Talk:Parental alienation/Archive 3

Correcting the Opening Paragraph
I see that has made some changes to the opening paragraph, which is a good start. But the paragraph opens with a deinition that is incorrect. The heavily referenced Dr. Warshak acknowledges that parental alienation can be justified -- for example, an a child may become alienated from an abusive parent -- so that opening is not an accurate definition of parental alienation and is not actually supported by the cited source. On Warshak's own website he provides the definition, "Parental alienation can refer to the state of a child being alienated from a parent". That's much more accurate, and Warshak should not be cited to support an incorrect definition that is at odds with his own statements.

The claim that parental alienation is a form of "family violence" is also incorrect, first because that is not a widely held position and second because it completely mischaracterizes the process of parental alienation that is justified by a parent's bad acts. Quoting Warshak again, "In some cases, children have good reasons to reject a deficient parent."

The attempt to distinguish justified and unjustified parental alienation is incorrect. All credible sources agree that parental alienation can result from causes that range from valid to unjustified; multiple causes are possible. Only after parental alienation is identified can you commence an effort to determine its cause.

Which is to say, pretty much everything in the present opening paragraph is wrong and needs to be corrected. When the paragraph is corrected, it should not be reverted based upon claims of a consensus that was supposedly reached years ago, both because it does not appear that any such consensus was actually reached and because even if there were such a consensus it does not override the greater need for accuracy.

The allusions to international conventions in the second paragraph represent opinion, not fact, and appear predicated upon the same incorrect definition of "parental alienation" that is advanced in the opening paragraph. That claim does not belong in the lead and, if included later, should be properly sourced. Arllaw (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I do think the term "parental alienation" most often refers to putative cases where a child has been manipulated in some way against a parent - several authors, both "pro" and "anti" P.A. as a legal/psychological framework (example), distinguish between "parental alienation" and (usually "justified") "estrangement". I.e. "parental alienation" as an English phrase means just that, but I think the term has come to mean this particular situation or theory of the case (in the midst of a child custody court battle, a scheming parent, usually the mother, encourages/manipulates a child into hating the other parent, falsely claiming abuse, etc.) A search for "parental alienation" in legal and psychotherapy journals gives results about the (in)admissibility/clinical relevance/prevalence of the phenomenon, but they do seem to agree on what it means, and contrast it with "appropriate" or "justified" estrangement of a child from a parent (e.g. in response to abuse or simply banal family dynamics, the child's immaturity, etc.).

I certainly agree that the intro could use a rewrite, to be brought into accordance with the current (mainstream consensus?) legal/psychological opinion - I was too timid to do it myself for fear of stepping on toes. Much of it sounds not NPOV, and is just unclear, and could use some context about the history of the term and its popularization as a legal defense/tactic/cottage industry. Krb19 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly, there is some imprecision and inconsistency in the use of the term, likely because it has been created and defined by advocates as opposed to as part of some form of methodological process. If the article advances a definition of "parental alienation" as a term that may only be correctly applied after the cause of estrangement is determined to be the inappropriate conduct of the non-estranged parent, that should be made clear in both the lead and the article. Arllaw (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect it seems that this discussion may be introducing aspects that are not directly related and in doing so is drifting a bit away from the goal of providing a concise definition of PA - hard though that clearly is! To address what I see as the two key points that have been raised in the preceding discussion:

That alienation may in some circumstances may be justified. Firstly defining "alienation" - "the act of making someone stop supporting and agreeing with you". I think there would be little debate that alienation is an active process of deliberately (though not necessarily consciously) stopping a relationship for selfish reasons, in this case between a child and a parent. Whereas estrangement is a non-active process whereby the behaviour (or possibly geographical/political/social factors) result in the relationship failing. The two are completely different in as much as the role of the active alienating party is absent in the second case and I think we need to be careful in the definition of PA not to confuse the two. As an aside most of the research indicates that even in the cases of extreme deficiency/abuse/etc by one or both parents the child will still seek out a relationship with that parent(s) if they are supported to do so.

Which leads into the second point relating to whether PA is abuse or not. There is no question (either in literature or from commons sense) that the ideal situation for a child is to have a healthy, conflict free and meaningful relationship with both their parents (and indeed as many other significant people as possible). The health outcomes for child with only one parent are well demonstrated to be lower than those with two. Therefore to deliberate alienate a child from relationship which is clearly in their best interests is detrimental to the child and, by extension a form of abuse (especially as the process of alienation requires manipulation of the child). There is at lease one paper that I am aware of that specifically identifies PA as abuse - I'll dig it out.

