the judge what does or does not constitute P.A., or to also express that children are displaying P.A., it strikes me as quite the dodge to then suggest that the court's determination somehow substantiates the expert's theories or proves that P.A. occurred in a manner consistent with the expert's conception. More so if the expert has not confirmed that the court's finding is predicated upon the expert's conception of P.A., or where it has not been distinguished from jargon. Arllaw (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

What I am about to say comes from someone who is an expert in engineering and pretty much totally ignorant in medicine / psychology. Regarding WP:OR we had a similar case on the power factor page. One person absolutely insisted that negative power factors don't exist, literally everyone else was taught that they do exist in school, yet could not cite that because of WP:OR. However, our OR, while useless as a source, was invaluable as a guideline while searching for sources, and as a result led me to ask Alex McEachern, fellow at IEEE, author of EEE Standard 1459-2010, who issued an official clarification at On Negative Power and Negative Power Factor in Alternating Current Power Systems: some corrections to IEEE Standard 1459-2010. I am mentioned by name in the acknowledgements of that paper. You can read the long, boring story at Talk:Power factor/Archive 2, but the key point is that our OR led us to ask former teachers where they got it, which led me to Alex McEachern, which led me to a high-quality source that settled the content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure this(OR) is a problem in a lot of disciplines, but in this case the difficulty is that having fully reviewed the literature I can say to my own satisfaction that the data do not exist, but neither I nor anyone else has yet stated this in print. I'm working on doing that but it will take a while. PA is not taught at universities and I don't think most psychologists have ever heard of it-- family lawyers, yes, but not psychologists. I only know about it because of a more general interest in "alternative" psychotherapies. Interesting idea, Arllaw, that people like CHildress should just be omitted from the article. It makes sense-- but then how does one comment on mistaken beliefs of this kind?JeanAMercer (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I added a reference that helped support the diagnosis/ symptoms of Parental Alienation in children, as well as adding the footnote to some preexisting information, giving it further credit. JoLynn17009 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Parental Alienation now recognized in the new ICD 11

Despite efforts to not have it included it is going ahead and should be included in the article and sections reworked, which include this new classification. Any objections? https://karenwoodall.blog/2019/05/27/world-health-organisation-recognises-parental-alienation/ Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of a specific term within the index is not the same thing as finding that "parental alienation" is diagnosable as defined in this article. You must look at the actual text of QE52. Nor does a blog post reach either WP:RSLAW or WP:RSMED standards. Arllaw (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's another good reason why we should not look at index entries when trying to revise articles that need to be predicated upon reliable sources. The term has been removed from the index,

Parental alienation has been removed from the ICD-11 classification as it is a judicial term and issue. Its inclusion for coding purposes in the ICD-11 will not contribute to valid or meaningful health statistics.

— Team3 WHO

Arllaw (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Editorials and news articles - POV issues

The POV issues at the end of Treatment don't have a place here IMO. Washington Post and Globe articles are just seeking shock value, adding nothing to the credibility of the topic. Any objections to pulling it out? Or maybe set aside a "criticisms" section? --Frobozz1 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The use of media articles to expand upon material that is otherwise adequately supported is appropriate. See WP:MEDPOP. Arllaw (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that these sources are fine, so yes, I object to them being deleted. --Slp1 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello I have just reverted huge undiscussed changes to the article. The edits seem to be very POV, including using sources that are out of sync with the general consensus on this topic in academia, and presenting them as the dominant one. e.g. [3]. Per WP:BRD, please discuss your proposed changes here before restoring them. --Slp1 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The source is the de-facto WP:MAINSTREAM sentiment on Parental Alienation and addresses many WP:FRINGE opinions currently promoted within this article.

I am the owner of this resource: Lorandos, Demosthenes, Ph.D., J.D.; Baker, Amy, Ph.D; Campbell, Terence, Ph.D.; Freeman, Bradley, M.D.; Lowrance, Hon. Michele, J.D. (2013). Slovenko, Ralph, B.E., LL.B., M.A., Ph.D.; Bernet, William, M.D.; et al. (eds.). Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals. Springfield, Il: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, LTD. ISBN 978-0-398-08881-1. LCCN 2013011346.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) and I feel it has a lot to contribute to this article in the way of WP:SECONDARY analysis. Specifically, among the coalition of editors for this professional handbook are the coalition of researchers and field experts who had drafted the Parental Alienation Disorder proposal for the DSM-5 Child and Adolescent Diagnostic Working Group.

• Addressing the "existential" narrative: This article suffers from a POV narrative conflating what is really a difficulty in defining and diagnosing the Parental Alienation phenomenon, and the false opinion that Parental Alienation as a phenomenon does not exist. The difficulties with including PA into a rigid diagnostic definition are manyfold, however denying its existence is not among them. The Handbook can illuminate this article as to the political question of painting a child victim as having a "disorder." Unlike a biological condition or a broken leg, the PA phenomenon involves competing rights of parents and children, and it is feared that formalizing a diagnostic tool may create a weapon for legal custodians. Generally, no court keeps a DSM-5 at their bench because they don't require a formal diagnosis to determine "best interest," they only need to know symptoms of inappropriate treatment and likely outcomes of their orders. Thus, getting PA into the DSM-5 is not holding back the family courts.
• Vapid conflation of terms: This article bandies about "Parental Alienation," "Parental Alienation Syndrome," "Estrangement," and "Alienation" in so confusing a manner that it will leave readers more confounded than they were when they entered the site. The terms are discrete and clearly defined. The sources posted do not conflate the terms, the interchanging narrative is doing the citations a disservice.
• Factually, the legal status of PA as a danger to children is well established in the courts. The debate revolves around effective detection methods.

An example of an atrocious sentence: "Parental alienation falls within the spectrum of family estrangement, a term that broadly describes when family members become alienated from each other without regard to cause. As estrangement may occur between a parent and child for other reasons, it is possible to discuss alienation in terms of a child's having a preferred and a nonpreferred parent without implying that a child's avoidance of one parent is due to parental alienation"

After reading this all hope is lost to know what the clinical and legal difference is between "estrangement" and "alienation." The legal and clinical community have adopted the terms "target parent" and "favored parent" in cases of alienation. The citations nearly all use this language but it is missing from the article entirely.

Instead, the following statement represents the current consensus concerning the jargon in this field:

Parental alienation falls within the spectrum of family estrangement but is differentiated from estrangement by its specific cause. As estrangement may occur between a parent and child for other reasons, it is possible to discuss estrangement in terms of a child's having a preferred and a nonpreferred parent without implying that a child's avoidance of one parent is due to parental alienation. In cases of PA however, clinicians refer to the preferred parent as the "favored parent" and the nonpreferred parent is normally referred to as the "target parent" as the act of one parent targeting the other parent is what causes the child's relational problems.. The conditions are not mutually exclusive and factors which lead to estrangement can occur along with alienation tactics, vastly complicating diagnosis.

It would be helpful to clean this article up, which I have all the resources to do if needed.

Thank you, --Frobozz1 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here to discuss. It is late here so I will only say a few things, mainly about sources.

• The Legal Dictionary is not a reliable source. Please see WP:RS.
• The Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals, in contrast, is a reliable source, but it is far from mainstream. In fact, the authors have been swimming upstream in their unsuccessful efforts to get PA accepted by professional organizations pretty much anywhere in the world!
• Review of research and case law on parental alienation by Julie Doughty et al is not the kind of peer reviewed source WP prefers, but it is probably adequate as a source. However I can find no sign on p 26 that it supports the material you suggest it does. Can you provide the correct page number please?

perhaps others will chime in with other comments.Slp1 (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It is important that when this article is edited, that all references added meet the appropriate standard, primarily WP:RSMED, but for the sections focused on law, WP:RSLAW. Please do not make changes to the text of material that render the content incompatible with cited source material. All changes should be appropriately supported by reliable sources. The 2013 book, Parental Alienation, presents issues as a WP:RSMED source. It was cited in prior versions of the article, the principle issue being that there are newer, better sources available for the issues for which it was previously cited. This article has a long history or biased, problematic editing, and it took a herculean effort and extensive outside assistance to get to the point that clean-up was possible. If you look at the talk page, including the archives, you may see why it is helpful to propose major changes on the talk page for discussion. Arllaw (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Arllaw for your recents edits. I agree with almost all of them. My only concern is the inclusion of the material about Reay’s claimed 95% success rate, even with the added qualifications. From what I can see, it was a pilot study, noted by multiple reliable sources to be missing key details when reported,[4] [5] never replicated and published in a journal that academic librarian User:DGG described as a “a journal of demonstrably abysmal quality” ([6]. I also don’t find it inspiring that the website for the program is dead, [7]. I think there are significantly WP:MEDRS in reporting this very weak primary sourced information and suggest it be deleted. Slp1 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Reay performed a limited study of her own program, claimed very good results, and then a few years later her program was closed. As there is no evidence that this program remains in use, or was ever used by anybody but Reay herself, the mention of the shuttered program is of trivial relevance to the article. If the claim is kept in place, and I am inclined to agree that it should not be under these facts, the conflict of interest should be identified. It is not necessary for every cited reference to be supported by quotations; but in terms of Reay's study of her own program, here's a quote from the cited source,

The Family Reflections Reunification Program was piloted in 2012, and Reay (2015) reports that preliminary outcome data showed a 95% success rate over 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month intervals. However, Reay provides little information about the research design and methodology used to obtain those results....

No controlled evaluation exists for any of these programs, and the outcome data that do exist are methodologically limited. Of the intensive interventions reviewed, outcome data are available for Family Bridges (Warshak, 2010), Famlly Reflections (Reay, 2015), and the Overcoming Barriers Family Camp (Sullivan et al., 2010). For all of the studies that produced these data, samples were small and nonrandom, no research tools were used to measure or assess outcome criteria, the reports lack information on treatment dosage and the specific treatment modalities used; and program developers themselves conducted the outcome research, a source of possible bias. In Reay's (2015) report, crucial information lacking includes the intake process, a description of the clinical sample that attended the program (e.g., child and parent ages), whether or not this sample was homogeneous (e.g., with respect to the nature of the parent-child contact problems and their intensity), and the actual clinical interventions used. The internal validity of Warshak's (2010) study is limited by (among other factors) the fact that outcomes were assessed by the rejected parent and the therapist but not the child or favored parent. In both Reay (2015) and Warshak (2010), it is unclear what observations and statements were made to aftercare specialists to determine what constituted a successful or positive outcome.

That's documentation both that Reay was reviewing her own program and that her methodology was dubious. Arllaw (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all this extra information. It seems that we are agreed that this is not the sort of very preliminary treatment data/results that should be cited in an encyclopedia such as this.Slp1 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to cherry-pick one librarian's opinion,User:DGG, on the reliability of a journal's articles. There are valid counter-arguments and it is misguided to suggest that a jopurnal is of "demonstrably abysmal quality" based on a singular and unqualified opinion. What the conclusion stated was "There's no reason why we shouldn't cite the AJFT." The proper treatment of the 95% citation is with WP:BALANCE if you can find specific and equally-qualified criticisms. Points of contention with the current edit:

• The AJFT review cited here was very specifically aimed at the Parental Alienation Syndrome rather then PA (we actually have two distinct articles for these different concepts) Trashing the PA article for it's journal review based on PAS is Apples and oranges.
• The fact remains that there is no "claim by a proprietor" which has passed peer review. It's flatly dishonest. If you can't place a critical citation after it (which does not become my burden), then leave it saying what it states. Right now this article is editorializing WP:RS content. When you find and WP:QUOTE the counterargument, you can create the narrative being driven here using that source. --Frobozz1 (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no way around these facts: The program that Kathleen Reay evaluated in her article was her own program. She was the proprietor of that program. The program is no longer available, and you have provided no evidence that it is in use (or ever was in use) anywhere else. As such, the fact that Reay evaluated her own defunct program and found it to work is trivia, not actually something that contributes meaningfully to this article. That has nothing to do with the alleged quality of the journal in which Reay published the article. It has to do with basic relevance. Peer review does not change the authorship of an article. I agree with the removal of mention of the study for the aforementioned reasons, and do not think that it is a constructive use of time to discuss your objections to accurate, properly referenced statements about articles of trivial relevance. See WP:MEDDATE, WP:MEDINDY, WP:MEDBIAS, WP:NOTADVOCACY. Arllaw (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Recent additions to the article

Some content was added to the article based upon a German-language essay, about parental alienation. There are some issues with the addition.

The text "It is therefore important to diagnose the whole family system, identify the manipulative person or persons, and clarify the role of the so-called alienated parent in detail to prevent misdiagnosis" is problematic for two reasons. First, it was inserted into the section about characteristics, not diagnosis. Second, as there are no established diagnostic criteria, while I agree that it is necessary to consider the family system when evaluating estrangement, any quotation on that issue should not suggest that there is an actual psychological condition or actual diagnostic criteria for "parental alienation."

Various citations to the essay have been dropped into the article, supplementary to existing citations. It is not clear how they add to the article, or how they don't push us in the direction of citation overkill. Many of the references cited in the article could be referenced dozens of times, but even when the reference is a highly reputable source it's not actually helpful to cite a reference for every issue that it touches upon.

