Talk:Family estrangement

Including Family estrangement
Rerouted from talk:wikiproject Psychology and split into two threads to talk:victim blaming and talk:family estrangement Seabreezes1 (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Family estrangement is an example of social rejection or shunning. It is fits in with attachment theory, involves coping mechanisms such as splitting and shares commonalities with parental alienation. It is an underground issue in families, one where victim blaming is common. The wiki article is newly published, and it was recommended potentially part of the Psychology Project. I have two questions:

1. Not sure what next regarding participating in the Psychology Project. Please advise. 

2. I tried adding a new section to the end of victim-blaming article on family estrangement, but one person undid it, because he felt it might be "off topic." He suggested I query this group as to the appropriateness of family estrangement in this context. See:

BTW: I intend to add another section to family estrangement article on Scenarios involving value based rejection, i.e. religion change or sexual orientation, and on grandparents, but need more documented research on those areas before I add. Seabreezes1 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have some concerns about the family estrangement article. I currently don't have access to the offline sources, but it looks to me that the article is written from the point of view that family estrangement is most commonly ("typically") due to ungrateful children wrongfully (or at least without a good cause) rejecting their innocent parents. I'm not an expert, but I don't think that's really the main meaning of the term. Compare for example this paper by the author of the article's first source: "Family estrangement is the physical distancing and loss of affection between family members, often due to intense conflict or ongoing disagreement." That's something else entirely than what we say it is. There are also issues of original synthesis. For example, one of the papers we cite deals not with family psychology, but war on a societal scale - it does not even mention family estrangement. Other paragraphs don't cite any sources whatsoever. Huon (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi I have only been involved with family estrangement at a fairly superficial level as im concentrating more on formatting rather than meaty work these days so i probably dont have much to add to the discussion.--Penbat (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The war on a societal scale reference is specifically documenting the Capture-Bonding mechanism that is a universal survival trait in the context of explaining why children sometimes estrange when forming new families. The same type of EEA mechanism is associated with PSTD and Stockholm syndrome. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - I need to add another section on estrangement due to value conflict and other estrangement triggers. Finding references on this topic isn't easy. I don't want to add that section until documented. It is a work in progress which will also include references to "disowning" - the other side of the coin when the parent initiates an emotional cut-off. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Family Estrangement is a term that can be used a bit loosely, which is one reason for this article. However, there is a separation between "reasonable" estrangement for self-protection and family estrangement, as in emotional cut-off in Bowen family theory. In other words, creating distance between an abusive family is not the same thing as emotional detachment from a family without reasonable justification. This mirrors legal language regarding parental alienation and reasonable alienation, also referenced in the article. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is focusing on the type of estrangement that is somewhat below the radar. The increasing family dissolution for non-violent reasons. A common refrain is that a dtr or son in law prompted a complete cut-off without giving any reason to the parents. There are also PTSD type stories about soldiers and other victims or assault estranging from families, which isn't anything new, but not really researched with this filter. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2010 study indicates that intergenerational "disharmony" is the worst in the US. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The analogy repeated in support groups for parents is that they feel like rape victims, that folks assume they did something to deserve the ostracism, that they are afraid to talk about it because then people treat them differently.... hence my suggestion it belongs in victim-blaming.Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Karpman drama triangle does confuse things. The estranger claims they were victimized and points the finger at the estranged, who then becomes the victim..... Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The research by Kylie Agllias is the best recent research that I've found that focuses on this topic. Otherwise, see the 3 external links.
 * I expect and hope the article grows, and sparks more research in this area. Really, it is not unlike what rape was 40 years ago. Something that isn't talked about. A taboo subject. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see a COMPLETELY unacceptable situation here in that there is a condition that many of us have experienced that isn't even mentioned, namely the one when you have at least one malignant narcissist parent and you the child (frequently later in life) are designated the "family scapegoat" and that parent subsequently estranges you for reasons that are of concern ONLY about the fragile state of that individual's damaged ego, but having NOTHING TO DO WITH the "scapegoat's" behavior. In my case I have been isolated from ANY manner of contact from members of either side of my family, and the primary "justification" appears to be the simple knowledge that I had finally started dating (in my mid-30's)! If those of us trying to "survive out of" such intense, unwarranted isolation cannot even see our plight being DISCUSSED on the principal resource for all digital knowledge, how the heck are we EVER going to get the word about this situation out so its analysis (and hopefully someday reversal where possible) can be openly discussed?? Jlawton11 (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair Article
It seems like a completely reasonable article to me, I do not see why others claim it is biased. As the original author has reiterated over and over in the Talk section, the author has plainly differentiated this topic from what others are supposing it to be. However, I would like to encourage the original author to add more Wiki links so that it won't be an "orphan topic" any long. That's simple, just ad topic to the source. There are many simple words and ideas that could be linked to other Wiki articles here. -- anonymous 6/16/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.14.20.201 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Biased article
I have to agree with another commenter that this article is exceptionally biased to the point of damaging. Particularly, the lede and the overview.

