Talk:Parental alienation/Archive 2

Opening paragraph
I would like to propose the following rewrite of the introductory paragraph (plus references):

Parental alienation is the process, and the result, of the psychological manipulation of a child into showing unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility towards a parent and/or other family members. It is a distinctive and widespread form of psychological abuse and domestic violence, towards both the child and the rejected family members, that occurs almost exclusively in association with family separation or divorce (particularly where legal action is involved). It undermines core principles of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Most commonly, the primary cause is a parent wishing to exclude another parent from the life of their child, but other family members or friends, as well as professionals involved with the family (including psychologists, lawyers and judges), may contribute significantly to the process. It often leads to the long-term, or even permanent, estrangement of a child from one parent and other family members and, as a form of major childhood trauma, results in significantly increased risks of both mental and physical illness.

Rationale (concerns about current text): “Hostile aggressive parenting” is not really a synonym or alternative for “parental alienation”; it’s one of many “related concepts” and could be moved to such a section. “Parental alienation” is not a theory; it can be described as a term or a phenomenon (or as a process, and its results). The link with parental alienation syndrome may be better kept for a background/overview section. I think some of the text is a bit confusing or misleading, e.g. “characteristics, such as lack of empathy and warmth, between the rejected parent and child are some indicators” is not an accurate conclusion of the Warshak reference provided and it implies some failure in the rejected parent; this is not a necessary (or even normal) element of the process. What distinguishes this phenomenon is precisely the fact that the behavioural displays of a child towards a parent or relative are unwarranted. The phenomenon itself is not strictly controversial; it’s widespread and readily identified by experts. It’s the history of the term and development of a psychological framework for (or theories to explain the psychological development of) the phenomenon that has been controversial. The best Wikipedia page openings manage to start with a clear, quotable definition of a term, which this currently lacks, and then to focus on the most significant aspects of it, keeping less important information and clarifications for subsequent sections.Skythrops (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the original reference to domestic/family violence, with the most recently published, peer-reviewed reference. Please discuss on this page, and ensure we have consensus, prior to any changes to this first paragraph. Thanks Skythrops (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As is suggested by the title, "Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence", your source makes plain that describing parental alienation as "family violence" is a matter of advocacy, with the mainstream legal and psychological community rejecting that characterization. That aspect of the article is advocacy, not a reflection of a consensus view that supports your modification of the article.
 * "Despite affecting millions of families around the world, parental alienation has been largely unacknowledged or denied by legal and health professionals as a form of family violence."


 * Arllaw (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is an extraordinary assessment of this new study, which has been published in a reasonably respected, peer-reviewed journal. Any advocacy or ideological bias, in this instance, is not coming from the three, respected authors of this particular publication. This is a properly referenced academic study and the most recent publication on this specific issue. Nor does the quote you use support your contention: in stating that "parental alienation has been largely unacknowledged" by professionals, it is referring - as would any academic paper - to a historical and/or current position from which this paper moves forward; it is essentially stating that the idea that parental alienation is a form of family violence had not been properly considered or recognised by previous authors. If a new, peer-reviewed paper comes out successfully refuting this publication, then we should reconsider this Wikipedia text (which I wrote over three years ago).

If you have evidence of "a consensus view" that parental alienation is NOT family violence then please present it here for discussion and our own consensus. I suggest that, as with your previous assertions that the meaning of the term Parental Alienation is self-evident (which it is not) and that it had its origins prior to Gardner's coining of the term Parental Alienation Syndrome (for which no evidence was presented and, I believe from extensive research, none exists), the position you advocate here is not evidence-based either.