The change of the subheading "Advocacy" to "Support Organizations" is inappropriate. Also, the reformatting of content under that subheading creates issues with the organization of content, adding unsubstantiated claims from advocacy groups, and additional unsourced claims about them, when adding them to a list is not neutral, and the edits broke some of the section content. Arllaw (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful for the 'advocacy' additions to be cleaned up to avoid the need for other editors to do that work. Arllaw (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note that it places an undue impact on other editors to make inappropriate changes to the article, to engage in drive-by tagging or to misuse tags within the article, to modify text so that it no longer accords with the referenced sources, and the like. A consistent effort has been made to allow for discussion of significant changes and, while I don't disfavor bold editing, when it is clear that a past consensus has been reached, when a talk page includes calls for discussion, and when participation in a talk page suggests awareness of the need for consensus, bypassing the attempt to build consensus and the past explanations for why the content was agreed to be presented in its current form can become problematic. Wikipedia is a place to create encyclopedic content, not to promote a preferred perspective on a topic. Arllaw (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please Seek Consensus

Editors have expended a great deal of effort cleaning up this article, properly supporting its content with reliable sources, and trying to maintain neutrality and to support the article with the best available sources that meet the governing standards, WP:RSMED and, for the legal content WP:RSLAW. It is helpful to discuss major changes before posting them, more so when the changes raise potential issues of conflict of interest, advocacy, and the possible introduction of fringe theories. Arllaw (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal Issues

I have refactored this discussion to here from above since it was inserted into the middle of a section that had not been otherwise edited for over a year.Slp1 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It has to be acknowledged that no matter how tightly the PA phenomenon becomes bound to a psychological syndrome/disorder/condition, or even if a new category is created for the relational dynamic; civil rights are inextricably involved in any solution. We have no clinicians who can prescribe custody solutions, thus an effective tool for use at the bench is the greatest priority, which can happen with or without any formalized DSM construct. It seems the greatest obstacle to creating safe and proper custody orders is misinformation, largely because of the political nature of the problem. An example is the tendency to deduce that, "It's not in the DSM, therefore it isn't real." This article tends to paint that narrative in places. No judge is sitting at the bench and referring to a DSM to make orders (hat tip to JeanAMercer).

I had added this material directly from the Handbook of Parental Alienation for Legal and Mental Health Professionals. This is a retired family law judge contributing in a peer reviewed standard. I think it sheds light on a great deal of the problems in the courts, and really feel it belongs here.

---

I had added this material directly from the Handbook of Parental Alienation for Legal and Mental Health Professionals. This is a retired family law judge contributing in a peer reviewed standard. I think it sheds light on a great deal of the problems in the courts, and really feel it belongs here.

The phenomenon of parental alienation has been alleged in legal custody battles and has often been used to determine parental custody outcomes. and while courts take the claims seriously, retired judge Michele Lowrance reports that both lawyers and judicial officers suffer from several misconceptions about PA which prevent them from taking adequate measures in the child's best interest. Those misconceptions are:

• PA can not be real if it is not in the DSM-5
• PA and estrangement are too difficult to distinguish
• The credibility of children's statements are too difficult to test
• Traditional therapy is a valid solution for PA
• There is no cause to expedite PA cases
• PA usually resolves itself if the targeted parent does what they are supposed to do
• Supervised access is effective to alleviate the fears of an anxious parent

The court system often contributes to creating alienation cases. The adversarial contest model of our court system fosters a blame paradigm, even in no-fault divorce states, and when one or both parents think dominating contact time is the only way to have a secure relationship, the fear and anger from the parents' adversarial stance can damage them even in non-alienating cases. The last misconception, that supervised access is effective in alleviating fears, reinforces the false narrative that the targeted parent is dangerous and sends a message to the child that the court itself believes the parent is dangerous. Alienators then use the court's agreement to further the child's unfounded fears.

---

Are there WP:MAINSTREAM counter arguments to these legal misconceptions? --Frobozz1 (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears this section has no objections. I’ll post the update in 3 days. Maybe it should have a flag for discussion as well while we wait. —~~--~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are trying to discuss something or reach a consensus, please consider whether there is a better approach than inserting your thoughts into the middle of threads that have had no activity for a year or more where other editors are unlikely to see them. Consider starting a new topic, and if you want consensus you can also notify interested editors of your proposal, or at least notifying interested editors of a comment that is otherwise easily missed. See WP:TPHELP. There is no consensus for adding that material to the article. Consider breaking it out for discussion. Arllaw (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be in a separate section, rather than in the middle of a long finished conversation, so I have moved it here. I agree that there is no consensus for adding this information, and I note that despite saying you would wait three days, you have already posted it into the article, Frobozz1, twice.[8][9]. The edit is clearly an attempt to push the editor's point of view about parental alienation - against the mainstream view, which is that it has not been accepted by the medical or legal community in any official or systematic way. Ironically, the first reference that is used in the addition is entitled "When courts accept what science rejects: Custody issues concerning the alleged "parental alienation syndrome". Per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDORG and WP:UNDUE, this article needs to focus on the mainstream scientific understanding of this phenomenon, and not give undue weight to the thoughts of those who have not been able to convince the scientific establishment of their arguments. I will be removing the section again. Please do not restore without getting consensus here.Slp1 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The essay at issue is part of a book that advocates the concept of parental alienation, and cannot be easily separated from that effort. The fact that the authors of that book were able to find a judge to write an essay in support of their positions does not mean that the essay represents anything more than the position of its author and, even before we consider questions of undue weight and balance, merely holding a law degree having served as a judge is not of itself sufficient to establish subject matter expertise. Contrary to what is suggested above, the essay does not constitute or document "a peer reviewed standard", nor do the bullet points presented above relate to such a standard.

It sometimes seems that many of the issues that have been plaguing this discussion arise from an effort to treat a single, 2013 book that advocates for one specific position as the only authority that has any bearing on what should or should not be included in this article. Arllaw (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Parental Alienation has an RFC

Parental Alienation, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for Reliability and prominence of the Handbook as a source. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Where is the RFC discussion? Arllaw (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Article sections that need attention

The article sections that presently need considerable attention to bring them up to standard are the Theories section and the Diagnosis section. If reliable sources cannot be identified and added for those sections, some of that material is likely to end up being removed as unsupported. If you can find the time, please pitch in and improve those sections.

Also, the sourcing for the information about Israeli courts is weak. If we have a contributor who is fluent in Hebrew, please consider trying to locate and add some reliable sources to that subsection. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In terms of theories, the sources I can find that advance PA theories tend to amount to "Here's my / our theory", as opposed to more of an arm's-length recitation and evaluation of possible theories. Is that pretty much what we're dealing with, or is there a reliable source that addresses theories more systematically and/or objectively? If the latter, please help out by sharing the source(s) or updating the theories section accordingly. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Anybody? Is it the case that even among the most outspoken proponents of PA there dominant or broadly accepted theory of the mechanism? Arllaw (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The "reenactment" theory appears to be that of Dr. Craig Childress, and is explained on his weblog. Are there other proponents of that theory? If so, who are they? Has that theory ever been presented as part of a WP:MEDRS published article? Arllaw (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Theories section

The following rephrase of the theories section removes some of the unsourced and inadequately sourced claims, but remains a work in progress. I propose amending the theory section to the following, using existing references (and any additional reliable sources that can be added) pending further revision. It moves the article closer to the goal, while also clarifying a section that is presently somewhat difficult to follow.

Alienating behaviors are often demonstrated by both parents are in high-conflict divorce and child custody cases, but do not ordiarily result in alienation and may backfire against the parent who engages in alienating behavior. Theories of parental alienation attempt to explain the breakdown of the relationship between the child and the rejected parent, to explain why under similar circumstances alienation may occur in one family but not another, and to explain the severity of a child’s alienation from a parent.

In situations where a child avoids one parent and strongly prefers the other, the only behaviors that can be observed are avoidance and preference. Alienation by one parent thus cannot be directly measured, and is instead inferred from the child's behavior. Some researchers thus use "preferred" rather than "alienating" parent and "non-preferred" rather than "alienated", "rejected", or "targeted" parent.

Reenactment

One theory of parental alienation focuses upon the alienating parent, and asserts that the alienation is driven by that parent’s own childhood feelings of inadequacy or abandonment. It is theorized that divorce triggers reenactment of those feelings, and causes alienating parents to reenact psychological processes experienced during their own childhood.

Under this theory, alienating parents may reenact a childhood feelings in the form of a false narrative in which the child's other parent symbolizes their own inadequate or abusive parent, the child symbolizes a victim of the other parent, while they assume the role of the good parent who is trying to protect their child.[34] The alienating parent’s false narrative is reinforced by the child’s taking the role of victim, and by a confirming response of bystander such as friends. In effect, parents who fear inadequacy or abandonment based upon their own childhood experiences project those fears onto the rejected parent whose inadequacy they believe to be obvious.

Personality disorders

Another theory of parental alienation is that it is a form of harmful parenting by a parent who suffers from a personality disorder, specifically borderline personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. A divorce, breakup of a relationship or similarly difficult experience triggers feelings of inadequacy or abandonment that cause that parent to decompensate into persecutorial delusions, and to project their fears onto the other parent.

Parents with narcissistic or borderline personality disorder may not believe that they are obligated to follow social norms of fairness. They may also excessively bind to their own children, demanding absolute, unlimited control and authority over the child while threatening rejection if that control is denied. They may project their fears onto the other parent,

The argument that a parent's early disorganized attachment leads to narcissistic or borderline personality characteristics that in turn cause alienating behaviors, and similar views of sources of children's refusal of contact with parents, remains controversial.

Triangulation

In cases of parental alienation, children typically view their parents either in extremely positive or extremely negative terms. One theory of parental alienation asserts that in the absence of significant abuse by the rejected parent, children are not likely to view their parents in such extreme terms. In the absence of abuse, it is theorized that alienation may result from the child’s having been led to misinterpret feelings of grief from the loss of a parent as evidence that the rejected parent is abusive, as the grief is primarily experienced in the presence of the rejected parent.

Under this theory, alienation is theorized to result from the psychological process of triangulation. Within the context of a child custody dispute, one parent triangulates the child into the marital conflict by encouraging the child to make complaints about the other parent and then enthusiastically validating those complaints. Because the child and parent are from different generations, this form of triangulation is described as a perverse triangle.

Triangulation by a parent may signal to the child that the other parent is dangerous and insensitive. As a result of the triangulating parent’s encouragement of child’s complaints about the other parent, the child is manipulated into the role of victim. The triangulating parent then assumes the role of protector, forcing the other parent into the role of the inadequate parent. This process may occur without the child’s awareness, and leave no obvious evidence that would cause a third party to question the child’s role as victim. As a result of the focus on negative beliefs about the rejected parent, in combination with the encouragement of complaints, over time the child grows more emotionally distant from the rejected parent and grows closer to the alienating parent. The child may also come to feel superior to the rejected parent, reinforcing the alienating parent’s false belief that they are protecting the child from the rejected parent.

Parental alienation as child abuse

Some mental health professionals argue that severe parental alienation should be established as a form of emotional abuse and domestic violence. Controversy persists as to whether parental alienation should be treated as a form of child abuse or family violence.

Please note, suggested alternative language is welcome, as are WP:MEDRS reliable sources that can be used to support the content of this section. It will be a lot easier to ensure that the theories as presented are consistent with the theories as expounded if reliable sources were provided for the theories, and content that is not or cannot be adequately supported remains subject to removal even after this interim modification is implemented. Arllaw (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Difficult to have a theory when there's no established way to assess PA and therefore none of the factual material for which a theory provides a framework.JeanAMercer (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to argue with that, although some of the proponents of the theories of parental alienation as described in that section have at least attempted to validate some sort of diagnostic criteria. With theories and diagnosis being key elements of this sort of article, one would hope that proponents of the theory of parental alienation as contemplated by this article would help out with the effort to properly support those sections. Arllaw (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

If there are no established or accepted theories of parental alienation, and/or no reliable sources that can be used to substantiate theories, the theories section can be reduced to an explanation that proponents have yet to settle upon or document their theories. Seriously, if there are reliable sources that can be used to flesh out this section, please help find them. The alternative is for the insufficiently supported theories to be deleted from the article, and it's not clear what would be left. Attention: DrPax (talk · contribs), JeanAMercer (talk · contribs), Skythrops (talk · contribs), Dr.John.Anderson (talk · contribs), Guy Macon (talk · contribs) Arllaw (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Reduce the theories section to an explanation that proponents have yet to settle upon or document their theories. As the article correctly notes, the psychological community has not accepted parental alienation as a diagnosable mental condition. Until they do, any theories for the cause of something that very likely does not actually exist are WP:FRINGE. The whole thing stinks of lawyers trying to co-opt the language of medical science in order to gain victories during litigation. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree too. A theory is a framework that ties together observations. Any theory of PA would have to involve observations of behavior of both parents and of the child. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been so much as one complete case report that has done this, much less any systematic investigation of numbers of cases. Thus, although some factors that might form part of a theory (e.g. triangulation) can be cited, there is no actual theory. In my opinion, PA is a legal concept rather than a psychological one. In fact, I notice that in a 2019 article by Richard Warshak, the children involved are described as having been found to "have" PA (my sarcastic quotes, not Warshak's) by the decisions of family courts. Though family court judges have many difficult tasks to do, it is news to me that diagnosis of mental disorders is one of those tasks.JeanAMercer (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the appeals court's opinion about the Board of Psychology's discipline of Randy Rand, I note that Rand said he developed Family Bridges "by trial and error". This would suggest that theories proposed for PA have probably been retrofitted. This would certainly be true for Childress's use of attachment theory. None of the ideas mentioned earlier actually works as a framework for all the observations that need consideration.JeanAMercer (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have made changes to the theories section that I think are consistent with this discussion. Of course, should additional reliable sources be produced, the section can be revised accordingly. Arllaw (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

A curious thing here is that the concepts discussed are not theories of how PA could happen. PA itself is a theory of rejection of a parent by some children in some circumstances. Any theory is a framework that draws together and makes sense of observable events, and the observable events are said to be rejecting child attitudes and behaviors. (I myself would argue that what is observed is more likely to to be the distress and complaints of the rejected parent, however, as there are cases called PA where the child does not reject and even desires contact with the parent.) Such a theory would need to propose mechanisms by which some observable event leads to the child's rejection, and how other observable events could reverse the child's attitude. Mental illness experienced by one parent, as stressed by PA advocates, could be a motive to carry out actions that influence the child, but is not a part of the theory -- the theory needs to consider the mechanism at work, and PA proponents have considered this to be "brainwashing" (which however is a legal rather than psychological concept). They have also referenced cognitive dissonance as a mechanism in attitude change, and this is presumably the mechanism expected to be effective in Family Bridges.... The issue of whether or not PA is child abuse also fails to be part of a theory, as it is simply a conclusion drawn after PA proponents defined the child's mental state as a form of mental illness.