It deals with estrangement of a parent by a child, in a way which places complete blame on the child. I do not believe that is an appropriate definition, nor do I believe the judgement placed is appropriate for an encyclopedic article. It is not impartially written and draws many inferences which are not matched by the linked articles.

Since I am not an editor at Wikipedia, I hope there is someone with knowledge of how to handle/fix this appropriately.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.5.218 (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Response:
 * There is a distinction made between reasonable estrangement, when there is an issue of abuse or safety, and familial estrangement where there isn't. That point is made and repeated in the article. Familial estrangement is an area where there isn't sufficient visibility. In some ways it's the flip side of disowning, where the parent rejects the child (which is in wikipedia.) The assumption in familial estrangement is often that the parents must be guilty or bad to be estranged from their child. It's the continuation of the "parental alienation" model where typically a divorced parent tries to alienate a young child. The fact of the matter, people of any age can be manipulated by others to ostracize someone else. That it is parental alienation when the child is under 16 to 18 and familial alienation when the child is over this teen marker is artificial.
 * Yes, I've asked for some research help in adding more detail to the scenarios that prompt estrangement, which you may feel to be more balanced. Only so many hours in the day. The issue is there isn't sufficient research in this area. It's an orphan topic.
 * Most importantly, this isn't about "blame." It's about explaining a phenomenon that is exploding in context of what we know about it. Capture bonding, splitting, and Bowen Theory are not new, but aren't well known. This is a serious under-reported situation. The 2014 Rachel Canning case was fairly typical in every way, except that it got to a court room, where scrutiny of the facts revealed the spurious nature of the accusations, as well as the impact of a third party intruding into family dynamics.
 * Finally, the shot against the reference to rape in the talk section is totally out of context. In "talk" I explained that the feelings and experience of parents in this situation has been reported as being akin to the feelings of rape victims from years ago.... being assumed that it was their fault and fear to talk about it, taboo. That's all. And that is why it should be associated with "victim-blaming" as a topic.

Although I agree the article needs more work and I will find some time to do that, and hope others also contribute, deleting this article would be a serious dis-service to many families in pain - including siblings and grand-parents. Let's work to make it better, not eliminate it. Seabreezes1 (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

One more comment. The article consistently refers to estranger and estranged, not parent and child. It can be read from both points of view, and does apply across both points of view, with the exception of EEA and Overindulgence, which focus on the younger party's process. Seabreezes1 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed several biased or irrelevant posts throughout the article thought

Response: You have greatly edited the article to respond to my points, so thanks for doing that. However, I still think there are significant problems with the tone, academic backing, and neutrality.

If 'familial estrangement' has a more specific meaning that does not only refer to general biological family then this presents a difficulty in comprehension. I do not believe that is correct in literature: 'family' is a biological term that does not have the specific connotation of 'unreasonableness'.