There is now evidence to support this original wording (which is one of multiple pieces of text you have deleted, on multiple occasions, without providing adequate evidence) not just from psychology, but from multiple sources - not least the fact that parental alienation, as defined here, readily meets the current, legal definition of "family violence" in countries such as Australia, and has even been criminalised in several others. Skythrops (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's simply not correct. The piece you cited is not reflective of change -- it is an argument for a change in the consensus view that parental alienation is not a form of "violence". As I already documented with actual quotes, the very article you cite concedes that neither the mental health community nor the legal community agree with that characterization -- that is, you have cited only one source and that source confirms my position while refuting yours. It appears that you have strong feelings on this matter, and very much want the consensus view to change, but Wikipedia is not a place for that type of advocacy. Arllaw (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Arrllaw: this page is not the place for advocacy or ideology, but for clear communication and an evidence-based approach. There is clear consensus among international experts on Parental Alienation that it is a type of family violence as well as psychological child abuse and "emerging consensus", as this paper phrases it, beyond that group. (International legal definitions of family violence have also, over the past decade, increasingly included many forms of abuse such as this.) The issue highlighted by this paper is that this is not common knowledge among non-experts, including the legal profession, who find themselves addressing, commenting, or making judgments on what is essentially a psychological phenomenon. It's not clear if you've had the opportunity to read beyond the abstract or if, perhaps being a legal professional yourself, the nature of scientific consensus/debate is being misunderstood, but the discussion (or perhaps advocacy, as you call it) in this paper is about the need for these non-experts to educate themselves appropriately; the peer-reviewed science - in a journal published by none other than the American Psychological Association - is about the evidence for Parental Alienation being a form of family violence. That's about as definitive or authoritative as you get in the field of social science. I will add further references to this point when I've time and, for a couple of in-press papers, when published. My other, previous points remain.

My personal feelings don't come into this, other than that I believe your previous editing of this article (to which you appear to have been attracted following my comments on the Parental Alienation Syndrome page) were not in the spirit of Wikipedia editing rules. Skythrops (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, once again your own source (the only source that you have produced) explicitly contradicts your position. You can keep pounding the table, but that's the fact. The article should be corrected. Arllaw (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted to original 2015 text following vandalism. Please use this Talk page for discussion about legitimate, potential changes to this long-standing text. Skythrops (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not helpful to accuse other editors of vandalism, merely because they modify edits that you personally believe should be left untouched. This is a collective project and there is nothing special about edits made in 2015 that should prevent other editors from updating, revising, correcting, and otherwise improving article content. See WP:OWN. Four years after a prior discussion, if you believe that the current version is not appropriate, you should consider starting a new discussion. See WP:CON". Arllaw (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss proposed changes to this article, especially if they are controversial or disputed. I put forward the reasons for proposed changes here in 2015 and left them here for comment for a considerable period. It's not appropriate then to go in and make make changes to the article without discussion here - that's how Wikipedia is meant to operate - especially when those changes are inaccurate and/or ideologically based and no evidence has been presented to justify those changes. Please present evidence to justify each change here so it may be discussed professionally Skythrops (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the edits that other editors have made over the years. You are inappropriately undoing valid edits, and falsely accusing other editors of vandalism, neither of which are constructive approaches to editing. You do not own this article. Please respect the nature of Wikipedia as a collective project, as your approach makes it appear that you wrongly view Wikipedia as a place to advance your personal views on this subject. Arllaw (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

To initiate discussion professionally and collaboratively regarding some of the changes to the first paragraph that Arllaw wishes to make ... This article does need considerable improvement overall (see proposed restructure above), but the first paragraph summarises the views of many authors in this field. The proposed new first line is extremely cumbersome and not accurate. Parental alienation is not a theory, any more than many of the words defined in Wikipedia are. It is a term used to describe a phenomenon. It is not about what 'a parent' does; parental alienation can be caused by many, different people: parents, friends, relatives, professionals - essentially anyone capable of manipulating a child into holding unwarranted views about one of their parents and/or other relatives. "It is proposed to be a form of psychological abuse" is, again, cumbersome and inaccurate. I will be happy to discuss and explain further with regards to any proposed changes to this paragraph. Please let's stick to the rules and spirit of Wikipedia by discussing these changes in advance here. Skythrops (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever your intention, your editing history and recent actions suggest that you are policing the opening paragraph to conform to your personal views and are not actually interested in consensus. When you falsely accuse other editors of vandalism, and inappropriately revert valid edits, you risk giving people the impression that you are edit-warring instead of engaging in constructive editing. Arllaw (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Constructive, collaborative editing - especially where there is some disagreement between editors as there is now, apparently - involves proposing changes here on the Talk page, awaiting input, reaching consensus and publishing. I believe that the history of my adhering to these practices is documented above over a period of four years. Having begun editing this page relatively recently, you/Arllaw have not demonstrated similar respect for other editors, according to the recorded history of edits; you have a history of making changes that fundamentally alter the article and definition of Parental Alienation without such debate and you have, I've suggested, contravened the spirit of Wikipedia's editing rules, not least the three-revert rule. Wikipedia's definition of vandalism is available online.