Childress's reenactment idea is again a description of the preferred parent's motivation and not part of a theory about how PA is created in the child. Childress also attempts to bring some concepts of attachment theory into the picture, but forgets that in Bowlby's original theory developmental change through maturation was considered to substantially alter attachment emotions and behavior after the toddler period, so to talk about attachment and exploration systems in preteens and teenagers makes no sense.JeanAMercer (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In a non-scientific sense, I have sympathy for the position that we know that there are actions that a parent can take that may contribute to the disruption of children's relationship with the other parent. It's possible to create a list of actions and behaviors that most would agree upon, that parents should avoid in order to help maintain their child's healthy relationship with the other parent. But it's difficult to dispute that, in a scientific sense, PA theory works backwards -- starting with a case of estrangement from a parent, then finding ways to attribute the estrangement to the other parent -- while no theory has yet been offered that can predict whether parental alienation will occur or that can explain why, in otherwise similar cases, estrangement may occur in one case but not another. Arllaw (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The diagnosis section of this article has had a clean-up tag in place since November, 2019. The eight-point behavior-based list, as far as I can tell, has not been substantiated or achieved any level of acceptance. I think it's time to "fish or cut bait". If editors are aware of WP:RSMED sources that back up this section, or would supersede the 8-point list, please add it. Otherwise, I don't see a way to bring this section up to standard while keeping that content as a theoretical, but not clinically validated or accepted, approach to diagnosis. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

More than a year after the rest of the article has been cleaned up, no progress has been made on this section. If there is a case to be made for diagnostic criteria that should be included in this article, or to source the existing content with reliable sources, please help out by contributing the information and references. Arllaw (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that a comment was inserted without indentation within between another editor's two-year-old comments, within this discussion. Please review WP:TALKPAGE, and make sure that new comments are appropriately placed. If the editor who posted the comment believes it merits discussion, it would be helpful for them to move their comment to an appropriate location or start a new topic. As placed, few editors are likely to notice that the comment has even been posted. Arllaw (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A reasonable conclusion however it is only non-scientific in light of one specific science; whereas it may well be scientific in another such as legal science. PA does not work backward today as it did when we were forensically determining why adult children of PA suffer so much life-long trauma, depression, and self-esteem issues. Watching your child predictably be turned into a sociopath is quite traumatic. It has long since move beyond a forensic model, and is refining a predictive model through the somewhat normal adversarial scientific process, which is laden with political land-mines since all the evidence derives from adversarial court cases. I simply suggest the process should be allowed to work for the benefit of those who suffer, and that this article not stagnate while research digs deeper. There are predictors today, being used inside the courts and inside the family therapists offices which can accurately say that given certain parental behaviors within this paradigm, the child's chance of a positive outcome is greatly reduced. I grant that false positives exist, as do false negatives. No one doubts however that a pattern exists wherein certain well-defined behaviors lead to certain well-defined poor outcomes at a non-spurious rate. Nearly every citation in this article repeats the statement that science has a duty to study the pattern: "More research is required." While we improve the resolution at which we see the cause-effect relationship, readers are owed a reliable and current presentation of the problem. Even the American Psychiatric Association has declared in 2013 that continued PA behaviors can reach a level that would be considered child abuse.

We can debate where it fits, and say it isn't a "syndrome," or say it isn't a "disorder," or whatever nosology you prefer to not credential it with, but saying PA isn't a "thing" was only valid until direct non-spurious correlations came into view. The debates today are both "how do we fix it," and "What do we call it?" in that order of priority.

I personally agree with the opponents of including PA into any public nosology, in the way that I oppose publishing all the methods and technologies used to keep our nation safe, into a public library where all our enemies can sit and study them. An authoritative book on how to prevent a child from becoming a slave, is also an authoritative book on how to make a child a slave which very conveniently destroys its own evidence trail—the child's testimony. I have spoken to, and supported, and comforted far too many victims - both target parent and alienated child - to entertain the WP:FRINGE "climate-change deniers" of this trauma. Please try to keep the article within an intelligent, WP:BALANCED, and non-partisan POV. --Frobozz1 (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

While certainly many things are subject to debate, this project has a different goal in mind. Please "bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article". WP:NOTFORUM

It is not clear if you are identifying yourself as the author of the website to which you link. We need to be careful and clear because we have seemingly had some impersonation by past editors of this article. Editors who have an external role or relationship that could reasonably be said to conflict with their role as editors should review the conflict of interest guidelines. Arllaw (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Frobozz. Reading what you have written above makes me think that you seen lots of pain and the challenges in terms of family breakups. If I am not misunderstanding, [from the link you provided, you are someone who works with parents who need a lot of help and compassion. I cannot claim to have the same professional background but I have very good friends who have had to deal with horrendous family breakups, including what I would say were probably PA type behaviours. So, I can say that from a very, very limited perspective I do a little bit understand the challenges you and the parents you serve have to face every day.

The thing is that this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia does not do original or personal research/knowledge, but summarizes what reliable secondary sources have to say about a topic. That is how it has been for 100s of years, and how it is with Wikipedia. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, even if families will suffer because of our decisions, but to collate what the most high quality sources say about a particular topic. This article is very well sourced from high quality secondary sources. Do you have other equally great secondary sources to suggest? That's what we need..Slp1 (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Please continue to offer critical discussion regarding the legal issues which have been here for a week now. I would like to hear if other opinions exist from the court's perspective. We can balance those eopinions into the article. --Frobozz1 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest to avoid false equivalence like comparing climate change denialism (where the science is climatology) and ideas in psychology, it's really not a valid premise to debate this... —PaleoNeonate – 18:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

References

P.A. and the DSM

Are PA symptoms described within the DSM-5? Wikivoice: NPOV discussion

There are opinions, but sources are what matters. No editor may decide the status of PA in various publications: That is determined by the sources, which may be either WP:V, or not.

No Original Research is a core and non-negotiable principle. No editor, and no consensus of editors will determine what is true or what is false anywhere on Wikipedia WP:NOR. No editor or consensus of editors can determine what is relevant, or what is not. Editors determine only WP:DUE WEIGHT: they describe disputes, they do not engage in disputes. WP:WIKIVOICE:

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

No edits which are not WP:VERIFIED will be allowed, No edits from a WP:VERIFIED WP:RS will be "judged" to be "false" and excluded. Content is relevant when it is WP:RELIABLE

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research"... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

---

Some editors hold the belief that an event which created the international research organization PASG did not happen. Others believe the creation of the Parental Alienation Study Group is relevant to Parental Alienation. Neither side is allowed to put those personal beliefs into any Wikipedia Mainspace.

The content about the DSM-5 in the article at this point is included in accordance with policy. PA is widely studied within the professional academic communities, thus by definition it is not to be presented as pseudoscience except as a claim from a properly attributed WP:RS. This section exists now only to discuss the weight of each valid opinion: Do sources hold the opinion that the DSM-5 describes PA, or do they claim it does not? --Frobozz1 (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The DSM-V does not provide for a diagnosis of "parental alienation" and the APA made an overt decision to exclude any such diagnosis from its pages. Inserting "opinions" into the article that suggest otherwise is the opposite of advancing NPOV. Fringe theories about parental alienation are not appropriately shoehorned into an article merely because it is possible to find one person or another who advocates for such a position -- false balance is not balance.

Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.

You may find it helpful to review the archive talk pages, as the DSM-V's exclusion of P.A. has been discussed a number of times. Arllaw (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It is helpful if you don't change your comments after other editors have replied to you. It helps keep the discussion clear and avoids misunderstanding if you instead add a new comment. See WP:TALK#REPLIED. Also, it's helpful to be clear and concise, and to look at prior discussions of the same topic, to avoid wall of text issues. Thank you. Arllaw (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I made a syntactical/grammatical minor edit here, sorry. WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE does not apply: PA is widely studied within the professional academic communities, thus by definition it is not to be presented on the mainspace as pseudoscience. The condition of PA is stated as factually true many places in this article and confirmed to be a true phenomenon within every citation used here. The efforts of the international community of professionals to find multifactor and reliable diagnostic criteria is fundamental to the PA discussion – to this article. Again, we are "editors," not "experts." Talk pages and consensus have no purpose determining if WP:RS & WP:V content belongs in this article. This space is to discuss balancing it against other opinions. --Frobozz1 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

This article discusses a conception of "parental alienation" that takes a term that has a somewhat vague legal meaning and which is not accepted as a psychological diagnosis, and attempts to make sense of it. If you are uncomfortable with this article suggesting that "parental alienation" exists as an actual phenomenon, you can advocate for it to be rewritten so as to make that clear. But presumably you don't actually want such a change.

If you review the article you will find that it discusses the fact that some parents engage in "alienating" behaviors, the issue being is that the parent's behavior alone is not predictive of a child actually becoming alienated (and in some cases attempts to alienate a child backfire). You will also find that there is no accepted means of looking at an child who has become estranged from a parent and determine from any diagnostic tool or set of "symptoms" why the child is estranged, let alone to declare the estrangement to be unjustified or disproportionate. The application of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning is not a scientific approach to analyzing causation. The efforts to find a means of diagnosis may be duly noted, but so far they have proved to be a failure -- there is no consensus within the psychological community that P.A. is of itself a condition to be treated, and there is no diagnostic tool or measure that has been proved or established.

Also, the fact that P.A. is discussed in some circles does not mean that there are no marginal, fringe, or rejected theories of P.A. By way of example, vaccination is the subject of medical study, and there are medical doctors who are anti-vaxxers -- but the fact that vaccines are studied doesn't mean either that anti-vaxxer doctors have the right to have their positions raised within the medical or scientific discussion or that their views are not fringe. By similar measure, the discussion within scholarly journals of ideas that have not yet been accepted by the mainstream does not make them mainstream -- and there are many ideas that are put forth in scholarly works that end up dying on the vine or later being repudiated.

Please note the importance of consensus-building, and the importance of not ignoring community input as, whatever one's intention, the failure to do so can be interpreted as being disruptive and tendentious. Arllaw (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The question that is ostensibly the subject of this discussion, "Are PA symptoms described within the DSM-5? Wikivoice: NPOV discussion", has not actually been addressed in this discussion. The question is akin to saying, "If I hypothesize that chasing butterflies causes depression, can it be said that the DSM-V doesn't describe the symptoms of chasing butterflies?"

The fact that the DSM covers an extremely broad range of thoughts, feelings and behaviors in relation to diagnoses that it includes does not in fact mean that you can pick elements out of a range of diagnosable conditions and declare that "the DSM therefore allows for diagnosis of this condition that I just made up, because some of the elements I define are part of the diagnostic criteria for actual but entirely unrelated psychological conditions." Arllaw (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the text added to the article (reverted by another editor), I see that the suggestion is that there are three DSM conditions that are somehow synonymous with parental alienation, or through which P.A. could be diagnosed. We should be able to make short work of this discussion by noting that the explicit rejection by the APA of the inclusion of P.A. within the DSM-5, as rejection is not inclusion. But going through the three:

The first, Parent-Child Relational Problem (Z62.820). That is found in the section, "Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention". That section states,

The conditions and problems listed in this chapter are not mental disorders. Their inclusion in DSM-5 is meant to draw attention to the scope of additional issues that may be encountered in routine clinical practice and to provide a systematic listing that may be useful to clinicians in documenting these issues.

It is thus not a diagnosis, nor does the paragraph in which it is discussed attempt to define diagnostic criteria.

The second, Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress (Z62.898), is also found in the "other conditions" section, as indicted by the z-code, and is thus also not a diagnosis. The DSM summarizes the problem within a single sentence, again with no attempt to define diagnostic criteria.