Seabreezes1 (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Response 2:
 * Don't know how to respond to the the comment about the meaning of family. Family is family, biological, adopted or blended.
 * I did my best to use neutral language.Tone is notoriously difficult to interpret. Studies have shown that people misinterpret tone 50% of the time, although they're sure they got it right 90% of the time. (see: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060213/1558206.shtml) Of course, that is nothing new. "The problem with communication ... is the illusion that it has been accomplished." George Bernard Shaw
 * The interesting thing for me is the underlying psychological elements, the growing incidences of family estrangements, and the militant "tone" that is being taken by some estrangers in the media. There is a huge disconnect, and the "societal regression" that Bowen predicted would have disastrous effects is taking form.

The final point you make illustrates exactly what I object to. What you describe as "interesting to [you]" is your point of view. Since you are the only significant editor of the article, this personal interest pervades the whole article, and this means the article does not conform to NPOV. People genuinely seeking information here may be misguided by the partisan opinion expressed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.173.2 (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

In Talk section, I state that I find the psychology most interesting which is appropriate for someone writing a psychology article. The article is not about blame or fault. It is about the psychology underpinnings of a growing phenomenon. It is written in neutral language, and includes as much research as is currently available on this and associated topics. I have tried to be responsive to your objections, but have nothing further to say about your perceptions. Seabreezes1 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Opinion by Terrytots — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrytots (talk • contribs) 11:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed several instances of bias or irrelevant statements, especially the violence section which contained nothing on violence.

This page lacks details on the main tenets of estrangement that being related to physical, sexual and emotional abuse and in its original format appears as if a cross between a personal story and a  confabulated journal article. Given the fact the author glosses over narcissistic abuse as something that the "unreasonable estranger" claims one has to wonder whether they would like to deny it exists at all. This is particularly harmful to the victims of narcissistic abuse who read this page to whom this represents a propagation of denial. For those victims denial has been one of the "Weapons of choice" for their abuser. One of the reasons narcissistic abuse is so damaging is for the victim there is rarely any complete validation without exiting the family situation. Given that the parental abuser usually spends an awful amount of their time "looking like a good person" and controlling family members by emotional means such as guilt or emotional blackmail it is rarely feasible to continue a relationship if a meaningful relationship was there in the first place. For the narcissist appearance is everything, it is much more important to LOOK like a good person rather than BE a good person by caring or being emotionally responsive to a persons feeling. In the case of many maternal narcissists this means NOT estranging the victim (which would look bad) but keeping the victim in a controlled family dynamic where the narcissist looks "Good as gold" and the victim appears as the irrational/irresponsible one. If you LOOK good it is easy to deny everything, even to yourself. Addressing why family members feel the way they do and taking appropriate responsibility for it goes a much longer way to repairing a relationship. An apology (a statement in the article I removed and replaced with taking responsibility) without this may LOOK nice but to the victim it would just appear insincere and a white washing of the situation. Given that narcissistic abuse is a significant precipitant of estrangement and a complex area it probably needs its own section.

This page needs more on empathy and its role in the breaking up of family relationships

The whole page really needs rehashing though as bias subtle and not so subtle permeates the entire article. There needs to be less talk of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" estrangement as it appears judgemental rather than objective. The authors idea that in common usage "family estrangement" refers to unreasaonable estrangement is ridiculous, confuses the narrative and is simply incorrect. Having read thousands of psychological reports I can say that it is not in common usage and does not make sense. It is like saying in common usage "divorce" refers to "unreasonable divorce". It is clear the author is blind to this obvious bias by the fact they reiterate it in their reply on the talk page

There is also over reliance on Bowens theory which is the foundation of some family theory and not its bible. Bowen last publication was a long time ago and doesn't take into account the last 25 years of development in psychological theory. The theory also appears twisted in the original narrative to say imply Bowen thought that estrangement was wrong as clearly this would be a vast generalisation and not applicable in many cases of emotional, sexual and and physical abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrytots (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Abuse & Overindulgence & International Studies
- I think the article looks pretty good. However, I feel your edits deleted a few important points that weaken it. First, everyone who estranges from their family claims some sort of abuse. As you note, that is a way of gaining support and justifying the estrangement. Originally, the article attempted to make clear that estrangement for abusive reasons are justifiable, and that the primary topic being discussed was non-violent estrangements, i.e. as when the child is the one with the personality disorder or circumstances outside of family disrupt the dynamics. Parental alienation fit in here, but that concept seems to be missing from the current version, too, except for its mention in the opening paragraph.