I'm happy to debate every word here in good faith in order to reach consensus, however long that takes, and to support my contributions with appropriate citations. I hope you may be willing to do the same. Changing a whole chunk of long-standing text (that has been supported by at least one third party, below) to something fundamentally different - and doing so repeatedly without providing any evidence in support of those changes and when there is so clearly documented a history on this Talk page - cannot be characterised as constructive or consensus-editing and is not in line with the stated intentions of Wikipedia. If you can provide reputable evidence for your proposed changes, please share it here so we can make appropriate edits. Until then, we should stick with clear definitions and statements for which objective evidence exists and engage in respectful debate on this Talk page.Skythrops (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not your role to police this article, to insist that only your preferred language be on the public page, and to require editors to seek your permission before engaging in entirely proper edits of the public article. Other editors are permitted to edit the article, consistent with Wikipedia articles, and even to do so boldly when appropriate. They do not need to check the talk page to see what you wrote four years ago. My edits to this article have been appropriate and accurate, and I do not appreciate your continuing use of personal attacks. Arllaw (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've observed that much of the recent discussion seems to revolve around the question of whether PA should be considered as a theory or as a fact. If I may add to to the discussion: it might be worthwhile considering PA in the broader framework of trauma and abuse. There is, I would suggest no doubt (and the literature agrees) that PA is attempting to define a process (or possibly an outcome) whereby a child is manipulated into holding an unreasonable/extreme view of another party. Further to this there is no doubt that this form of manipulation is wide spread - one only has to look to peer-to-peer dynamics in any situation where one party is seeking to gain advantage over another to see this in action and there is plenty of research on schoolyard/workplace/intimate/etc. bullying to support this. As such it seem that PA is simply a very specific subset of a much broad behavioural pattern and as such is not really a theory but more of a definition within a specific context. Where PA is unique is that the context in which it is almost invariably raised is the legal framework associated with relationship breakdown which involves children and the potential use of those children by one or both parties to gain advantage over the other. Returning then to trauma and abuse aspect there is no doubt that the impact on a child (or any party) of being manipulated/bullied into being a "weapon" is an abuse of that child - the long and short term ramifications are very clear across the literature.

As such I would suggest that PA is a definition, not a theory. Certainly the motivations/process/outcomes/etc are open to discussion and theory and there is much work to do here both in a research and legal context. Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the person who edited the opening paragraph before I most recently edited it, before it was "reverted" to a prior version that really isn't very good, but.... I don't think that there is significant confusion about the fact that parental alienation exists, that it has a number of causes, and can be an appropriate response to a parent's conduct, may be inappropriately motivated, or may fall across a spectrum between those two extremes. Any controversy comes from the association of the term with parental alienation syndrome, which is discussed in that separate article, or dubious treatments.


 * Maybe we need a new section to continue this discussion -- it's difficult to keep track of discussions that occur at the top and bottom of an already long existing section. Arllaw (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started a new section for discussion of the current article lead. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Opening paragraph: 2019 updates
In response to requests/comments above, I’ve started a new section on the opening paragraph – though this is clearly a continuation of many comments above. The opening paragraph in any Wikipedia definition is certainly important and worth spending time on getting as accurate as possible. Although everything in Wikipedia can no doubt be improved, in this instance it’s not appropriate to state that this paragraph needs “correcting”. While the remainder of this article does indeed require very substantial correction and restructuring and warrants substantial attention – see my long-standing proposals above – the first paragraph (2015-2019 version) is accurate and well-supported by evidence and citations. It is also a succinct definition and, I believe, includes the most important elements on this subject for the introductory paragraph. I spent a considerable amount of time researching it, communicating with experts and sceptics alike, before composing it. I note that it has been accepted and quoted publicly by a number of family court judges, psychologists and lawyers in the years since.