The third, Child Psychological Abuse (T74.32XA / T76.32XA) is a code from the ICD-10. The ICD-10 is an entirely separate publication from the DSM-V. Child psychological abuse is briefly discussed in the DSM-V, again in the "other conditions" section (i.e., it's not a diagnosis). There is a broad, single-paragraph description of what may constitute the abuse of a child, again with no attempt to define diagnostic criteria, and with no mention of "parental alienation".

The existence of fringe arguments to the contrary having been duly noted, the DSM-5 does not make P.A. a diagnosable condition, nor do the conditions listed (which are not diagnoses) support it as a diagnosis (i.e., conditions that are not mental disorders cannot be diagnosed). Arllaw (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Include the content, stop the edit war. The sun will rise tomorrow, I promise.

Missing the point. You're whole discussion sounds like an expert testimony and OR. "Editors are not truth-finders​" WP:!TRUTHFINDERS. The issue at hand is the following:

1. Is it reliably sourced? That is either yes, or no.
2. Is it correctly representing the source? That is either yes, or no.
3. Is it related to the topic? That is obviously, yes.

--199.46.249.141 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me if I went too deep into the weeds, although to respond to your questions in a manner that I hope will actually resolve the question, I find myself getting into the weeds once again in finding and documenting the content of the referenced material.

The short answer is that one source (the foreign language source) is not reliable for this purpose (its source is not WP:RSMED). The other cited article (Whitcombe) is from an appropriate journal, but its content is not accurately represented. The last source is a book that is questionable as WP:RSMED, and is not accurately represented.

The details....

The first article cited (Whitcombe) was written in advance of the publication of the DSM-5, and concludes "Whether PAD is included in DSM-5 or not, as seems likely, the recent debate has highlighted the need for further research". It does not identify the three non-diagnostic codes mentioned in the disputed passage, nor does it suggest that the DSM-5 incorporates a diagnosis of parental alienation. The disputed passage then provides two quotes about "symptom clusters" for parental alienation, again citing to to Whitcombe, but Whitcombe's article does not include or support either quote.

The disputed passage then goes into a narrative about the debate that led to the exclusion of P.A. from the DSM-V, skewed to suggest that there was a consensus in favor of its inclusion. The two sources cited for the claim are a 2013 book, and a foreign language article. The foreign language article is from the Revista del Poder Judicial del Estado de Nuevo León (Journal of the Judicial Power of the State of Nuevo), which is to say it's not from a reliable medical source.

The remaining source is a book that advocates for the recognition of P.A., which is alleged to support the claim that "the APA has coded PA into the DSM-5 as the combination of three diagnoses...." First, as previously noted, the three described codes are not diagnostic, so that claim is factually wrong. Second, the book's claim is made by three authors who were unsuccessful in their effort to have PA included in the DSM. They write on the cited page,

For instance, the discussion of parent-child relational problem includes the example, "negative attributions of the other's intentions, hostility toward or scapegoating of the other, and unwarranted feelings of estrangement," which appears to be describing PA (American Psychiatric Association 2013, p. 715). Also, there are two new conditions in DSM-5, which can clearly be used as diagnoses in many cases of PA: child affected by parental relationship distress (p. 716) and child psychological abuse (p. 719).

Leaving aside the fact that the conditions defined by the DSM-5 are not diagnoses, the claim that something "appears to be describing" something else, or that different conditions could be used "in many cases" of PA does not support the claim that the PA has been coded into the DSM-5. The question of whether the book meets WP:RSMED standards aside, the disputed addition does not accurately represent the source. Arllaw (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

As this discussion was ignored, and instead a new parallel topic was created to discuss the same issue, it would make sense to continue any discussion of this issue in that new topic rather than carrying on two overlapping discussions of the same issue. However, one would hope that by now the issue can be deemed moot and need not continue under either topic. Arllaw (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Any objection to removing the RFC tag? Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

American Psychiatric Association director Narrow published that PA is caused by DSM-5 Z62.898

While working on the DSM-5, specifically as chair of the committee to organize all accepted relational problems, Dr. William E. Narrow (Associate Director of the APA) chose to include the concept of Parental Alienation in the manual.. Again in 2016, Dr. Narrow joined with Dr.s Bennet and Wamboldt to publish a call to expand on the definition of CARPD, which he acknowledges is a cause of PA:

Reactions of the child may include the onset or exacerbation of psychological symptoms, somatic complaints, an internal loyalty conflict, and, in the extreme, parental alienation, leading to loss of a parent–child relationship.

The questions are:

• Is the Associate Director of the APA a credible source?
• What weight should the APA director's statement about the link between CARPD and PA have in an article about PA?
• Are there other citations which contradict the APA's position and do they belong here?

I have now added the following paragraph to the front because it seems the APA may be considered WP:MAINSTREAM. But if his connection goes better elsewhere, let's discuss.

---

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) added a relational problem into the DSM-5 which causes PA but chose to include the concept of PA into the new manual without using the words "parental alienation". Associate Director William E. Narrow of the APA served as chair to the committee within the Working Group on Relational Problems (WGRP) of the DSM-5 Task Force which was charged with organizing the accepted relational problems selected for inclusion in the new manual release. In 2016, Dr. Narrow joined with PA advocates to publish in Clinical Review and The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry that extreme cases of the relational problem, "child affected by parental relationship distress" (CAPRD) DSM-5 diagnostic code Z62.898, would result in Parental Alienation leading to the loss of the parent-child relationship.
--Frobozz1 (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1, this is getting more and more disruptive.

• You are using as a source "SÍNDROME DE ALIENACIÓN PARENTAL:PERSPECTIVAS DE INTERVENCIÓN" which Arlaw has explained above is not a from a reliable source per this article.
• "Dr. William E. Narrow (Associate Director of the APA) did not chose to include the concept of Parental Alienation in the manual. It was not in his power, and even if he did want it included as an individual, he did not succeed. So to answer your question two, almost none.
• In the text you have included you have misrepresented the contents of "Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress" [10] : the group propose that "child affected by parental relationship distress" be more clearly explained/defined by describing four "maladative" patterns, one of which is parental alienation. Note the important thing: this is a proposal that in the 5 years since it was published has got zero traction from the APA or others[11], even has very few citations outside the walled garden of pro PA writers. So, it is very much undue weight to suggest that this is a major proposal and important enough to feature in the lede, where you have, I see, just added it. This article is already cited in the article for this text "With the exclusion of PAS from the DSM-V, some advocates for the recognition of parental alienation as a diagnosable condition have since argued that elements of parental alienation are covered in the DSM-5 under the concept of "Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention", specifically, "child affected by parental relationship distress". Those proponents assert that children who are exposed to intimate partner distress between their parents may develop psychological symptoms as a result of that exposure." This is perfect and all that is needed. Slp1 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oh, and please note that a huge section [12] on Albert Einstein sourced to a blog, is an absolute no go, per WP:RS, WP:UNDUE. Quite apart from the fact sections of it are copied almost word for word from the original.

e.g. original text: He seemed to goad Mileva to her 1914 departure. As a condition of their short-lived final months of cohabitation as husband and wife in Berlin, Einstein had written out a long list of patronizing and impossible demands delivered to her their mutual friend, chemist Fritz Haber.

text in article He seemed to goad Mileva to her 1914 departure. As a condition of their short-lived final months of cohabitation as husband and wife in Berlin, Einstein had written out a long list of patronizing and impossible demands on her as a condition of co-habitation.

original text: Albert Einstein responded like a typical litigant in family court: he callously canceled or bargain access visits, sometimes directly with his sons, and always infuriating his ex-wife and his sons.

text in article: Albert responded as a typical litigant in family court, cancelling or bargaining access visits, sometimes directly with his sons, but typically infuriating his ex-wife and his sons.

original text: On the day he announced his general theory of relativity to much reknown, he penned a letter to his son promising to visit every month, which he then reneged on.

text in article: On the day he announced his general theory of relativity he also penned a letter to his son promising to visit every month. He did not carry the promise out.

text in article For all his brilliance, Albert Einstein could not understand the relativity of love and time, age, emotions and family law. Einstein often accused his ex-wife Mileva Maric of parental alienation.

original text For all his brilliance, Albert Einstein could not understand the relativity of love and time, age, emotions and family law.

Einstein often accused his ex-wife of parental alienation.

and there is more.

References

@Sphilbrick: Pinging you, since you just warned Frobozz1 for copyright matters. ' Slp1 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

We just went around the same block. Here is the DSM's definition for the condition (again, not a diagnosis) of Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress:

V61.29 (Z62.898) Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress. This category should be used when the focus of clinical attention is the negative effects of parental relationship discord (e.g., high levels of conflict, distress, or disparagement) on a child in the family, including effects on the child’s mental or other medical disorders.

The fact that children can experience distress as a result of discord between their parents is not a novel idea, and in no way stands as the inclusion of "parental alienation" as contemplated by this article within the DSM-V. As the reliable sources cited within the article establish, even when one parent actively disparages another those actions do not necessarily lead to the child's rejecting the other parent and in some cases they worsen the child's relationship with the disparaging parent.

I dug into the cited book to see what source was provided fot the suggestion that there was some sort of secret understanding to include parental alienation in the DSM. The citation, American Psychiatric Association 2013, p. 715, is to the DSM-V itself. That is not substantiation of the super-secret deal that the authors imply, or that Dr. Narrow supported or participated in such an artifice.

I also looked up the 2016 article that supposedly supports the notion that parental alienation was secretly included in the DSM-5. It is in fact advocacy for the expansion of the definition of "Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress" from a single sentence to a slightly longer alternative. No claim is made that CAPRD is somehow synonymous with "parental alienation." Further, the article's mention of "parental alienation" uses a different definition than is relevant to this article, "Parental alienation refers to a child’s reluctance or refusal tohave a relationship with a parent without a good reason". Even if Narrow favored the inclusion of that concept of "parental alienation" in the DSM-V the article does not support the idea that he was endorsing the concept of parental alienation as described in this article in which that estrangement is attributable to the conduct of an estranging parent.

Going back to the questions, "Is it reliably sourced", in this case the cited book was not a reliable source, and the claim made is not supported by the other sources.

The APA's public stance remains, "we have no official position on the purported syndrome". I hope that it is not necessary to go through this same issue again. Arllaw (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

APA public stance on Parental Alienation is at issue, not Parental Alienation Syndrome.

Reliable source: Failed to make the argument from WP:OR. You did not cite one single source disputing the reliability of the article citations. "I dug into the cited book" is inappropriate behavior for this site. The citations are verifiable and they are RS. Your continued attempts to WP:OWN this page is clear and will not be tolerated.

If you find yourself in an edit war with other contributors, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later.

Find valid arguments within site policy, then reach consensus. --Frobozz1 (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note above as to your opinion RE: the Handbook: Slp1 has an opinion that "The Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals, in contrast, is a reliable source, but it is far from mainstream.

The concern with placing the Handbook out of WP:MAINSTREAM is the number of researchers actively engaged worldwide in advancing the studies. That fact alone leaves the Handbook as no less than questionable science according to WP:FRINGE/PS, and it is inappropriate to brand the book or its researchers as pseudoscience. Dr. William E. Narrow was Associate Director of the APA and he is clearly on the side of this research.

This discussion would move forward better if one source was found to dispute the academic and legal prominence. A discussion cannot be won with editor opinions, I will not battle this with one editor. A WP:3O has been requested as well as an RfC to the reliability of the Handbook. You are welcome to make your points there. --Frobozz1 (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The wall of text issue is creating a context in which it is difficult to see what point you are trying to make. At this point, the questions appear to be whether the material you have repeatedly inserted into the article was inserted without consensus (yes), whether it was balanced (no), whether it was adequately supported by reliable sources (no), and whether the references were accurately represented (no). It is not up to other editors to prove a negative -- if you want to insert content into the article you need to provide reliable sources.

Also, please stop ignoring repeated efforts to involve you in consensus-building. These after-the-fact exchanges are entirely avoidable and eat up a ridiculous amount of time, and the same is true of clean-up of the article itself. Arllaw (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The thing is, Frobozz1 that you are not "battling this with one editor" (although note WP is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND). You have been trying to convince two editors here about your edits and your sources and neither of us agree with you. It now seems that Guy Macon is in agreement [13] that the attempt to push this book in particular, and the narrative that DSM actually includes Parental Alienation is inappropriate. Please note also that 3O is only for disputes between 2 editors. Slp1 (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, let's make this concise.

1. I see great consensus between both Slp1 and the PsyD Dr. Worthen's expert opinion that the material in question is WP:RS. You and all others have maintained the prolific works of these authors in the professional community; thus I hope we can concede this is "Questionable science" rather than WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Thus we are now down to a question only of WP:BALANCE. On point one, please post your agreement.
2. You take great pains to point out, in every forum you post, that I misrepresent the material. Fine. I make great pains in all places that the proper thing to do, respecting all of our time, is to WP:FIXIT. And in this offer of peace, I submit my post for you to fix in any way you see fit, short of flat omission. I will consider your edits very seriously, and your decision about prominence; however I have no power to allow the statements themselves to be altered, or synthesized with other material. Sources of WP:RSLAW shall offer their due weight, and WP:RSMED shall do likewise. I hope you cooperate in point two. Here is what I have proposed, please modify the content as you see fit, and as the WP policy dictates, and we will be done with this "swollen parcel of dropsies."