I think we all agree that the definition of PA has to be done within the context of family breakdown and any resultant legal interventions as this is the primary area in which it is dealt with (though the alienation dynamic, as I noted previously, is generally applicable to any peer-to-peer relationship where one party is seeking advantage over another). As such I don't think we can ignore the question of whether it constitutes abuse, especially as the literature is quite clear on long term impacts of PA

I'll propose some edits to the introduction in a little while (actual paid work calls unfortunately!) and post them here for discussion prior to putting them up on the main page. DrPax (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can provide an accurate summation of the term's meaning without rendering it unusually long. Turning to the dictionary definition of half of the term is not inherently unreasonable, although it is something that can be risky with any compound word let alone a term of art; but the dictionary definition does not require that the cause of alienation be something external or caused by a third party. So "He was alienated from his father" could be said even if the cause was the father's history of abusive behavior. But as you ultimately end up by asserting, "we need to be careful in the definition of PA not to confuse the two", that's pretty much the point I made that seems to have triggered your exposition.


 * In terms of whether parental alienation automatically translates into abuse, while you may be able to dig up a paper from somewhere or other that presents that argument, how fine of a line do you want to draw on the question of intent? Are you asserting that the article should take the position that acts that cause a child to become alienated from a parent cannot constitute "parental alienation" unless they are otherwise definable as acts of abuse, they are intended to cause alienation, or both? Because a parent can cause alienation that is entirely unjustified through acts that are made entirely in good faith. What label do you propose that we use to describe that sort of scenario, if not "parental alienation"? Arllaw (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for you comments, to address your second point (I believe the first point is agreed?): I think you are approaching the question of intent from the the wrong direction. Any act that results in mental or physical damage to a child has to be considered as a potential abuse, irrespective of whether it was malicious or not. Manslaughter is probably a good example here, just because you didn't mean to kill the person doesn't mean you aren't guilty of the offence! In the context that PA is generally discussed - i.e. the legal intervention into family breakdown, I think you would agree that it is generally recognised that there is an overt amount of intent most of the time! I'm struggling to think of scenarios where long term PA would occur on the basis of "acts made entirely in good faith" for the simple reason that if somebody unintentionally created PA believing they were acting in good faith then, once they were informed of the damage being done (and generally the targeted parent will be active here) they would soon act differently (as they have no intent, just ignorance and good faith - the act was unintentional, they are not seeking custody, etc). Agreed?

Okay, back to the definition, I did a bit of additional research and thinking and, on reflection I feel that the original definition is actually quite good. Perhaps a bit over the top in quoting the UN declaration but otherwise defendable and representative of current research. After some head scratching I’ve reached the conclusion that one of the main problems with defining PA is that there are at least three distinct ways of looking at it: PA as the result in the child from one perspective (Gardner, Bernet, et al), PA as the process (Baker, et al) and PA as the result on adult victims from a third (most often alienated parents). As such the first sentence of the original definition is actually quite a succinct way of encapsulating all these perspectives. So I'm going to propose the following:

Parental alienation is the process, and the result, of psychological manipulation of a child into showing unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility towards a parent and/or other individual(s). It is most often identified in association with family separation or divorce, particularly where legal action is involved, and is commonly caused by a parent wishing to exclude another parent from the life of their child (though other family members or associates, 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 or associates. It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence , towards both the child and the rejected family members. In children, it causes an adverse childhood experience and childhood trauma that results in significantly increased lifetime risks of both mental and physical illness.

Notes: I've broadened the definition of the potential targets for alienation to allow for the inclusion of non-family members (step parents, friends, etc). I've removed the reference that suggests that PA occurs exclusively in the legal context as I (and the literature) think that the process of alienation (parental or otherwise) can and does occur in a multitude of environments, it's just that it often ends up under the microscope during legally assisted family breakdown (pun intended!). I hesitated over the use of the word “estrangement” in the middle of the definition on the basis of my previous concern about not confusing PA and estrangement. However after some consideration I think it is accurate to say that estrangement between the targeted parents and child often occurs after a period of PA. I've removed the references to the UN Declaration but cited some additional sources linking PA directly to abuse. I've also cited a some additional sources in relation to the mental and physical health impacts of PA (there is a particularity interesting study just done on the impact of children's lifespan when losing the connection with a parent (father in the case of this study) as measured through telomere length. PA can literally shortens kid's lifespans!)

Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you define "abuse" by the outcome, without regard for the act or the intention of the actor, then you deprive the term of any meaning, and you convolute the entire notion that "parental alienation" results from wrongful action. Let's say a mandatory reporter forms a good faith belief that a child is abused, makes a report as mandated by law, and as a result of the report and investigation the child becomes alienated from a parent. By what reasonable definition is the mandatory reporter guilty of child abuse? Let's say that the same reporter on the same facts makes the same report, but the investigation does not cause the child to be alienated. The act and basis for the act are the same -- so is it child abuse or not? How does tossing in the word "potential" change anything?


 * Also, the literature indicates that acts that could be alienating are common in divorce, but that children nonetheless rarely become alienated from a parent.


 * You popped into this discussion with no editing history, but you appear to have a strong connection to this subject and far more familiarity with wiki code and practices than one would expect from a new editor. Do you edit here under a different username? What's your connection to this subject? Arllaw (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your comments. To answer your second question first: no, this is my first and so far only foray into contributing to Wikipedia (my background includes scientific research and some programming experience, hence the technical competency). You are also correct in your assessment that I have a strong connection with the topic, I have been involved with PA for many years now. It seems obvious that you also have a strong connection, perhaps a personal story? I’d be happy to communicate further with you privately if you want to contact me directly?

In relation to the first point you raise: you are correct that the term “abuse” carries with it the connotation of intent or, at the very least indifference towards the target or possible plain ignorance of the impact (which again harks back to the previous discussion regarding manslaughter). However I’m not sure I quite see how this applies to the mandatory reporter example you use: If a mandatory reporter makes a report of abuse (I assume you mean abuse other than PA) and a child becomes alienated as a result (as opposed to estranged due to appropriate removal) from the abusive parents then is the reporter guilty of abuse because PA now occurs? I think the answer would be no, since it is not the reporter (or subsequent investigation) doing the alienating, it is the other parent (most often). It is the actions of that party in psychologically manipulating the child to reject the other parent that is abuse, not the act of the reporter/investigation (who’s intent is only to protect the safety of the child).

You have correctly noted that in a lot of divorce situations alienating behaviour is common (emotions are high, people do stupid things which they regret later) but this does not often evolve into full blown PA. PA occurs (in this context) when one or both parties (or indeed third parties) continue to actively manipulate the child(ren) into unwarranted rejection of the other party well beyond the reasonable time-frame of the breakdown. This is obviously where the question of intent (conscious or unconscious) enters the equation as parents who continue to actively alienate are doing so out of a personal need to exclude the other parent, without regard for the negative impact on their children and that is clearly detrimental to them and hence abuse. As noted in the existing definition the involvement of the legal process is often a significant contributor by heightening emotions, dragging out the process and focusing on unhelpful or inappropriate factors.

I hope this satisfactorily addresses the points you have raised? DrPax (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for a productive discussion with good comments, and DrPax, welcome to Wikipedia. We need thoughtful people like you and I hope that you will continue to contribute (e.g. this article needs sections on prevalence and prevention). I agree with Arllaw that the sentence about international conventions are better left to later in the article. We should of course use the established meaning of parental alienation as defined by dictionaries and encyclopedias. I like the current wording of the intro by Krb19 and I think it is in accordance with the four encyclopedic definitions that I found:


 * 1) The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology (Wiley): Parental alienation is a mental condition in which a child ... allies himself or herself strongly with one parent (the preferred parent) and rejects a relationship with the other parent (the alienated parent) without legitimate justification. Parental alienation usually comes about when the preferred parent indoctrinates the child to fear and hate the rejected or alienated parent.
 * 2) Duhaime's Law Dictionary: Parental Alienation Definition: A form of emotional child abuse where a custodial parent belittles or vilifies the other parent to the child.
 * 3) Encyclopedia of Social Work (Oxford University Press): Parental alienation is the concept that a parent might encourage his or her child to choose sides against, or estrange from, the other parent.
 * 4) Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science: Parental alienation [is] a child's rejection of an appropriate parent in the context of a high‐conflict divorce
 * I added two of these encyclopedic references to the intro, and also slightly rephrased the last sentence of the first paragraph. Martinogk (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Martinogk and thanks for you comments and feedback. I have added the additional references to the intro and made a minor edit to the wording of the second sentence. On reflection, and with all due respect to Krb19 I am concerned about the structure of the third and fourth sentences of the intro which currently read:


 * While the prototypical cause is a parent wishing to exclude another parent from the life of their child, especially where child custody is being disputed, in some cases other family members or friends, or involved professionals (psychologists, judges, lawyers) may contribute significantly to the process.[2][15][16] Parental alienation classically involves one parent manipulating a child into rejecting the other parent and it is distinct from parental estrangement due to child abuse or neglect by the estranged parent.

I tend to agree with Skythrops that the word "protoptypical" in the first sentence is somewhat more wordy that is strictly necessary. I'm also concerned that the specific link to child custody is somewhat limiting (and already described in the preceding sentence in any case) - PA can be utilised in any circumstance where one party seeks advantage over another and is certainly not limited to custody battles. I'm suggesting that we change the sentence as follows: It is commonly caused by a parent wishing to exclude another parent from the life of their child (though other family members or associates, as well as professionals involved with the family - including psychologists, lawyers and judges - may contribute significantly to the process)

I'm not sure that the second sentence adds much to the definition as it just repeats the first sentence of the definition and them attempts to define PA by something it isn't: parental estrangement due to abuse or neglect. It's worth noting as I previously did that much of the literature illustrates that, even in cases of extreme abuse, a child will generally still seek out a relationship with the abusive parent if supported/able to do so. As such I'm not sure you can accurately draw a connection between estrangement and parental abuse in the way this sentence attempts to do. In fact asserting this would imply that a child would be automatically estranged from a parent utilising them in a PA strategy (which is defined as abuse), instead the child often becomes enmeshed with the abusive parent in these circumstance! Also worth noting that estrangement is generally a result of physical separation for whatever reason. I'm going to suggest that we drop that sentence entirely.

Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear DrPax: Thank you again for thoughtful comments. I agree with you and Skythrops that the word "protoptypical" is not a prototypical word in an intro section, and I prefer your revised version of that sentence. Here is some further minor tweaking/condensing: It is commonly caused by one parent wishing to exclude the other parent from the life of their child, though other family members, psychologists, lawyers or judges may contribute to the process. Regarding the next sentence, you are right that the first part is redundant. The second part is critical. When defining a term in the intro, it is common and often useful to also state what it is not, and there is often confusion between parental alienation due to behavior of the alienating parent against a fit alienated parent, as defined by the encyclopedias above, versus parental estrangement due to the estranged parent having abused or neglected the child. It is of course true that abuse does not necessarily lead to estrangement, but parental estrangement that is caused by child abuse by the estranged parent is not a form of parental alienation. Here is a potential rewording of that sentence: Parental alienation is distinct from parental estrangement that is due to the estranged parent having abused or neglected the child.. Martinogk (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Martinogk, given the consensus around the first sentence I will update the intro accordingly. I am still concerned about the second sentence for the reason that it includes a common confusion between PA and estrangement. Estrangement occurs when a relationship between two parties (parent and child in this context) is lost. The cessation of contact between the parties is the process by which estrangement occurs. This process may be enforced (for example: appropriate removal due to abuse), unintentional/unavoidable (for example: separated refugee families or simply that parents live geographically apart and don't make the effort to keep in contact with the child) or intentional/malicious (for example: PA). The problem arises when we try to define PA as an end product rather than a process (refer back to the earlier discussion regarding the multiple ways that PA is defined - thanks Skythrops for the clear analysis on this). As noted in the final sentence of the intro PA can, and often does, result in estrangement (because one parent actively manipulates the child into resisting contact with the other parent). As such I think that saying Parental alienation is distinct from parental estrangement that is due to the estranged parent having abused or neglected the child. is actually incorrect (in drawing a parallel that doesn't exist) and introduces confusion as parental estrangement can arise from PA just as easily as it can from any other forms of abuse or neglect. At the very least the wording in this sentence refers to a very specific sub-set of the possible causes for parental estrangement (that are not directly related to the definition of PA in any case) and as such is not really appropriate in the intro - further analysis in subsequent sections (Parental alienation versus parental estrangement) is certainly worthwhile.