I acknowledge and accept @Krb19’s comments about my original UN convention phrase as requiring independent evidence and citation; I appreciated the courteous approach of requesting appropriate references (which do exist) rather than the subsequent deletion of the phrase. Given subsequent comments by @DrPax, however, I will await one or more stronger references before adding it back; there are findings, for instance, by the UN Human Rights Committee on this subject with respect to some family courts. This is a ‘high-level’ issue, though, and would always be appropriate for the opening paragraph as, for instance, would be a reference to the fact that parental alienation now has the status of being a crime in some countries.

I don’t think the other changes of the past week help – they either lack citations (if the above phrase warrants deletion for want of citations, so should these), are a repetition of something already said, or use unnecessarily complex words like ‘prototypical’. I think the additional references in @DrPax’s proposal are generally useful; I’d propose a few changes that could be done in situ.

I do agree with the view, contra @Arllaw’s position, that intentionality is not a prerequisite of abuse. Unless @Arllaw, in the latest post, is proposing that a ‘mandatory reporter’ has manipulated a child (in which case it is indeed abuse, whether intentional or not), the example is tangential to the issue at hand: whether or not a person who psychologically manipulates a child into rejecting a parent or others does so intentionally.

More broadly (and I’ve gone into detail here because it’s really important for all editors – especially those actively ‘policing’ this article, to use @Arllaw’s term – to have a strong understanding of the subject matter if we’re to reach consensus), Arllaw’s stated interpretation of parental alienation (and some consequent changes to the article) are at odds with the literature and evidence in some fundamental ways and we should avoid changes that incorporate such misconceptions, not least:

1)	The meaning of the term ‘parental alienation’ is not self-evident; it’s a piece of jargon with a specialised definition;

2)	There is no evidence that the term ‘parental alienation’ existed before Gardner’s formulation of ‘parental alienation syndrome’ before/around 1985 and there is clear evidence that some academics chose to avoid the latter term due to controversy and therefore truncated it. Some academics, to this day in fact, use the term parental alienation as a synonym of parental alienation syndrome;

3)	DrPax is correct in suggesting that, if you read other definitions of parental alienation carefully (and I’ve analysed many), the term is used in several, distinct ways, including:        1) To describe the process by which a person psychologically manipulates a child; 2) To describe the results of that process in the child (in which context it’s essentially synonymous with Parental Alienation Syndrome and matches the Warshak quote provided by @Arllaw); and        3) To describe the results in the other parent, relatives or ‘associates’, who become the subjects or victims of unwarranted feelings and rejection by that child. It is precisely for these reasons that the opening line defines parental alienation as both the process and the result of psychological manipulation. I would be the first to agree that this is unfortunate but that’s the inescapable reality of how this term is currently used in different peer-reviewed publications and books today;

4)	Parental alienation is not a theory. It’s a distinctive form of psychological abuse – and abuse is no theory, it’s a phenomenon. Equally, though, in a popular dictionary (and Wikipedia is surely that) we should avoid using words that have different popular and scientific meanings, at least without making that explicit (see, for instance, Wikipedia's own article on "scientific theory"). “Significance”, for instance, has very distinct scientific and popular meanings and, in the case of the word “theory”, the popular meaning (an opinion that may well be incorrect) is close to the opposite of the scientific meaning;

5)	Most importantly, @Arllaw has in several places suggested that parental alienation may be legitimate (i.e. a child rejecting a parent for justified reasons is one form, or on the spectrum, of parental alienation). @Arllaw suggests that Warshak supports this position, using the quote "In some cases, children have good reasons to reject a deficient parent" to argue against my definition and citation of Warshak’s work. This is quite a profound misunderstanding of the very concept we're here to define. Warshak, like all academics who specialise in this subject, recognise that children may indeed reject parents and others for legitimate reasons. This, however, is expressly not alienation; alienation is the antithesis of this – it’s when a child is manipulated (whether consciously or not) into holding unwarranted views of a parent or others, and consequently rejects them and, potentially, becomes estranged. Upon this, all experts would be united.