---

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) added a relational problem into the DSM-5 which causes PA but chose to include only the concept of PA into the new manual without using the words "parental alienation". Associate Director William E. Narrow of the APA served as chair to the committee within the Working Group on Relational Problems (WGRP) of the DSM-5 Task Force which was charged with organizing the accepted relational problems selected for inclusion in the new manual release. In 2016, Dr. Narrow joined with leading Parental Alienation researchers to publish in Clinical Review and The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry that extreme cases of the relational problem, "child affected by parental relationship distress" (CAPRD) DSM-5 diagnostic code Z62.898, would result in Parental Alienation leading to the loss of the parent-child relationship.

---

--Frobozz1 (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It is helpful to try to remember that talk page discussions are not personal. When an effort to verify a source reveals that the source has been misstated or misrepresented, that's something that is appropriate to discuss on the talk page. You are not going to reach a consensus to include incorrect information in the article, or to misstate the content of the DSM-5, so perhaps it is time to move on. Arllaw (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that I believe the proposed section should not be included in any form. If it is true that "The American Psychiatric Association (APA) added a relational problem into the DSM-5 which causes PA but chose to include only the concept of PA into the new manual without using the words "parental alienation]" and "Associate Director William E. Narrow of the APA served as chair to the committee within the Working Group on Relational Problems (WGRP) of the DSM-5 Task Force which was charged with organizing the accepted relational problems selected for inclusion in the new manual release" then it should be easy to find lots of high quality sources to prove the point. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, extraordinary claims (especially ones that included living people) require extraordinary sources. The fact is that you have found only one source, which, although reliable, has been noted to be highly partisan, and to be used with caution. It turns out the book is also inaccurate on this very topic: Dr. Narrow was not the chair of a Working Group on Relational Problems. No such work/working group existed. A deep dive on the DSM-5 website finds that there were 13 Work groups, Narrow didn't chair any, and there was none with the title Relational Problems or anything similar. [14]. And yes, there were 13 work groups right to the end of the process. [15][16]. Frighteningly, the only place on the internet that this working group exists is in the Bernet book and in the current iteration of our Parental alienation article.[17] --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to find information on the Work Group on Relational Disorders. That does not necessarily mean that the APA had no such work group but they might not have been listed in association with efforts to produce the DSM-5 as, despite unsuccessful efforts to include them as a category, the DSM-5 is not used to diagnose relational disorders. That was one of the many reasons that parental alienation was excluded -- as conceived it is a disorder of the relationship between a parent and child, and thus not subject to diagnosis in either the parent or child, and the DSM does not define relational disorders.

One of the problems with the present spate of disruption is that it takes far more to go down every rabbit hole that is presented as an obstacle to consensus than it does to actually fix the article, which is presently wretched. Arllaw (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not difficult. We can all get on with other things if we submit to good faith editing. That means demanding fair compliance with WP policies. All three of us have acknowledged the resource as WP:RS and in independent contributor 7ndash; a Psy.D., has corroborated this. As such, the content is by default, admissible.

The argument to exclude WP:RS content on the grounds suggested here: that the source is factually false, will be accepted, when the clear guideline for doing so have been met. What will end this in your favor, and move this on, is the discredit the WP:RS by means of WP:RS; and by no use of WP:OR (Wikipedia has a fairly firm stance on OR).

What will not work is saying, "I did a deep dive on the Internet and found no mention of Dr. Narrow or his committee; therefore By the Power of the Internet, The Source Lied." No, sir. This will not do, nor can I in good conscience allow such blatant disregard for good faith to stand. (Even if I did, another editor will find the WP:RS Handbook and post it again. It is not difficult to find information on the WGRD; I provided it in an WP:RS. It certainly is difficult to find something that says what you believe to support your narrative. Ask Arllaw how many years he has been protecting this narrative. Do you see a pattern?

What will work is a WP:CITATION with a WP:QUOTATION which states "Dr. Narrow never was chair of a committee to organize relationship disorders in the DSM-5." When you put that citation into this article, well, then you will have much more time in your life, and you will no longer be burdened with WP:OWNING this problem child. The facts will protect themselves, and the Handbook will never again see the light of WP:MAINSPACE.

I remain deeply convinced that in 8 years, no such statement about Dr. Narrow (the man who collaborates with the "fringe" researchers) has ever been uttered, and the whole narrative lives exclusively inside the heads of two editors, who have taken up the gauntlet to defend a neat idea of their own making. It is unlikely that sheer brute force will permit WP:OR ideas into this article, you will in the end have to resort to edit warring to meet that goal.

My offer stands. I can walk away knowing the WP policies have been honored if you spend no more time chasing this unicorn, and just 5 minutes on WP:FIXIT to place this PA content into the PA article where it belongs. Overcome your personal convictions and do what you will with it, within the confines of WP policy. --Frobozz1 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears that you admitting that your proposed text is not supportable with reliable sources, but are hoping to bury that reality in a wall of text.

It is not the obligation of other editors to find references that disprove incorrect and unsupported claims. If you can't support your claims, they don't belong in the article. Arllaw (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

What? "It is not the obligation of other editors to find references that disprove incorrect and unsupported claims." I have been following this dialogue, and there are some serious POV issues.

ArllawThe logic of this is specious. You are asserting that a source is incorrect. That is your burden. The source is not incorrect on your say so, it is a WP:RS. A reliable source by definition is correct and supported.

I can find no fault in the logic of an editor wanting to do nothing but fix the article. I can find no reason at all in your "shifting the burden" onto person wanting to post reliable content. The editor has offered to let YOU make the content entry. How about try that first, and if the other editor renegs you know what to do.

--Hotornotquestionmarknot (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This should not be even slightly confusing. If I want to insert into an article "The moon is made of green cheese," it is not sufficient for me to add the content then demand that you find sources that disprove my claim. If I can't produce a reliable source, I have no business placing such a claim within the article. Arllaw (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Continued discussion

The discussion of DSM-related issues continues in a subsequent topic, Underuse of Bernet / Wamboldt / Narrow white paper

Discussion may continue here, if appropriate. However, due to the length of this topic, if DSM-related issues require further discussion and it doesn't seem compatible with the Bernet topic, it would likely facilitate clarity to start a new topic. Arllaw (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Improper Deletions

Please do not delete properly sourced content. Personal disagreement with content is not a basis for its removal. The fact that a paragraph of an article is sourced to a single reliable source is not a basis for its deletion -- and it is the preferred style of Wikipedia to refrain from serially citing a source that supports a successive series of sentences. Further, it is easy to find additional sources that support the assertions, and if an editor is concerned about balance any editor can add properly sourced material that challenges the content of an article. Arllaw (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are totally correct, Arllaw. Thanks for writing this. You reverted at about the same time as I did, so I undid my reversion. I hope Frobozz1 will engage more on this page. They seem to have a bit of a learning curve ahead of them in terms of WP policies and practices, but then we have all been there!!!!-Slp1 (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Improper deletions of content continue. Please not delete properly sourced content based upon the title of the reference alone. The actual scope of the deleted should have been pretty clear from the abstract. To be clear, the Dallam article broadly addresses the concept of "parental alienation" and treatments including those advanced by people like Warshak (Family Bridges). Rewriting properly sourced content that is about parental alienation as covered by this article to incorrectly claim that it is only relating to the so-called "syndrome" is also not constructive. Please review WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

Part of the issue here is that confusion over terminology results from there being no actual consensus definition of what any given term ("parental alienation", "parental alienation syndrome", "parental alienation relationship disorder", "parental alienation disorder") means -- they are not recognized psychological terms, and are not used consistently by either their proponents or the courts. One has to actually read an article, not just its title, to determine its relevance. See, e.g., William Bernet's 2020 article discussing criticism of P.A. theories, in which he writes,

...Meier explained,“[i]n short, the reality is that whatever some researchers may say about the differences between PAS and PA, in practice, PA is rarely understood to be different. Indeed, some proponents of alienation theory simply cite to both PAS and PA without distinction." Not long ago, Benjamin and his colleagues made the same point: “[p]roponents of PAS have developed different names for it over the past two decades, including more recently parental alienation disorder (PAD)and parental alienation relational problem. This syndrome or disorder has been promoted by some, but it is strongly disputed by many others....” Thus, the concepts of PAS and PA have much more in common than they differ, and both terms are used in this article.

I think it would be better if the terminology were used clearly and consistently, but that would require there to be a consensus as to what the terms mean and represent. The issue here is whether the referenced material supports the content of the article, whatever term or terms it uses when doing so. Arllaw (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

---

A great deal of material was deleted from this talk page, although it has since been restored. Please recall that there are very few circumstances in which it is appropriate to edit comments left by other editors, and those comments should never be edited in a way that changes their meaning. WP:TPO Also, editing your own comments after others have replied can be problematic and should be avoided, and it is helpful to clearly identify any such changes. WP:REDACTED Thank you. Arllaw (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Comment from uninvolved editor

Based on my limited understanding—I am a forensic psychologist, but not an expert in high-conflict divorce dynamics—here are my impressions:

(1) The book, Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals, is one among many reliable sources on this topic. Thus, it contains valuable information, but it is not the be-all and end-all on the subject. Thus, it seems reasonable to cite the text (or chapters within the book) a few times, where relevant, but given the plethora of academic articles and books on the topic, it seems unreasonable to devote entire sections or extensive discussion to this one text.

(2) Some parents in high-conflict divorces seek to turn children against the other parent, and it's often both parents engaging in this battle and using their children as pawns.

Whether or not this behavior pattern constitutes a "syndrome" is a matter of debate. Ideally this article should discuss what constitutes a "syndrome" (there's healthy debate on that point too), and whether or not labeling this behavior as a syndrome helps or hinders resolution of such cases in the best interest of the children. There are arguments along a continuum from "it is a syndrome, you poisonous bunch-back’d toad!" to "it is not a syndrome, you lump of foul deformity!", with arguments toward the middle of the continuum often contributing the most helpful information.

(3) Whether or not "parental alienation" is a DSM-5 or ICD-11 diagnosis, or could be, or might be, or someone said it ought to be, should not occupy much space in the article unless psychiatric nosology's role in jurisprudence frames the discussion.

(4) If I were to work on this article, I would concentrate on making the article clear, concise, comprehensible, and consistent before endlessly debating what is accurate. As Shakespeare might say, the article currently resembles a swollen parcel of dropsies. ;^] Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Briefly,

1. The book was used as a reference within the article, so the idea that it was being unjustly excluded is a red herring. At the same time, the book carries a clear bias, and that is fairly considered when evaluating the purposes for which it should be used. Further, WP:MEDDATE and WP:MEDBOOK weigh heavily in favor of relying upon more current reliable sources as opposed to falling back on this book. Its authors are not obscure figures within this subject -- they are prolific authors of articles that advance their position, so there is no shortage of more recent material even by the same authors. It is not difficult to find better and more recent sources.

2. That some parents behave badly toward each other and their children, notably including during divorce and custody proceedings, is not in dispute.

3. I agree that the Z-code issue is a distraction. Parental alienation was intentionally omitted from the DSM-5 as a diagnosis, and the fringe claim that it appears in the form of a non-diagnostic condition warrants a footnote at most.

4. The present, unfortunate state of the article is the result of one editor radically changing its content from its prior form. Arllaw (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

arkworthen — expertly said this:

“ Whether or not "parental alienation" is a DSM-5 or ICD-11 diagnosis, or could be, or might be, or someone said it ought to be, should not occupy much space in the article unless psychiatric nosology's role in jurisprudence frames the discussion ”

Not one single judge keeps a copy of the DSM-x at their bench for the determination of the facts of the case, by way of clinical diagnosis from the bench. The article skews so far off into WP:MED at the sacrifice of WP:LAW–both politically volatile areas–it desperately requires WP:BALANCE. --Frobozz1 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You are moving far afield, but your comments suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of this article. This is an article within the category of psychology, and references are held to the WP:RSMED standard. The legal subsection is a departure from the psychological focus of the article, which means that sources mentioned within that section do not have to be WP:RSMED but still need to be WP:RSLAW. Arllaw (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Suggesting "The American Psychiatric Association (APA) added a relational problem into the DSM-5 which causes PA but chose to include only the concept of PA into the new manual without using the words 'parental alienation'" using primary sources to synthesize that conclusion appear to violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It's also important to distinguish separation and familial disputes and any mainstream counseling and psychology to the claimed "PA disorder" that this article seems to be about, especially that there appear to be a number of sources criticizing the concept... —PaleoNeonate – 18:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I believe you meant to place your comment within a different topic, but I'll address it here.