The second big deletion that concerns me is the removal of the section on overindulgence. This theory is quite clear that unrealistic expectations often result in estrangement, and rightly or wrongly is as common a theme on the part of the estranged family as abuse is on the part of the estranger. Cultural Regression, increasing levels of societal narcissim and the child-centered “kinderarchy” were mentioned in that section.

The removal of the 2010 international review of adult-child relationships in 6 countries is also a troubling deletion, as this is a cultural issue. That reference is important in understanding this pattern.

This is not about blaming or justifying estrangement. This is about the phenomena, particularly in context of lack of reasonable justification, as it is pretty much universally accepted that when there is any abuse or violence, every human being has the right to take actions to separate and protect themselves from abuse. However, when someone falsely accuses a family of abuse to justify an estrangement, that in itself is abusive behavior. In other words, I don’t think we’ve reached a neutral POV, yet. How should we proceed? Seabreezes1 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Just realized the section on brain development under Faulty Thinking Patterns was also deleted. There was no judgment or POV in that section. It was simply reporting neuroscience, quoting neuroscientists, stating that diagnosis of "personality disorders" should not be made prematurely, as adolescent and young adult thought patterns differ from thought patterns of older individuals. I suggest that to interpret those factual statements as a negative judgement on the young adult is actually the opposite of how it should be taken. We should be able to accept that the reasoning of an 11 year old isn't as sophisticated as that of a 41 year old. This just documents that the same holds true for a 21 year old. Anyone over 50 remembers with bemusement some naivete of their youth. That is not judgmental. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply by terrytots

I personally think the article is very bad and remains biased. Unfortunately much of the bias is revealed by the pattern of arguments rather than individually and it would be easy to deny each one with out the context of the other. This makes it more difficult to criticise. I really would have liked the article deleted but hoped that some other contributors such as a psychologist/psychiatrist would help add to it as I have very limited time to do the research on it and feel that it should not really be up to me to delete articles which may be useful to other people. I am highly concerned that some wikipedia articles including this one could be damaging to some individuals and unfortunately that can happen without a proper peer review process.

Discussing what you think is justifiable or non justifiable in the context you've composed it implies judgment and is your opinion. Its supposed to be an objective wikipedia article. Do you see that on the Wikipedia divorce page ? Is there any talk of being falsely accused or justifiable grounds for divorce ? The way the article is written is like the author is saying " I have been falsely accused of abuse by my spoilt child and have been unjustifiably estranged" Is that true ? If it is than I am sorry that has happened to you but it is divisive and has got no place on this page

I have re deleted your change as the information you put back in was in the violence section which it wasn't relevant to. Also I think the over indulgence statement is too tenuous a link to estrangement especially in the context of the article. Although I agree it can occur it was a fairly random theory and I felt it added to the bias of the page. I think it adds confusion when talking about narcissistic/emotional abuse which this page is very obscure on when it is a very real problem. It would be very typical for instance for a maternal narcissist to see her child as "overindulged" or "spoilt" or "ungrateful" because thats what happens when a mother lacks empathy, it gives her a justification for emotional abuse. Most parental  narcissists think they're great and that their child is spoiled, it's not just a difference of opinion. I wouldn't like to estimate what proportion of narcissists do estrange their parents. Most narcissists that I see that have been the product of overindulgence continue to be overindulged by their parents and remain in contact with them, it also goes against the definition of a narcissist. That is someone that is concerned about appearance, the last thing many of them would want is to be estranged as it makes them look bad. They are more likely to keep in contact but continue to be controlling/abusive. Your reference to society becoming more narcisstic with the implication that is causative in estrangement is also a weak argument. As a society advances so does knowledge and education and abuse becomes more recognised and consequently people are more able to free themselves from it. Think of rape in India and the recent media attention and increase in knowledge about it. People feel more empowered to speak out and do something about it. I'm sure it's resulted in more family estrangemens. That doesn't mean their society has regressed just awareness has increased. On the one side one could say that a culture regresses if there is more estrangement but not so if the reason for that is that people are more able to escape their abusers.