Again, I'm going to propose that we drop that sentence entirely, especially as the sentence that follows it in the intro makes the link between PA (the process) and estrangement (the outcome) anyway. Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: In updating the third sentence of the intro I change the grammatical flow to make it fit better with the previous sentences (too may "It is") and also broadened the range of parties to allow for subsequent categorisation between intentional contributions (parents and friends) vs inept (physiologists, lawyers and judges). Let me know if anyone sees a problem with this? DrPax (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi DrPax: You are correct that parental alienation result in estrangement, and if my wording suggested otherwise it has to be changed. The key thing is to distinguish between parental alienation, which is a term used to describe unwarranted and unjustified rejection, versus other types of parental estrangement, which is justified and warranted due to abuse or neglect by the rejected parent. I have tried to sort this out in the new PA vs PE section. Do you have a suggestion for how we can condense that into one sentence for the lead? It is such a critical and often misunderstood distinction. Martinogk (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Martinogk, great to see this discussion generating such good debate! :-) With respect I think the problem is that you are still trying to differentiate between two terms that are not directly related to each other: If you want a strictly true sentence you could say: Parental estrangement that is due to Parental Alienation is distinct from parental estrangement that is due to the estranged parent having abused or neglected the child. Whilst technically correct it seeks to define two types of Parental Estrangement (one due to PA and the other due to (non-PA?) abuse), which is pointless, as I think you would agree that PE is PE, irrespective of what causes it? Further to this and again with respect I'm not convinced that saying parental estrangement, which is justified and warranted due to abuse or neglect by the rejected parent is strictly correct either. There is some research that I've alluded to previously indicating that abused children generally do not reject an abusive parent, even in the face of extreme abuse a child will still seek out a relationship if the opportunity exists (there is a whole other area of study into the motivations for this behaviour and the impacts it has on long term health and well being which, whilst being fascinating/horrifying, is well outside the scope of this article!). PE often occurs in situations of abuse because the child is physically (and appropriately) removed from the abusive parent(s) but again it is not the abuse that directly causes the PE, it is the subsequent ceasing of any contact that leads to the PE. If having a sentence in this area is important then something like PA is one of several types of abuse that may lead to PE would be more accurate, but that is already stated in the current definition.

There is the added complexity that if we say that PA is abuse, and we have all agreed that is it, then looking at the sentence you have proposed: Parental alienation is distinct from parental estrangement that is due to the estranged parent having abused or neglected the child. we have a logical conundrum in as much as the alienating parent who is abusing the child (PA is abuse) should fall under the definition of the second half of the sentence (an abusive parent) and we would then expect that they should be the one who is ultimately estranged (because they have abused the child), yet we know it is the targeted parent who is estranged.

I'm sorry but I just can't see any way that this sentence adds to the definition. Happy to be dissuaded? DrPax (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I’ve no wish to dissuade you, DrPax; I think your arguments for deleting the recently added line in the opening paragraph are valid. The sentence is unreferenced and the first half of it is indeed a repeat of what’s said above. As for the second half, I think Martinogk is right to stress that we need to distinguish parental alienation (whereby the child bonds and/or stays with the psychologically abusive parent) from other forms of abuse (whereby the abuser becomes estranged), but this is best done in the section that Martinogk has already added to the body of the article; it’s too long and complicated an issue for the first paragraph, especially given differing understandings of the words ‘alienation’ and ‘estrangement’.

As a further point for that later paragraph, it’s unfortunate that many parental alienation academics have, as Martinogk suggests, increasingly gravitated towards defining alienation and estrangement in opposition (as being unwarranted and “legitimate” respectively). In doing so, they’ve created somewhat new, specific meanings for the terms (essentially turning the term ‘estrangement’, for instance, into a piece of jargon – a word with a meaning different from its popular usage). The popular usage of the term estrangement/estranged refers to a state of being and is silent as to the process by which it was attained. The estrangement literature refers, by the way, to other examples of third-party estrangement (in addition to parental alienation) whereby two people become estranged due not to interactions between themselves, but to actions by others. Skythrops (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried but obviously failed to clearly express the distinction in a single sentence. It is better not to include something than include something that is unclear, and as long as we have the "PA vs PE" section I think we are fine. I certainly agree that some of the terminology is unfortunate. It also makes it a challange for us as Wikipedia editors as we try to help the readers to understand the terminology as it it most commonly used. There is a similar issue with PA vs PAS that one of us will have to tackle down the road. Martinogk (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Martinogk and Skythrops for your thoughts and feedback, I think we agree that this topic requires further exploration and that the "PA vs PE" sections is the vehicle for that. I'll create a new talk section to begin that dialogue and I'll remove the sentence in question from the intro in the meantime. DrPax (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Article structure
I think that the organisation of this article could be improved significantly. For instance:

i) The sections “other approaches” and “symptoms” etc. should not logically come under “Developments since 2010”;

ii) There also appears to be undue focus (greater length, main titles) on the history of the term (including what is called an “overview”), at the expense of explaining more what the phenomenon actually is; and

iii) The section “symptoms” does not appear to be about symptoms, which should be what a person feels/reports - as distinct from what others observe.

I’ve taken the liberty of proposing what I believe to be a better structure for the article and would be happy to provide additional text and references wherever necessary, if appropriate.

Contents

1	(Academic) Background [To include origin of term, history, “overview”, “professional acceptance” & “developments 	since 2010”]

2	How and why it occurs [To include current “false narrative”, “cause” and “mechanism”]

3	Signs and symptoms [To include distinctiveness, “loss of attachment” etc.]

4	Identifiability [To include current “Differentiation”, distinctively different behaviour of children exposed to 	genuine abuse, etc.]

5	Consequences [The effects of parental alienation on children, parents, families and society as a whole]

6	Treatment & Remedies [Summary of the evidence & research on treatment options and remedies, incl. current 	“Implications”]

7	Related concepts [Current “See also”]

8	References

9	Further reading

10	External links

Skythrops (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As Martinogk has begun improving the old structure in line with Wikipedia guidelines, I’d like to add some suggestions about overall structure. (With one or more major publications on this subject due out this year, I think much of the actual rewrite may be best done after these are available. It’s laudable Martinogk that you’re starting to make revisions to the existing text, but most of it surely needs complete rewrites rather than corrections, no?)

I agree that it’s a good idea to put History further back in the article to conform to Wikipedia protocols and focus on the actual phenomenon rather than its history. However, I think we may still need a bit of a broader introduction to put parental alienation into perspective before launching into signs/causes/treatment etc. (and before we start discussing the subtleties of alienation vs estrangement etc.) This is especially important because, unlike other diseases/conditions for which the Wikipedia structure has been suggested, the term parental alienation is used in several distinct ways (albeit all part of the same phenomenon). We need to be clear about this from the start to be inclusive and representative of the literature and to avoid confusion. I’d therefore propose including something similar to one of the paragraphs in my previous post in such an introduction (see below).

More broadly, would something like this structure be OK? … (Classification is up-front in Wikipedia’s style-guide, but could be later if preferred.)

I also think the section on parental alienation syndrome should be removed (though it would be referred to in the introduction/history).

1.	Introduction

2.	Classification: where parental alienation fits in (today)

2.1.	In law (international definitions of psychological abuse, family violence etc.; offences/crimes (Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.); international Conventions (human rights, Rights of the Child etc.))

2.2.	In psychology (brief review of latest research, DSM-V, ICD-11 etc.)

2.3.	Relative to other concepts: alienation & estrangement

3.	Causes & Prevalence

4.	Impact/Consequences [The effects of parental alienation on children, parents, families and society as a whole]

5.	Signs & diagnosis

- Presentation of child victims - Presentation of adult victims - Presentation/characteristics of perpetrators - Diagnosis

6.	Prevention

7.	Treatment

8.	Outcomes

9.	History

Advances in social science & understanding, historical figures, and outdated perspectives; social perceptions, cultural history, stigma, awareness

10.	Legal & court treatment

11.	Related concepts [Current “See also”]

12.	References

13.	Further reading

14.	External links

Skythrops (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia conventions
BTW, does Wikipedia express a view regarding the number of citations for a particular phrase? Should we stick to the best four references as a maximum or, in the absence of summary paper or meta-analysis, is it OK to have six or more?! Skythrops (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent question Skythrops. Here is a response as well as some other conventions:


 * 1) One or two citations is preferable and usually sufficient for each piece of information. If a paragraph makes several points based on different sources, the total number of citations in one paragraph can be more and as many as needed. It is then best to use inline citations after each sentence or group of sentences, rather than putting them all at the end of the paragraph.
 * 2) The lead section does not have to have any citations at all. There can be a few but there should not be a lot. The lead section should clearly define the topic and provide a brief summary of what is in the rest of the article. Hence, subsequent sections is the source of the lead section, and it is enough to provide the references in those subsequent sections where the matter is more thoroughly described. When there is potential confusion about the terminology, I may include references to dictionaries and encyclopedias in the lead section, but not much more.
 * 3) On the talk page, it is custom to put ":" before the text when responding, to put "::" before the response to a response, to put ":::" before the third response, to put "::::" before the fourth response and so on. When reaching ":::::::", or something like that, one can start over from the beginning.
 * 4) The lead paragraph is the introduction and background, and there should not be a separate Introduction or Background section. The lead is normally one or two paragraphs, but seldom more than that. In this article, we now have an excellent lead paragraph thanks to both of your efforts. It defines the topic and briefly describes the characteristics, causes and outcome/prognosis. That is good enough, but if we want, we can add a second paragraph to the lead, with one sentence each on e.g. history, prevalence and prevention. What is now in the "Introduction" should be in the "History" section.
 * 5) It is good to follow the Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles structure, although it is not always 100 percent possisble. After the lead, it is logical that the description of the disease/disorder comes first in the characteristics section, as that is what most people need to know before they read the other parts, but people can of course read the sections in any order using the automatically generated Contents list.
 * 6) One does not have to write the article in the order that it is structured. I never do.
 * Hope this helps. Martinogk (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Martinogk for your comments on conventions. I’m adding a response to part of this in the most relevant section(s) below. Skythrops (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

History/Background/Introduction
Thanks Martinogk for starting to restructure/retitle the rest of the article. This, I believe, needs much more work than the opening paragraph.

Starting with “History” (or what I termed “Background” in my proposed restructure, above), the current text is not good. I’d propose deleting the current paragraph (multiple reasons - inaccuracy, inconsistency etc.) and starting instead with something along the following lines (with references to be added):

The term ‘parental alienation’ is derived from ‘parental alienation syndrome’, a term coined by Gardner in the early 1980s to describe a distinctive suite of behaviors, which he'd observed consistently in children exposed to family separation or divorce, whereby the children rejected and showed unwarranted feelings towards one of their parents and/or other family members.[ref] Given some objections to the use or medical validity of the term ‘syndrome’,[ref] as well as more ideological objections to the entire concept,[ref] academics in the 1990s increasingly began using the truncated form, [ref] some in a manner synonymous with the original formulation of parental alienation syndrome (namely, the signs observable in child victims),[ref] others to describe the process or tactics by which this occurs, [ref] and yet others to describe the outcomes for parents and others who had become victims of unwarranted rejection. [ref]

The phenomenon itself, however, has a much longer history. The idea that children may be turned against one of their parents, or may reject a parent unjustifiably during family breakdown, has been recognised for centuries and can be found, for instance, in literary references from Ancient Greece,[ref] 18th century English literature [ref] and 19th and 20th century court proceedings.[ref] One of the first, identified uses of the term alienation itself in this context, or at least a German equivalent to it, is in the private correspondence of Albert Einstein.

TBC Skythrops (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This is good Skythrops. Given the predominately legal context that PA is defined within it might be worthwhile adding a paragraph discussing the historical development in that domain. I am lead to believe that there are legal cases going back a century or more in Europe over custody which show distinct aspects of PA. I believe that Demosthenes Lorandos (https://www.joshiattorneys.com/About/Demosthenes-Lorandos.shtml) is publishing a book later this year which I imagine will be an excellent resource here. DrPax (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Skythrops: Great that you are planning to revise and expand the history section. It is needed! Your proposed paragraph is a good start, and I like that you plan to include the history from before the term was coined. Looking forward to read what you write. As the history section expands, it should be relocated to later in the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes. I will do that. Martinogk (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Further to the above conversations in this and other sections, I’m adding some of the above as a necessary introduction. There are so many possible/relevant references that any input as to what you think are the most relevant would be welcome. (I’ll await further, new references from forthcoming publications before rewriting the History section, though the current paragraph should probably be deleted in the meantime). Skythrops (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope I've done justice to Martinogk's reasonable desire for a reference to 'legitimate' vs unwarranted estrangement early in the piece. I think it's important to phrase this in a way understandable to those with no up-front knowledge of parental alienation. More refs/links to follow (though others welcome to add them, of course). Skythrops (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Further to comments above, perhaps DrPax might like to reduce the number of references in the opening paragraph a bit by choosing the strongest references for the article lead? It would be good not to lose any relevant citations so perhaps they could be included in a few extra sentences in the body of the article first?