Unfortunately, the "relational problem" at issue is not a "cause" of P.A. The purpose of a Z-code is to facilitate the coding of non-diagnostic issues and, in the specific case of Z62.898, it may be used when the focus of clinical attention is the negative effects of parental relationship discord on the child. That is, it's used within the context of effect, not as a diagnosis of cause -- and as most parents can attest, there are a huge number of potential causes for such discord. I don't want to get too deep into the weeds here, and I hope that's clear enough. Arllaw (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, the category of this article is also in fact [Category:Family law] --Frobozz1 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not complicated. This is an article on a psychological subject, that has a section that is relevant to family law. The only reason to push non WP:RSMED sources for the psychology portions of the article is to wedge claims into those sections that fail to meet WP:RSMED standards. Arllaw (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, this topic sits at the intersection of psychology (and other mental health disciplines) and law. It is difficult to talk about one without the other, similar to related topics such as competence to stand trial or financial capacity (competency). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 00:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That's why the discussion of the legal status of this concept is in place. Concepts such as "legally incapacitated" and "criminal responsibility" are legal terms of art, defined by law, for which psychiatric diagnoses can be relevent. "Parental alienation" is not a legal term of art. It has no statutory or common law meaning. It is something that is asserted by lawyers and a number of expert witnesses in child custody cases, ostensibly as a diagnosable psychological condition, which helps explain why a small but vocal subset of those expert witnesses want to shoehorn P.A. into the DSM-5 rather than admitting that it is not diagnosable under the DSM-5, there are no established diagnostic criteria, and that there is no accepted means by which this conception of "parental alienation" can be diagnosed. Arllaw (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that Arllaw. My understanding has deepened. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. :) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 06:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Frobozz1: Please do not put your signature on a new line, which is very untidy and makes the discussion harder to read. Please put it immediately after the end of the text of your comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Reversion Proposal

As one recent visitor Mark D. Worthen PsyD, commented, "As Shakespeare might say, the article currently resembles a swollen parcel of dropsies". Efforts to correct its content are frozen in amber for reasons apparent from even a cursory review of the talk page. Meanwhile, editors are starting to stop by to correct some of the newly introduced issues with the article.

I thus propose reverting the article to its form as of 01:57, 19 March 2021, pending actual discussion and consensus on further changes. Arllaw (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No one will die if they see a different opinion. You can revert as soon as some source (that is not WP:OR) discredits the Handbook.

--Frobozz1 (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The article exists in its present dismal form because you committed four reverts within the space of 24 hours, then added content in flagrant disregard for the position of other editors. Given the three revert rule, you are in a poor position to object.

Also, you are continuing to edit the article yourself with no sign of even the slightest concern for the input of other editors. Arllaw (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Untrue. I put the Poland content back after my revert. Likewise, you revert very slowly, but you still revert everything. I didn't want to keep score but since you put this note down, your reverts should be more careful.

• Revert 02:52, 17 March 2021 Special:Diff/1012575104/1012541586 (yes, removing in pieces is still a revert)
• Revert 13:09, 17 March 2021
• Revert 13:26, 17 March 2021 Special:Diff/1012632872/1012630864
• Revert 18:35, 18 March 2021

Maybe they will let it slide on a technicality, I don't know. But let's put down the threats and move on to make the article better. Or maybe just let someone else take it for a while. I think you care too much about your beliefs and not enough about this community product to keep them apart, taking a break would be good. You really hate that book. We all know this. Wikipedia just doesn't care about my beliefs, or yours.--Frobozz1 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want to try to confabulate my editing into a 3RR violation, go right ahead and report it. Arllaw (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Returning to the subject at hand, I agree with the proposal to revert to an earlier version, before the disruptive editing of Frobozz1. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have reverted to the last good version of the article, as suggested by Arllaw. Any restoration of material which was eliminated in that edit is now officially disputed, and per WP:BRD, needs to have a consensus of editors supporting it. Editors are warned not to canvass support from other editors on- or off-Wiki, and not to engage in WP:SOCKPUPPETRY or WP:MEATPUPPETRY to create a WP:False consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Beyond My Ken. Much appreciated. Slp1 (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Parental Alienation and "Pseudoscience" Articles

In another context, an editor raised the question of why this article does not accept inclusion of content in a manner "which seems to work fine on the other 'pseudoscience' pages such as Stockholm syndrome." He also suggested, "A good version of this article would look like Stockholm Syndrome which shares the fact that it is not a 'diagnosable condition,' it has no real empirical body of evidence because it is so rare, yet it has a treatment posted on the page." A prior contributor to these pages also drew an association between parental alienation and Stockholm syndrome.

The question of what happens in another article is not particularly relevant to what happens in this one, and the question also applies in reverse, should the content of "pseudoscience" articles be improved? For this subject, editors who come here to advocate for the idea of parental alienation as a diagnosable condition would need to decide if they are trying to depict it as an actual psychological condition, or if they are going to argue that WP:RSMED should not apply because it's "pseudoscience", as it can't be both. If a consensus is reached that parental alienation is pseudoscience then that can be reflected in the content of the article -- but the editors who want this concept to be advanced in courts and legislation might find such a designation to be counter to their goals. Arllaw (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Very good point. As you say, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a horrible argument, and personally it looks like somebody should take a chainsaw to the Stockholm Syndrome article - did somebody paste their psych research paper into the middle, perhaps?!!. Anyway... Your main point, I believe, is we have to decide whether we are going to treat this like a junk science/pseudoscience "disease". Obviously some academics/lawyers etc want this very, very much to be a real condition, and they seem to spend a lot of time and energy explaining how it is a disease/disorder: how it actually is included in the DSM-5 (even the APA specifically said that rejected it for inclusion, [18][19][20] how the DSM5 got it wrong, and how the ICD-11 has included it (in the index, but now removed.[21]). Etc etc. In contrast, although there is some call out there for it to label PA junk or pseudoscience, there are not that many of high quality, and most of these are qualified by a recognition that there are children who are alienated from their parents, just that the mechanism is generally not that proposed by Warshak, Bernet et al. So all to say, I support us continuing to hold this article to WP:RSMED standards. And in fact, from what I can see of clearer pseudoscience diseases such as (e.g. Morgellons) WP:RSMED applies anyway. Slp1 (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The basic problem we are facing is this:

• The legal concept of parental alienation is all too real. There really are people who, in the middle of a divorce, use their own children as pawns by turning them against the other parent.
• The other side of the legal aspect is that many divorce lawyers use false accusations of parental alienation as a tool for winning custody battles.
• Given the above two facts, the normal legal procedures are for a judge or a jury to look at the evidence and decide whether there really is parental alienation.
• The side that has the facts on their side are fine with this. But the other side would prefer to shift the discussion from a legal argument that they can't win to a medical argument -- one that depends not on evidence but on hired expert witnesses.
• Meanwhile the medical community (other than the expert witnesses) generally reject the idea that parental alienation is a medical condition.
• Put all of the above together, and you get a Wikipedia page that keeps getting disrupted by divorce lawyers and by parents in the middle of divorces. Their goal is to sway potential jurors.

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that it is more correct to say that disparagement is commonplace in divorce and custody cases -- people saying bad things about their ex, people saying bad things about their ex- to the kids, and the like. From a psychological standpoint there is a valid and interesting question as to why some kids respond to the disparagement of another parent by ignoring it, others respond by anger or distancing from the parent who is engaged in the disparagement, and others respond to the disparagement by distancing themselves from the disparaged parent. It's difficult to answer not only because there hasn't been a lot of research into the subject, but also because it's typically a multi-faceted problem. For example, estrangement can result when a child has been raised in a religion in which anybody who leaves the church must be shunned, then one parent files for divorce and leaves the church.

It's also a question that the proponents of a legal construct of "parental alienation" attempt to sidestep -- they point to disparagement, they point to a child's alienation from the other parent, and they say "correlation is causation, so we are entitled to full custody." From the dawn of P.A.S., through its various names and into the present, various theories have been put forward as to how one might tell when a child is estranged from a parent due to the alleged estranging acts of the other parent, as opposed to due to parenting decisions, statements and actions by the other parent. But the reality is, there is no means of making that assessment and, as critics of that approach point out, parents who allege that their estrangement is caused by the other parents may be attempting to cover for estrangement that results from what their own actions have inspired in the child, in some cases their actions being in the form of abuse or domestic violence.

This is not a matter of there being a body of quality research work, an accepted diagnosis, validated treatments, and the like, that have been excluded from the article. This is a matter of a handful of people, many of whom command handsome fees to provide expert testimony in court cases, having tried for decades to devise a definition, diagnosis, or test that the psychological community will accept, and consistently coming up short. The question is not that children can become estranged from a parent, or that a parent's bad conduct can cause a child to be estranged from a parent; the questions are whether such estrangement can be diagnosable as "parental alienation" as described in this article and, if so, whether you can or should be able to diagnose within an individual (the child) a disorder that as described exists in a relationship (the parent-child relationship) as opposed to within an individual.

Nobody is keeping good science out of this article. If the researchers ever succeed in their effort to find a way to objectively and accurately distinguish children who are estranged in an unjustified or unreasonable manner due to the acts of the other parent, from those whose estrangement is justified or reasonable, they will have no trouble getting those findings published in top drawer journals. Arllaw (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There are two realities determining how this article forms itself out:

1. The Associate Director of the American Psychiatric Association who was specifically in charge of the committee within the DSM-5 Task Force which organized relational disorders into the DSM-5, has published, in his own name, the following exact quotation:

“ There have been concerns reported in the literature that acceptance of the “parental alienation” construct may lead some clinicians to discount a child’s true fears of a parent who has maltreated him or her. For this reason, the Relational Processes Work Group recommended that it would be better not to include parental alienation as a specific relational problem but instead to use the appropriate broader category, that is, CAPRD, parent–child relational problem (PCRP), and/or child psychological abuse. ”

The Associate Director of the APA is, by definition, WP:MAINSTREAM. This article paints the narrative that PA is was omitted because the APA didn't believe in it. That fringe narrative has to go.

2. Even if PA were "fringe," Wikipedia policy regarding WP:FRINGE/PS specifically requires that theories "should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point." The substantial amount of academic research on PA must guide the article presentation at the expense of an editor's personal opinions. (And please cite exactly what competing theory PA is actually "fringe" to?)

This article--Frobozz1 (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion, "The Associate Director of the APA is, by definition [mainstream]" is absolutely incorrect. The fact that one holds (or once held) a significant position within a major organization does not translate into "every word out of his mouth is thus mainstream". If this is a mainstream belief, you would not be premising your position on that one individual and a single, five-year-old article because, by definition, mainstream beliefs will be significantly represented within the literature.

It would be helpful if you posted material that is relevant to a topic under discussion, rather than posting vast, irrelevant arguments that cover the same position into multiple, simultaneous discussions. Arllaw (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Romanian research

PhD

The title Ph.D. does not exist in Romanian education. We have the title doctor (dr.) instead. So, prima facie, it is suspect to see an article written by Romanians who all have PhDs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Something odd about that[22] citation: It appears to recycle data from "Behaviors and Strategies Employed in Parental Alienation" published in the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage May 2006 (DOI: 10.1300/J087v45n01_06). You can read it here: [23]

The authors of that study interviewed 20 parents who believe that the other parent attempted to alienate their children against during a divorce. The 20 were recruited from internet chat rooms for divorced parents. That's a tiny, biased sample. I can find 20 people on the internet who believe that they had lunch with Godzilla. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: One thing I learned in my sociology study and a Master's in Culture, Organization and Management is that qualitative research is exploratory, not confirmatory. I.e. qualitative research is used to propose new hypotheses, not to test them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Does that mean that the study in question isn't really proof of anything, and should not be cited as such? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: See exploratory research: it just says that based upon preliminary research a certain hypothesis should be further investigated as more likely to become accepted, but in itself such research is not the evidence for accepting that hypothesis. See also https://researcher-help.prolific.co/hc/en-gb/articles/360009500513-Am-I-doing-exploratory-or-confirmatory-research-Why-does-it-matter- This might not be true for statistical research based upon a large sample which got qualitatively researched, but for all purposes qualitative research with N=40 is exploratory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

So, given that, the study should not be cted in the article. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

When a study concludes with a summary of the reasons that it may be poorly generalizable within the nation in which it is published, less generalizable to other nations, and then calls itself a potential jumping-off point for future studies, it is stating quite clearly that it is not intended to be definitive and that its findings should not be given much weight pending further, more comprehensive research. Also, all of the parents were self-identified, which is not to invalidate their feelings but raises the question of whether they are reliable narrators when they suggest "it's all the other parent's fault."

The issue we face here is that people who are trying to push a viewpoint might take a study like that one, misrepresent its summary of the various positions that people have taken on "parental alienation" as if they're findings by the authors, and suggest that the study is somehow definitive on the subject when, in fact, it's far weaker than many of the articles already represented within the article. This article is not improved by people finding obscure, poorly or non-generizable articles then magnifying them as if they are the most salient and credible works on the subject -- at best that would reflect sampling bias. Arllaw (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Romanian research discriminated on this page?