The bias being statements that people who estrange lack empathy, that family estrangement is equivalent to "unreasonable estrangement", that unreasonable estrangers say the other person is narcissistic, that estranger receive emotional support and omitting that the estranged do, mentioning of the suffering of the rejected party and not of the estranger, saying the estranger attempts to control the family when it is more likely they are laying boundaries to protect themselves, estrangers are more likely to binge drink without explaining that anyone who has been exposed to abuse is going to be more likely to binge drink, that estrangers use bullying and avoidance to cope without explaining that anyone who has been bullied by a parent is more likely to use bullying to cope. The list of bias statements is endless, each one being deniable of course but theres a pattern of it throughout the whole article. The average person on the street would have very little understanding what narcissism or narcissistic personality disorder is. People are more likely to say they don't get on with their parent or they don't feel loved by their parent or that they are nasty or feel very stressed around them rather than label them with a psychological term. It is more likely that children who feel emotionally unsupported or unloved label their parents narcissistic as they turn to self help books or psychologists. What you've essentially implied is that people who say their parents are narcissistic are unreasonable. Can you imagine saying that about people who say they have been sexually abused ? Theres plenty of people who have been subject to narcissistic/emotional abuse who are going to say their parents are narcissistic because its true. Not just an opinion It amounts to saying estrangers who say their parents lack empathy are the ones who lack empathy. What next ? That people who say the people who lack empathy are the ones lacking empathy are the ones who lack empathy. Its befuddled nonsense. The area is confusing enough as it is. One of the problems with narcissistic abuse is disentangling what has actually happened as the narcissist spends most of the time looking like the good person and trying to make the victim look like the irrational one. Everything is denied and no responsibility is taken. This page encourages people not to believe those people who are the victims of narcissistic abuse, the goal of every abuser. which is a very dangerous and potentially harmful thing to do. Narcissistic abuse is very real. It will be that in many cases what the estranger says is not true but what place has that on this page ? Should it be on every wikipedia definition, that what people say may not be true ? Should we make it a main theme when describing sexual abuse or rape? Imply that what these people say is often not true and that the person who cries rape is often the abuser ? No, is the answer.

I deleted the "A 2010 analysis of parent and adult-child relationships in England, Germany, Israel, Norway, Spain and the United States revealed that those relationships are most disharmonious in the US' because its frankly a fairly pointless statement. Estranged families are the most disharmonious ? Thats like saying violent families contain the most physical abuse or farms produce the most corn You're stating the obvious

I deleted the neuro part as I couldn't find any concrete evidence about what you said about the cerebellum, its primarily involved with motor control with little known about possible other functions. "Accurate interpretation of the environment and others is a function of thinking processes in the cerebellum and a differentiation between emotional and rational thought." This is not an accurate statement. Have you ever seen a patient with a cerebellum lesion ? Irrationality isn't a feature. It may or may not have some tenuous link to Bowens theory on self differentiation but it is only a theory and its confusing throwing it in in this section and it is other parts of the brain that are much more involved with rational and emotions. That whole section was poorly explained, showed misunderstanding and was barely relevant. There was no negative interpretation. . It added to an already highly confused article

Everyone who is estranged does not claim abuse. Some people don't care about justifying it. Victims of narcissistic abuse are less likely to relate abuse to others for support because due to the highly deniable nature of narcissistic abuse they'd be scared about not being believed

I would agree that parental alienation is important, is a common cause of estrangement and a common aspect of divorce.