 * Martinogk's points regarding lead, introduction and background present a slight dilemma. Personally, I think a one-paragraph lead is best (as at present); anything longer can detract from the key points. However, this leaves us with the problem that if we then structure the article according to the conventions cited (designed for a single medical condition, for instance), we miss out on explaining the different usages of the term parental alienation (and we would also miss out on discussing alienation vs estrangement as Martinogk wishes to do).


 * If we don’t do this up-front, then it will be potentially confusing for those who come to this article using the term in different ways (as you can already see is the case in the current text, with different authors/editors). I think we do need some sort of short section like this, whatever its title, especially before launching into rather technical issues like alienation vs estrangement.


 * Regarding DrPax's additional suggestions, maybe such details could indeed be gone into in more detail in the body of the article? Skythrops (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To consider our need for an introduction beyond the lead paragraph/definition, I looked up three other Wikipedia definitions at random. For the ubiquitous “Tree”, for instance, the definition/lead is followed by a further Definition as well as an Overview. Our Introduction is, in some ways, also equivalent to the first heading in “Elephant”, namely Etymology, in discussing up-front the origin of the term and relationship with other words and usages.


 * So, even commonly understood words (which parental alienation is certainly not) have a further introductory explanation beyond the opening lead/definition. Similarly, the editors of a more closely related subject like “Disease”, see the need to discuss Terminology in some depth before the conventional titles of Causes, Prevention, Treatment etc.


 * I think, then, we’re in good company in having (and it’s essential to have) an ‘Introduction’. It was called ‘Overview’ (with different text) until recently (which is another possibility), and could, alternatively, be called Background or Usage, among other things.


 * My proposal above (in the long-standing Article Structure section above) to add Classification after the Introduction might also/then enable an up-front exploration of how parental alienation is viewed, or classified, in Law (e.g. as a crime in some countries, as psychological abuse in other legal definitions, without going into too much details better suited to (Legal) History later on); in Psychology (e.g. in recent papers and medical/psychological manuals); and by parental alienation academics (for instance, as being distinct from estrangement - somewhat contrary to popular usage). This section could, of course, be later if Characteristics are prioritised, as suggested above. Skythrops (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

And they were such good references too, but you are probably right Skythrops, eight references might be considered belabouring the point!! :-) I'll take out the least relevant ones! DrPax (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Parental alienation versus parental estrangement
Place holder for further discussion on this topic, original discussion started in Correcting the Opening Paragraph. DrPax (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, DrPax. Though worth discussing, I don't think this warrants a section of its own in the main article - not by comparison with the major headings (causes, treatment, outcomes etc.) that Martinogk has otherwise proposed. I'd suggest it should be discussed under a title like Terminology or, as I've proposed above (in Article Structure) under Classification. It's already referred to in the Introduction too.


 * As suggested elsewhere, I also think PA academics are using the word 'estrangement' in an atypical way so, while we should report on their specific usage (which is to oppose it to alienation), we also need to put this in context of its usual usage and the typical reader's interpretation.


 * Also, the current text seeks to distinguish 'legitimate' from 'unjustified' rejection of parents by children, as does some specifically-PA literature. A better way of discussing how PA fits in is probably to show that parental alienation is actually just like other forms of abuse insofar as evidence shows that abused children - quite counter-intuitively - tend to bond with, not reject, their abusers. What distinguishes PA from other forms of abuse is that this bonding with the abuser is accompanied by an extreme rejection of perceived 'enemies' of the abuser (not unlike how cult victims or Stockholm syndrome survivors may reject those who threaten the cult leader or hostage taker with whom they've developed a dependent relationship).


 * I'll leave time for discussion, and differing opinions, before making such changes. Skythrops (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Up to date information by unbiased scientifics
I just came across this information here : http://learningtoendabuse.ca/WHO.22April-1.pdf and I think it is well-worthing reading. Plus, it also refers to many many recent studies in the field, just what you need when you're looking for good quality references to contribute to an article. Best regards, --Braveheidi (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC) (writing mostly on the French Wikipedia)