Asked and answered: No

I added the content below and Beyond My Ken immediately reverted it because it was a study from Romania. I reported the WP:DISCRIM which forced this off-hand apology from them but they seem firm that Romanian content is not worthy of this article, as they are not intending to restore it. Is there a consensus with BMK that this article should exclude Romanian content? Please offer your consensus opinion, admins have offered us to review and give consensus on BMK's edit. A 2020 qualitative study reports that there are no significant differences between the way targeted mothers and fathers perceive and experience parental alienation. For both, the experience has a devastating effect on their self-perception and self confidence, their perceived strengths as a parent, and most significantly on the way they feel when they slowly but surely lose more of their connection with their child/children and a chance to have a normal relationship with them. A 2018 qualitative review of specialist literature finds that alienating parents have been described as "narcissistic, paranoid and with cognitive disturbances and also as people who find it hard to relate to their families of origin." Alienated/target parents are described as rigid and lacking the skills needed for an effective parental style, emotionally detached, distant, passive, and with some problems in handling their feelings. Earlier studies suggested alienated (target) parents have an ambivalent attitude to their need to have a relationship with their children, recent research states reveals alienated parents display a great need to be involved in their children’s lives. References As I explained on WP:ANI, in my apology there, the edit summary was a mistake on my part which I regret and which I apologized to Romania and Romanians for. The actual reason for my deletion -- as Frobozz1 well knows -- is that the material was removed as disputed and needed a consensus for restoration. That's what my edit summary should have said. So what is to be decided here has nothing to do with Frobozz1's statement above or the title of this section , it's whether the study in question is appropriate for the article. In the discussion just above this one -- which Frobozz1 ignored in posting this -- editors appear to be saying that it is not appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Being myself a Romanian, I don't think highly of Romanian scientific research unless it gets international recognition, like Mircea Eliade, Ioan Petru Culianu, and others got. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC) To answer the question: No, Romanian research is not discriminated against. Dispute resolved. --Golbez (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) From a WP:RSMED perspective, I think there are a number of issues with this journal, with the article and with the text you have proposed. Journal Plus Education is published out of a university department, and has an extremely low impact factor etc [24]; although the journal's "about page" says that the articles are peer-reviewed, the article is full of typographical and formatting errors, which casts some doubt on the quality of the peer-review. The authors themselves note that they completed a very small, Romania-based study (thus not clearly generalizable), with self-selected participants, and a qualitative approach. As such this is is a primary source, and very low on the WP:MEDASSESS scale. So all in all, not a good source for the article, unfortunately. And all that is quite apart from the fact that despite multiple administrators[25][26] (including me, above [27]) warning you that you are engaging in copyright violations by copying and pasting text, you have done it again. Below is your proposed text, with the parts copied directly from the article bolded. A 2020 qualitative study reports that there are no significant differences between the way targeted mothers and fathers perceive and experience parental alienation. For both, the experience has a devastating effect on their self-perception and self confidence, their perceived strengths as a parent, and most significantly on the way they feel when they slowly but surely lose more of their connection with their child/children and a chance to have a normal relationship with them. A 2018 qualitative review of specialist literature finds that alienating parents have been described as "narcissistic, paranoid and with cognitive disturbances and also as people who find it hard to relate to their families of origin." Alienated/target parents are described as rigid and lacking the skills needed for an effective parental style, emotionally detached, distant, passive, and with some problems in handling their feelings. Earlier studies suggested alienated (target) parents have an ambivalent attitude to their need to have a relationship with their children, recent research states reveals alienated parents display a great need to be involved in their children’s lives. When you will stop this? WP takes Copyright vios and close paraphrasing very seriously. Slp1 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC) The typographic and formatting errors are an issue of bad editing (The Grauniad, anyone?); not peer review (putting aside any other doubts about the reliability of the journal). That said, this being a primary source, about a very small scale study; means it isn't appropriate per MEDRS, especially not for making generalisations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I disagree - about the peer-review/typos etc part... not the rest!! I have published in and reviewed articles for peer-reviewed social science journals, and that is part of what is done by the reviewers: picking up all the typos, punctuation errors etc, missing spaces, problems with the citations etc. Very tedious and obviously the least interesting part of reviewing, but definitely part of the job. Slp1 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks for that information; my mistaken assumption based on other kinds of publishing is now corrected. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC) We have to be careful not to, presumably inadvertently, shoehorn dubious content into a Wikipedia article, let alone while suggesting that the content represents significant research findings. What the removed material represents to be a "2018 qualitative review of specialist literature" is a reference to a report written by an Australian student enrolled in a Masters level clinical psychology program. One of the issues of an open project like this is that it's easy for agenda-driven editors to create work, to create one rabbit hole after another, and eat up the time and energy of those who are doing the heavy lifting to make this project work. It's easy to Google up a convenient claim or quote, stick it into an article, then proclaim that your position is being censored or suppressed when other editors take issue. But it takes a great deal more time and effort to go to the source and document why it is not suitable, doesn't support the claim made, or is being given undue weight, and again even more when the proponent of the position responds with more table-pounding. Arllaw (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Thank you all but this remains an encyclopedia. This is not an all-call for editors' expert opinions, this is a simple test of WP:RS and WP:BALANCE. The content was removed due to nation of origin ("disputed" is not a reason, there is a reason that causes dispute. In this case, the only claimed reason for dispute was nation of origin) on their own opinion, but according to well-defined content standards). Has anyone here seriously written "disputed" into the comment of a deletion?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Unfortunately, it turns out that you are incorrect.. A WP:CONSENSUS discussion is indeed open to all editors you wish to make a comment, and the consensus of their views is controlling and determines whether something goes in t the article or not. The discussion is not limited to experts, nor is it limited to only the criteria preferred by one editor -- each editor may determine for themselves what criteria to use, as long as they are consonant with Wikipedia's policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC) This discussion topic asks a clear question, "Is Romanian research discriminated on this page?", the answer to which is "no". If we were to play the game of, "Should research be deleted from an article based upon the nation in which it was published," obviously not. But if the discussion continues, "Should it be placed back into the article," then it's quality, relevance, and the like are appropriate topics for discussion. If an editor removed something from an article that should be removed, no matter what comments might have been made along the way, that's still an appropriate outcome. Arllaw (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC) ↑This. No more experts please. Researchers and students at a university in Romania who published this last year are atill owed an explanation for the removal before we can even discuss "re-inserting" it. Do we really delete first, find a reason later?? Yes, on BLP pages only.--Frobozz1 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Nobody is "owed" a reference within a Wikipedia article or an explanation for why a reference to something that they wrote was added or removed. Most people are completely unaware of when their work is referenced in an article. We don't add inappropriate material to articles based upon quibbles over editor notes made when the material was removed. Additions are based upon relevance, not some sort of need for atonement. The circumstances of the removal have been discussed extensively and an apology has been given. There's no need for further discussion, let alone for further recrimination. Arllaw (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Underuse of Bernet / Wamboldt / Narrow white paper

Back in October 2017 the white paper for DSM-5's new CAPRD code was cited with a single sentence, but it holds a treasure trove of salient and underused information. Dr. William Narrow, M.D., MPH, was the Associate Director of the APA at the time and working specifically on the new "relational disorders" section, and collaborated with Dr's Bernet and Wamboldt. Below is the content I plan to distribute into this article to explain a lot of missing details. For example, why the words PA didn't get included and how they included it should be in this article. We need diverse feedback as to which goes where - and no WP:VOTING.

Specific content for inclusion:

All citations from Bernet, Wamboldt, and Narrow

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Could whoever posted the above please sign it? Thanks. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1 posted a long comment which was full of copyright violations, and admin EvergreenFir deleted the copyvios. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The text presently in the Wikipedia article needs to be significantly revised.

With the exclusion of PAS from the DSM-V, some advocates for the recognition of parental alienation as a diagnosable condition have since argued that elements of parental alienation are covered in the DSM-5 under the concept of "Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention", specifically, "child affected by parental relationship distress". Those proponents assert that children who are exposed to intimate partner distress between their parents may develop psychological symptoms as a result of that exposure.

That text glosses over the Bernet article's different definition of "parental alienation", it falsely suggests that there are "elements of parental alienation" covered in a one-sentence non-diagnostic code that in fact includes no diagnostic elements, and it wrongly suggests that the article focuses on parental alienation instead of the wide range of potential causes of distress in a parent-child relationship and, even if those issues did not exist, it seems misleading to weasel word a single, five-year-old editorial into "some advocates". All of that needs to be corrected; or the paragraph removed as, if edited to be accurate, it wouldn't really add anything to the article.

It's also important to note that the authors had difficulty fitting their conceptions into the one-sentence definition that is included within the DSM-5, and for that reason build the article upon a more expansive definition that they propose on page 572, under the heading "Proposed Definition for CAPRD". To date, there has been no movement on this proposal, no general acceptance, no embrace of the expanded definition for use in a future version of the DSM.

The fact that children can have strained relationships with their parents, for an enormous variety of reasons, is not the subject of this Wikipedia article. Although now removed, you pulled excerpts of the Bernet article in a remarkably selective style to avoid disclosing what we have already discussed in prior threads, (a) the code discussed in the article is not a diagnostic code, (b) the article does not use the same definition of "parental alienation" as is the subject of this article, and (c) the article is vastly broader than even that different version of parental alienation, as the relationship between a parent and child can become strained for an enormous range of reasons, including those summarized in the article, p. 572,

For this category,“parental relationship distress”refers to: persistent disparagement of one or both parents by the other parent; high levels of conflict; intimate partner distress (dissatisfaction with the relationship as well as difficulty resolving conflicts, lack of positive exchanges,coercive exchanges, or persistently perceiving negative intentions in the partner); and intimate partner violence (physical force such as hitting, slapping, and biting; extreme psychological manipulation; and/or coercive sexual acts).

This is an interesting article by the authors, sharing their opinion as to the utility of the Z code, but it's of slight and peripheral relevance to this article. The fact that distress exists in a parent-child relationship does not explain the cause of that distress -- so a child who was physically, psychologically or sexually abused by a parent would have the code used to describe any resultant relationship distress and, if alienated from that parent, the code would not tell us that their alienation was entirely justified -- it would simply reflect what it is supposed to reflect, that there is parent-child relationship distress. It would be absurd to suggest that this article be extensively discussed in every Wikipedia article that touches on parent-child relationship distress, but that's what you're effectively arguing.

Can this be the last iteration of this effort to shoehorn "parental alienation" into the DSM-5? Because no matter how many times something to the contrary is suggests, it's not diagnosable under the DSM-5. Arllaw (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

---

The tiny section we include certainly is misrepresentative and I started this discussion for consensus on where the additional information goes. Arllaw suggests that there is some source requires a concept to be diagnosable to also be included, there is no such requirement. We must avoid the common pitfall of Writing for the wrong audience (especially if you are employed in this field) by "emphasizing or de-emphasize verifiable facts so that readers will make the "right" choice in the real world." The content is included or excluded based upon WP:VER and can not "steer" readers toward one opinion or another.

Inclusion has nothing to do with an ability to "diagnose" a condition, only in presenting WP:RSMED facts regarding it.

1. Currently we already stated that a proposal to include PA into the DSM-5 was made, this paper corroborates this but so far we fail to explain why the words "parental alienation" were excluded:

“ There have been concerns reported in the literature that acceptance of the “parental alienation” construct may lead some clinicians to discount a child’s true fears of a parent who has maltreated him or her ” — page 576

1. This Wikipedia article should also add that the APA's "DSM-5 Task Force never said that they doubted the reality or the importance of parental alienation."
2. It is also important that Wikipedia does not deceive readers into a false and unsupported narrative that the serious condition of PA was somehow omitted from the manual. This is the paper where the APA makes its position very clear. Dr. Narrow with Bernet and Wamboldt published that:

“ For this reason, the Relational Processes Work Group recommended that it would be better not to include parental alienation as a specific relational problem but instead to use the appropriate broader category, that is, CAPRD, parent–child relational problem (PCRP), and/or child psychological abuse. ” — page 576

We should add the reason "PAD" was excluded as a mental disorder. Simply, the APA required all mental disorders to "exist as an internal condition residing within an individual." The APA Task Force said PA involves a disturbance in the child's relationship(s) and thus it belongs in the relational problems section.}}

1. The specific codes assigned to Parental Alienation may be either "parent–child relational problem" when clinical attention focuses on the child-target parent relationship; or "child psychological abuse" when the clinical focus is on the parent causing the alienation.
2. Presentation: As an important consequence to the children (which we hardly touch) there is the important statistic, in the § Parental Alienation section that children who experience }}parental alienation "almost always fulfill the definition for CAPRD," which is that the parental conflict "[forms] an enmeshed relationship with one parent and rejecting a relationship with the other parent." It is strange that the well-known enmeshment is missing from this page.
3. Classifications: The condition is recognized as either mild, moderate, or severe. Each is defined in this paper as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would follow basic measures to properly format and present the content that you post to talk pages, to sign your posts, and to refrain from misrepresenting prior discussion in a manner that is likely to throw a discussion off-topic, and perhaps even to be reasonably interpreted as a personal attack.

Your "we should add" section says it all. An argument was made, that argument was rejected, and the issue of P.A.'s inclusion died in 2013 when the DSM-5 was published with no provision for such a diagnosis. Now you are relentlessly pushing an article that is not actually about parental alienation, and which applies a different definition of parental alienation than is used in this article, as being somehow central to the subject of the Wikipedia article.

You are proposing that "parental alienation" is diagnosable. It is thus up to you to provide reliable sources to support that position. So far you have produced none. It is not up to others to disprove every wish you throw out into the discussion. The fact that parental alienation is not diagnosable based on the DSM-5 (or, for that matter, the ICD-11) is well established. What else do you have? If nothing, as appears to be the case, we've gone over this a good half dozen times and the conversation can be over. Arllaw (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Case file for inclusion

We should not make a database of case files but one or two should be used to show the mechanism of the phenomenon. This is done to good effect at Stockholm Syndrome. Here is a well documented case of PA I like to include:

• § Parental Alienation Page 575:

  In the following vignette, the child was induced by her mother and by psychotherapists to have a severe degree of parental alienation, including false allegations of sexual abuse.