Why would the primary topic of the article be non violent estrangements?Violence seems pretty important


 * - Although the original version emphasized a phenomenon separate from abusive relationships, and stated so, I can appreciate an evolution to contain estrangement due to abuse. I merged both what you wrote with the other type of violence when I made those edits. You erased again. This is wikipedia, not a forum. Edit wars aren't in the spirit of collaboration and evolution of an article. That you erased the dictionary definition of "alienation" commenting it love has nothing to do with estrangement, and reject an international study saying that adult-child relationships are most disharmonious in the US, you misread what was written, saying "estranged families are most disharmonious" is pointless is perhaps being a bit thin skinned, as well as reading things that aren't there.....Terrytots, I understand about abuse.... really. I expected the original draft to evolve and include more perspectives. That's good. I just didn't have the time to write a white paper, and wanted to collaborate over time with other authors. It was just something to get started. However, even though I agree that every abusive relationship should have estrangement as a significant, and often only option, there are other scenarios. Plus it goes both ways. I was very careful to use estranger and estranged. In many cases, it can be read both ways. Re-writing it as a personal blog page isn't appropriate. I have more research I wanted to add to scenarios, which was in my opinion the weakest section..... I only threw it up without references so as to have something that acknowledged the complexity of situations involved, draft 1 material. Please take a deep breath and consider that there are other scenarios other than the ones closest to you, and let's see if we can use TALK page to collaborate. Let's start with that VIOLENCE section, since that seems to be the crux of the issue. Remember, there are families who are in great pain who are being blamed for abuse without justification, primarily as a way for the estranger to protect his/her/their choice. Also remember, it is not only a young adult who cuts the parents out justifying it by saying their parents were emotionally abusive, it can be a family who kicked an 18 year old out for being "abusive" or "narcissistic" when the teen was just being a teen, hence the emphasis on estranged and estranger. Here is my draft that you erased:
 * Verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse and emotional abuse are reasonable justifications for an estrangement. Unfortunately, victims of family violence often lack the self-esteem, support structure or the financial security necessary initiate an estrangement. Acceptance of abusive behavior also prolongs unhealthy family dynamics.
 * However, determining what is abusive and what is within an acceptable range of human behavior is not always clear and differs culturally. A recurring pattern of malicious denigration is considered reasonable grounds for an estrangement in modern cultures However, a recurring pattern of abuse is not the equivalent of a few harsh words spoken in anger by an otherwise loving person. Similarly, labeling a person narcissistic because he or she holds a different point of view may be a case of the accuser being intolerant of opposing viewpoints, rather than a case of needing to permanently remove oneself for self-protection. Seabreezes1 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply
1. I have been editing your article mainly because I believe it is harmful to abuse victims particularly narcissistic abuse victims and is significantly biased. If it continues to be harmfully biased I will continue to remove it. It is also significantly inaccurate in parts . One of the most obvious of which is

“In common usage, family estrangement generally refers to an alienation between good or good enough parents who fulfilled their parental responsibilities and an adolescent or adult child who shuns them.Family estrangements differ from realistic or reasonable estrangements”. I have been working in medicine for the last 21 years and in family medicine for the last 11 years. I’ve read hundreds of psychological reports. This is just not true and doesn’t even make sense.It would be very confusing if it was true. It is concerning that anyone would write that in the first place especially someone who is clearly biased against estrangers

2.It seems to me that a central theme of any article on family estrangements should be the cause of estrangements, of which abuse is a major part. I don’t know what you are talking about when you say other type of violence? What you wrote in the violence section had nothing to do with violence. If someone kept writing in the cheese section about sausages it seems pretty sensible to keep removing it. Does violence mean something to you other than “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation"? 3.Originally the article stated *“Estrangement is synonymous with alienation: the replacement of  love, affection, or friendliness with enmity, cruelty, or indifference” Quote from the talk page “That you erased the dictionary definition of "alienation" commenting it love has nothing to do with estrangement" I didn’t comment love has nothing to do with estrangement ? I wrote “Estrangement often is the result of physical, sexual or emotional abuse. It is wrong to assume love and affection were present in the first place” meaning its wrong to assume love was present in a family before estrangement has taken place. It occurs in parental alienation but to say alienation is synonymous with estrangement confuses the distinction between the two