I hope we can clear up all such misconceptions on the Talk page before further errors are introduced into the article. Thanks Skythrops (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't need to start a new section -- we already have one. I recognize that you have strong feelings on this subject, but rejecting prior discussion in favor of starting your own is not actually conducive to reaching consensus. Also, your stating your personal feelings in a strong or emphatic fashion while discounting other opinions does not of itself mean that you are correct. Arllaw (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Some useful extra references DrPax. I notice you've changed the statement that Parental Alienation "occurs almost exclusively" in association with family separation ... to one that it's "most often identified" in this context. The latter is certainly true. Do you not think the stronger, original phrase is supported by evidence too? (In fact, the dictionary definition Martinogk cites - ref #7 at the moment - quotes a judge saying as much, albeit referring to PAS.) I believe that most, if not all, of the peer-reviewed papers cited in this article refer to family separations, and many to family court involvement; though, in theory, alienation could occur when parents are still together, in practice, isn't separation of parents pretty much a prerequisite? In some ways, this is what makes this such a distinctive phenomenon. Skythrops (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Skythrops, a tricky one! I think (and the literature would agree) that the dynamic of alienation is very widespread and can occur in virtually any relationship domain (professional, intimate, parental, political, etc), as any minority group or bullied school yard kid will attest to! That said, you are correct in pointing out that the literature (and judges comments) relating specifically to PA does provide strong evidence that PA occurs almost exclusively in the context of family separation, I would suggest that this is at least partly an artefact of reporting rather than being truly representative of actual prevalence. You make the point and I don't think anyone would disagree that there is no reason why PA can't occur prior to separation or indeed in families where separation never occurs. To the best of my knowledge there is no research on the prevalence of PA within complete family units, which unfortunately doesn't much help in addressing the current question. On reflection and in the absence to contrary data I think you are correct in saying that it "occurs almost exclusively" within the context of distinctive phenomenon of Parental Alienation and I was taking a slightly too high level view of alienation in general by suggesting "most often identified" - I'll rescind that edit. DrPax (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both of you for sorting this out. In reference #29 (Parental alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals, page 8), it states that We refer to “separation or divorce” because PA often occurs prior to legal divorce and in families in which the parents were never married in the first place. PA may occur in high-conflict marriages when parents are still living together in the same household. Hope this helps. Martinogk (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DrPax and Martinogk. What a delightful, professional debate about quite a subtle, though not-insignificant point. I find both your comments useful/persuasive. A further, indirect line of evidence comes from the perhaps-unique research of Baker (2010 & elsewhere) studying a randomly chosen group of people and assessing their levels of exposure to ‘alienating behaviours’ as children. Though significantly higher (and close to 50%, I believe) for those involved in family law proceedings, the figures were still remarkably high for those who avoided courts. They give an indication of a possibly broader prevalence in families; DrPax may be correct in suggesting reporting-bias, but good data/evidence is lacking.

What the current evidence does seem to suggest is that for alienation to take hold – and for children to show the well-documented and consistent signs (not, technically, symptoms, of course) – some form of separation between alienated adult and alienated child is almost essential. (Children, it seems, can’t generally hold onto strong, unwarranted feelings about a parent when constantly exposed to the real person.)

So, I’d be comfortable that either phrase under discussion is evidence-based and supported by the literature. I appreciate the changes you've made DrPax. If we identify one or two more references to support it, at a later date, we could always consider the compromise “… almost exclusively identified …” but this phrase may have had enough debate for now. There are many more serious issues with the body of the article … to which we could soon, perhaps, move on :) Skythrops (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am also comfortable with either phrase. Skythrops, you are very correct about the link between separation and parental alienation. That will be a critical thing to cover in the "prevention" section. Martinogk (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)