Case 4. When Tom and Mary divorced, Mary received primary custody of their 3-year-old daughter. After 3 uneventful post-divorce years of normal visitation and friendly relations, Mary initiated legal proceedings to deny Tom normal visitation and voiced suspicions that “something” had happened to their child. A courtappointed psychologist found no evidence of any abuse by Tom, and described a strong father–daughter relationship. Unhappy with the opinion of the courtappointed psychologist, Mary spent over $25,000 on two therapists, whose progress notes indicated that their sessions focused on trying to get the child to accuse her father of abusing her. The child repeatedly refused to accuse her father of anything worse than making her eat vegetables. She repeatedly told the therapists that she loved her father. After 60 therapy sessions, the child finally began to make bizarre accusations of sadistic sexual abuse against her father, her father’s friends, and other adults. The sexual abuse accusations led to the complete rupture of the father– daughter relationship and two serious criminal indictments against the father, which were ultimately dropped by the district attorney. Nine years later, at age 16, the daughter said she never wanted to see her father again.

--Frobozz1 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose the entire idea of "one or two case files should be used to show the mechanism of the phenomenon". The proposed case files above were selected by Frobozz1 to support their fringe POV, but supporting someone else's POV would be just as bad. Oppose using the Stockholm Syndrome article as an example that we should emulate. That article is a dumpster fire and should be completely rewritten. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To recap points already made, sometimes multiple times, above, but that are pertinent to this proposal:

• That WP:MEDRS and in particular WP:MEDASSESS, low quality evidence such as case reports should be avoided.
• That WP:MEDSCI insists that we present the medical and scientific consensus. Parental Alienation has not been accepted by any major medical/scientific organization, and WP is not going to include low quality, fictionalized case reports such as this, promoting the idea that it does. Most especially when the case study is used to illustrate a proposed "expanded explanation" for a new DSM-5 term ("child affected by parental relationship distress") which has got no traction in the 5 years since publication.
• That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument that holds any weight.
• That WP:COPYVIO forbids the use of such copy and pasted text in the article, and likely even here on the talkpage.

Slp1 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This proposal takes us on yet another lap around the same block. The idea here is that if a therapist has grounds to made comments on a client's chart coded as Z62.898 (Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress) that is somehow diagnostic of P.A., an assertion that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be baseless.

So here's where this sort of "scenario" based upon misconception of Z62.898 takes us.

Scenario one: A child was sexually abused by her father. He denies the abuse, and accuses the mother of brainwashing the child against him. The child rejects the father. Notes regarding parental relationship distress would be coded as "Z62.898".

Scenario two: A child was believed to be sexually abused by her father. The mother did not endorse the belief, but a detailed account came out in the course of the child's therapy and a protective services investigation found the report to be founded. The child rejects the father. Notes regarding parental relationship distress would be coded as "Z62.898".

Scenario three: A child was believed to be sexually abused by her father. The mother did not endorse the belief, but a detailed account came out in the course of the child's therapy. A protective services investigation found the allegation to be "undetermined". The child rejects the father. Notes regarding parental relationship distress would be coded as "Z62.898".

Scenario four: A child was sexually abused by her father. He admitted the abuse and was sentenced to prison. The child rejects the father. Notes regarding parental relationship distress would be coded as "Z62.898".

Scenario five: A child rejects her father, despite her mother's consistent encouragement of a relationship between the child and father. It is not known why the child is rejecting the father, and the child refuses to give an explanation. Notes regarding parental relationship distress would be coded as "Z62.898".

And on it goes. As we have discussed by now several times, a code that is for the purpose of describing something is not diagnostic. The code does nothing to tell us why the relationship distress exists, let alone whether it is reasonable or proportionate.

Can we please be done with this red herring? Arllaw (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Frobozz1

As a result of a community discussion on ANI, Frobozz1 has been indefinitely partially blocked from editing Parental alienation and indefinitely topic banned from discussing that subject anywhere on Wikipedia, including on this talk page. The sanctions have been logged at WP:Editing restrictions.

Any violations of these sanctions can be reported to any admin, with reference to the Editing restriction page, or directly to the sanctioning admin, Johnuniq. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for Clean-up

If we have any outside eyes looking at the article, I would appreciate any thoughts. The article is a product of consensus and, for example, the lead seems a bit long. Certain sections may seem unclear or underdeveloped. Any suggestions for where the article will benefit from attention would be appreciated.

When the article is again open to be edited I suggest the following minor edits,

• Under "Treatment", changing "Further research was suggested as none were supported by research..." changing the text back to "None were supported by research..." to be consistent with the reference, which makes no such suggestion.

• The paragraph in the article under History: Parental Alienation Syndrome, beginning "With the exclusion of PAS from the DSM-V...." needs some clean-up for reasons stated in this discussion thread. I don't have specific changes in mind, just some adjustments to improve its accuracy.

Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• One frequent problem with cleaning up articles which have a fairly low profile is getting "outside" editors to participate. To help overcome this, I have placed neutral pointers to this thread on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps we'll be fortunate enough to get some good outside ideas. Arllaw (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is a proponent

If anyone wants to do some copyediting work on this article, please try to replace the "proponents" language. Nobody is a proponent of alienation. There are people who support its recognition as a theory or as a practical situation, but nobody would actually recommend children becoming alienated from their parents. It sounds quite strange. You can be a proponent of, say, sustainable development, or capitalism, or whatever, but to say that you are a proponent of something implies that you want more of it. Nobody (sane) actually wants more children alienated from more parents, so I would like to recommend that we find a different/clearer way to say this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's proponents of the concept as described in the article. There may well be a better word or, I suppose, we could say something like "proponents of the concept", but "proponents" is more accurate and more consistent with the reference than "some". Arllaw (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Activism Section

The advocacy section should be focused on advocacy by individuals, groups and organizations, and not just list organizations, past and present, notable and otherwise, that have nominally taken a position on the subject. WP:LINKFARM All claims made about the organizations and their advocacy should be supported by reliable sources. Arllaw (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The additions to the advocacy section largely involve listing organizations that advocate one side of the issue, the presenting unsupported claims about the organization. My present inclination is to revert that section and, to the extent that the organizations are engaged in advocacy, for the content to be added about the activities of relevant reorganizations, supported by reliable sources. Arllaw (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The insertion of a heading into the activism section (at the top level instead of nested) is not helpful, the new heading is not neutral and does not accurately reflect the content that follows, and no effort has been made to remove commentary that is not properly sourced. I am trying to engage cooperatively, discuss changes, and work toward consensus so that we can avoid a frequent need for clean-up and reversion, but if efforts to build consensus are ignored that's where we seem likely to end up. Arllaw (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If it needs to be said, we don't find ourselves in a good place when efforts to clean up quality issues are met with objections and walls of text, but efforts to build consensus so as to prevent the need for reversions and associated discussions fall on deaf ears. Arllaw (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the whole section needs a clean up. It has become a one-sided linkfarm of organizations, sourced only to themselves. There is no indication that any of them are notable. I would support the proposal your first post above. I also think the newly added material added about Ireland needs a similar toothcomb, due to sourcing concerns (press releases from activist organizations), youtube videos, and the like. But I guess that is a subject for a different section. Slp1 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Any other thoughts or input? Does somebody want to draft a proposed version here, or should we revert and then add back any content that is appropriate, with an eye on balance and sourcing? Arllaw (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that there have been no objections, and there are significant issues with the present version (including dead reference links), absent any new developments or proposals I will revert this section tomorrow. Arllaw (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I just needed a bit of a break as well as lacking time to look into this. I suggest there is not a list at all, but a short text saying that there are activist organizations (for or against), with a few named as examples in the text - only ones that have secondary sources to support them. Having a list is a just an open invitation for people to add their favourite one!! Parental Alienation Awareness Day has got attention in the media and has been recognized in some places, so would be included here too. The Fidler, Bala and Saina book would be a good source for this section, and actually elaborates some ideas in a way (e.g. prevention) in a way that I hadn't thought about. [28]. This article is also useful as it mentions some organizations involved. [29]. In any case, I suggest we not rush this but agree on the structure/sourcing first, so that it can be pointed to later if necessary. Slp1 (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, but I'm going to do a bit of clean-up, which I will explain here.

I'm removing the entry for the "National Coalition Against Parental Alienation", which is supported only by a dead link. The only current information that I'm finding is that this is a trademark (USPTO Reg. 4691328) held by an individual for the purpose of marketing divorce mediation services, divorce consultation, and the like. Arllaw (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm removing the entry for divorcios.me, which appears to be a lawyer referral service with a one-page article on the subject. Arllaw (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the link for PASI from a dead link to the home page. Better referencing is still needed, but at least it's not a dead link. Arllaw (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! It now seems we are in a forced pause for a while, which is fine by me. --Slp1 (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

One hopes that when this section is revised, editors who are conspicuously absent from the clean-up effort don't suddenly allege fault. Cleaning up an article is a lot more work than making a mess of one. Arllaw (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Activism section used to read as follows:

In late 2005, a Canadian activist named Sarvy Emo proposed that March 28 be designated Parental Alienation Awareness Day. The proposed date was later modified to April 25. The date has received some level of recognition, such as a 2006 proclamation by the Governor of Georgia recognizing April 25 as Parental Alienation Awareness Day, and its unofficial recognition by the Governor of Nevada in 2007.

An organization called ISNAF, the International Support Network of Alienated Families, was created to provide support to parents and families who believe that they are affected by parental alienation. Bubbles of Love organizes events intended to draw attention to children's need to be loved by both of their parents.

The National Coalition Against Parental Alienation is a nonprofit organization that was organized to increase awareness of parental alienation. A membership organization called the Parental Alienation Study Group is open to legal and mental health professionals who are interested in the subject of parental alienation.

There are also organizations that actively oppose the use of the concept of parental alienation and the making of custody decisions based on this belief system. For example, the Center for Judicial Excellence argues against the use of the parental alienation argument in custody cases. The American Professional Society on Abuse of Children (APSAC) has at the time of this writing posted on its website a recommendation against using the parental alienation concept or claiming that when a child rejects a parent, emotional abuse by the preferred parent has taken place. The Institute on Violence, Abuse, and Trauma (IVAT) devoted a three-hour session at its September, 2019 meeting to arguments opposing the use of parental alienation concepts and related claims.

References

The section was restructured into a list of groups that advocate for the concept of parental alienation, while other organizations remain in a paragraph beneath the list.

Question: Is it better to organize the activities of individuals and organizations in list form, or in paragraph form?

In terms of the listed organizations....

Some of the organizations were listed before the article was changed, and were poorly supported by links. I don't recall that this was discussed, or if this is the way that the article naturally evolved in the interest of trying to present a picture of the advocacy on both sides. The listings are problematic,

• The claims about the Canada Parents Organization are not supported by a link to the organization's homepage. It seems like the organization has decided within the last few years to change its name and broaden its goals. The organization may be involved in some noteworthy activism, but it does not seem to be getting an appreciable amount of media attention.

• The link to "European Union Parental Alienation Study Group" is a one-page site from 2014 that describes goals (The aim of EUPASG is to provide a professionally certified scholarly reviewed account of the research-based knowledge on parental alienation, clinically relevant and updated continuously), but with no indication that the goals turned into action. I would suggest removing this entry.

• The Parental Alienation Study Group seems to be predominantly an organization led by Peter Bernet (see the authorship of various articles and his mention in recent talk page topics; the address on the site is the same as the address and offie number on Barent's C.V.), which lists links to members' websites and has amazon affilate links for members' books. It's difficult to find media coverage of any activities, and I can't find any described on its pages.

• The entry for the Parental Alienation Foundation of South Africa is supported by an improper inline link to a YouTube video, which is the only source that I can find for a "world parental alienation conference in South Africa". The Parental Alienation Foundation of South Africa has a Facebook page and was mentioned in a few media articles in late 2020. I did not see a reference to a "world parental alienation conference" on their Facebook page or their homepage (which is linked from Facebook).

• ISNAF is another 501(C)(3) organization that has apparently never met the threshold to have to file a Form 990. Their homepage describes a 2014 symposium. According to their website hold local support group meetings about once per month. They do not appear to be generating any media attention.

• PAS Intervention appears to still be around, but it's again difficult to find any media coverage or information about activities.

I guess this helps explain why the listings are so poorly supported by references. The question is, how notable should organizations be to be prominently featured in this section, versus a less significant mention, versus omission? PAS Intervention. It would of course be helpful for editors who want these organizations to be featured more prominently to contribute some reliable sources that support the organizations' inclusion and document their activities. Arllaw (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? It could go back pretty much to how it was before, but although previously much more balanced the prior version wasn't well-developed. Part of the issue, I suspect, is that this is something of a niche issue, so there may be moments of publicity here and there but little sustained advocacy or sustained / consistent media coverage. Something I think that I have seen more advocacy on these talk pages than in the media. Arllaw (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the end about notability. I don't think any of these organizations etc get a direct mention unless there is support/notice in secondary sources. That will reduce the number on both sides to a handful. What is notable (per the Fidler book linked to above, but no doubt others) is that there are quite a lot of organizations that are active in the movement to gain acceptance for PA). So that fact, and some info about their methods would be appropriate. I don't know if there is similar secondary sources for the anti-crowd, but I can take a look.--Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have present access to the Fidler book. The Google Books search result makes it appear that it was quite extensive in its reporting of activism, but it would also be nice to have a more recent resource. Arllaw (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)