4. Quote from the original article “A 2010 analysis of parent and adult-child relationships in England, Germany, Israel, Norway, Spain and the United States revealed that those relationships are most disharmonious in the US” You are right, I misunderstood what you mean’t. You used the word “those” rather than “these” and in the context of what was written in the lines above it didn't come across as a clear statement 5. I am aware that narcissistic children may inappropriately label their parents narcissists but I do not believe it should be a central theme on this page. It is not common when compared to the children who have been abused. When compared to the proportion of people who have become estranged because of abuse this would be a very tiny portion. Some people falsely cry rape or sexual abuse but to not give them the benefit of the doubt is a very dangerous thing to do indeed and it is what abusers rely on. That's not to diminish the harm that is done to the individual who has been falsely accused but overall the proportion of total harm done is minuscule. Most books on abuse mention it briefly not make it a central source of bias for a whole article 6. It is extremely unlikely that a person would estrange themselves just because of “a few harsh words spoken in anger by an otherwise loving person” and almost always there is an explainable background behind it. It is therefore a fairly irrelevant statement. Mentioning it in the context of how the article is written appears to further undermine the word of people who say they have been the victim of narcissitc abuse. This whole article appears to be attempting to undermine the voices of people who claim abuse

7. Apologies for the terrible formatting

8. Unfortunately I do not have the time to write extended discussions on the talk page as my wife is like to garotte me for not doing the house hold chores. I will continue to remove bias with short explanations in the history page


 * Response: Again, I point out that a major tenet of Wikipedia is collaboration. The output ideally is inclusive of all valid perspectives. The edit war you propose is not healthy. I want to improve the article, and agree that bringing the perspectives of abused children and abused elders more into the article is valid. However, there are lots of articles violence and abuse. There is another type of violence is seen in the growing number of disharmonious parent-adult child relationships, and the cultural assumption that the estranger must have had significant justification. This also needs to be documented. I have other references in this area, but I, too, have a life and will have to work on this as time allows.
 * I wish you a happy holiday, and hope you can take a few deep breaths and decide to work collaboratively to improve the article to be inclusive of multiple scenarios. Any wiki article should be regarded as a work in progress. But especially in the beginning, it may take a number of months to get it to a truly fair and inclusive state that is documented by research and not driven by personal POV. Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply Did I propose an edit war ? Have you imagined that ? Perhaps it would be better an administrator took over this article. I think that would be for the best. I note that you have ignored multiple views above that the article is biased. It doesn't seem like you are collaborating at all. It's important to actually collaborate not just say it so you look like your collaborating

What other type of violence ??? Violence is physical. I still don't know what you are talking about?

It is difficult to work collaboratively to incorporate harmful bias. i hope you can put yourself in my shoes and realise that it wouldn't be in good conscience to allow it. If you believed something was harmful would you "tolerate" it ?

I don't need to take deep breaths, thank you. Probably better not to wish someone a happy holiday and then make a comment like that after it. You've said I should develop a thicker skin and now I should take deep breaths. Sounds like you're saying I'm too sensitive. Where have I heard that before ? Type "you're too sensitive" into Google and see what comes up. Try to have a little empathy for those your bias harms instead of just thinking about your own situation.

Talking about your references the first one I checked (no 11) was partly in relation to the statement "avoidance and bullying are the coping strategies of estrangers". The article didn't actually state this was the case. I suggest you read it again. Was that a mistake or another example of bias ?

Removal of neutrality/bias disclaimer
Like many Wikipedia articles, this one still needs lots of work. But, are its many co-authors ready to agree to the removal of the neutrality/bias disclaimer? It appears to me that the most inappropriate sections that gave rise to the original concerns of bias have long since been removed and that it's currently no worse than (or as good as) many articles in this particular field. Are there some further adjustments we can make to move forward on this?Skythrops (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the bias talked about appears to have been removed, this page does require more developing. Nbarnes7 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)