Talk:Parental alienation/Archive 8

Ireland section
Note: If you are looking for your previous posts, I have moved them to the bottom of this section as that is where we typically put them on WP--Slp1 (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

. Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. It is a bit unfortunate that you have started contributing here in the middle of a difficult time for this article: there has not been much time or energy to devote to your edits and explaining why some of them are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I am going to go through your edit and point out some of the problems. Do not worry about this: we all had a steep learning curve when we started here. This place actually has a lot of rules and policies, and it definitely takes time to learn them.
 * Presently Ireland does not yet recognise or have legislation on Parental Alienation but this is very likely to change. This sentence does not have a reliable source and seems possibly to be an opinion or a hope; we are not allowed to include this kind of unsourced commentary per WP's policies  no original research and verifiability.
 * Judge Mary Larkin in a case where an access court order was broken 26 times over 2 months described the case as one of  "parental alienation". You have an excellent source here   (great!). One problem is that the article says "the  solicitor for the father, Frank Doherty, stated on Thursday that his client will have been denied access to his son 26 times during April and May".  It does not say that the access order was broken 26 times, only that that was what the father's lawyer claimed. It seems like the mother had a different view about what was going on.   We have to be very, very careful to summarize accurately what the text says.  Personally, I actually think that this detail about the visits is  not important.  What is interesting is that it seems to be the first time "parental alienation" was recorded by a judge in Ireland.
 * As a result of an alienated parent-led campaign by Alienated Children First (formerly Alienated Parent Support) between  2018 to 2021, 30 out of 31 Irish Councils (97%) passed motions across party lines calling upon the Irish Government to recognise and address parental alienation.  The only source given here is to a youtube video.|url-status=live of  radio interview with a city councillor. This is a primary source: it is not the sort of source that we want: we need  reliable, independent, published, secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  The other thing is that having listened to the interview, Councillor Fahy says that actually only 29 Councils have passed the motion (he was hoping that Galway City would do it soon).  As mentioned above it is very important to precisely and accurately summarize the source, as misrepresenting sources like that is a big no-no.
 * In 2020 over 30 parliamentary questions relating to parental alienation have been asked by members of parliament across party lines from Sinn Fein, Fianna Fail, Green, Social Democrats and Independents TDs about this issue. This sourced to a search on a website.|url-status=live}. This is a clear example of original research .  Please read WP:NOR for more information. We need a secondary source (a newspaper, a magazine, a book) making this claim for the material to be included.
 * The Minister of Justice Helen McEntee in an interview on East Coast FM spoke about how the Irish Government intends to research, consult publicly and support the victims of parental alienation more effectively. This is sourced to another youtube video of a radio interview. This is another primary source, but might be usable for her opinion as she is a notable person, but I don't think this accurately summarizes her comments in the interview.  For example, she does not mention consulting publicly, as far as I could hear.
 * The Irish Department Department of Justice has stated that it plans to research into the approaches to parental alienation taken by other jurisdictions and also consult on it as shown in their Justice Plan 2021 "Undertake research into the approaches to parental alienation taken by other jurisdictions including public consultations". There is no source given here.
 * Recently an example of how the Irish News media have covered Parental Alienation at the Irish Examiner. This is a good secondary source that could/should be used for more than "giving an example".
 * Also in 2020 two Councils in Northern Ireland have passed motions to recognise parental alienation as a form of domestic abuse. - there is no source for this.


 * It has taken me almost an hour to write this, so I hope it is helpful, Polandersondonegal!  I am going to remove your edits for now, until we can solve the problem with the sourcing, verifiability and original research. I will try to help.  Please don't restore them without discussion, as you have been doing, as WP:EDITWARRING is also not allowed here!!  Slp1 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * One more thing that has just occurred to me. The radio interviews on youtube  are probably copyright violations: they are posted by a Paul Anderson on behalf of Alienated Children First, with no indication that they have consent to repost these interviews from the radio stations concerned. Based on the name, I am guessing that Paul Anderson and User: Polandersondonegal might be one and the same.  Can you clarify, Polandersondonegal?  Did you have permission to post these interviews on youtube?  We can't link to copyright violations here, per WP:COPYVIOEL, so I will remove that source until this has been clarified. Slp1 (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note also that in order to try to help make clear why certain changes were made, and the Wikipedia policies that apply, I have tried to leave editor notes to document both the reasons for the changes and to link to policies. If you look at editor notes, something that may not initially make sense may become a lot more clear. As Slp1 indicates, it takes a lot of time and effort to do this clean-up, more so when verification involves trying to dig nuggets out of videos, so please participate in a discussion here. Also, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are separately governed and have separate court systems, so discussion of laws and legal issues should not be combined. Arllaw (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(Moved from top of section)
Is this where I reply to regards edits on Wiki? @polandersondonegal who is lost here ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by polandersondonegal (talk • contribs) 10:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. You may benefit from reviewing this guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arllaw (talk • contribs) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , if you have thoughts about the Republic of Ireland information, please stop by to share them. Arllaw (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , please take the time to read the comments on this page, and to become familiar with the wikipedia's policies for article content. You appear to be enthusiastic about presenting a particular spin on events in Ireland but, as understandable as that may be, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Arllaw (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain where the "Spin" is when the Parental situation outlined in the Ireland section is cited; as I have been advised to do? Nothing is made up and it is outlining a successful campaign and new irish government policy on the subject? Polandersondonegal (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to try to convince people that you're a dispassionate observer of events on Ireland, you should look for a different audience. Please read through the extensive notes that people have provided, trying to guide you through the process of contributing to this article, along with the various referenced articles. If after that you don't understand reliable sourcing, or the policies against editorializing and original research, please feel free to ask some follow-up questions. Arllaw (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please also note the questions about your conflict of interest, posed above by Slp1. You used a press release from the organization, Alienated Children First, as a reference in your recent changes to the article, and identified an "author" of the article whose name does not appear on the press release as published. This reinforces Slp1's inference that you are affiliated with Alienated Children First. Please review WP:COI. Arllaw (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * please do not inappropriately delete references from the article. When a claim that you hope to make cannot be supported by a reference, the solution is to find additional references, not to delete the existing reference and leave claims wholly unsupported.


 * Also, please take note of the prior discussion of the use of YouTube videos, including comments on original research, as well as the issues of conflict of interest created by your reliance upon videos created by the organization with which you are by all appearances affiliated. When you do add content and references, please make sure that the content that you add to the article is actually supported by the reference that you provide.


 * Please engage in discussion here, so we can help you better understand Wikipedia policies, rather than disregarding the work and input of other editors. Please take note of Slp1's warning about WP:EDITWARRING above. Arllaw (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Arllaw has deleted citation to a Youtube video that has an Irish Government TD who is vice chairperson of the joint governemnt party and their spokesperson for equality as well as a Barrister where she is detailing that the Parental Alienation parent led campaign motion to recognise and address Parental Alienation has been passed by 30 councils and that she is to hand it over to the minister of justice what more evidence do you want? I quoted the Governemnt's Justice Plan 2021 at http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Department_of_Justice_Action_Plan_2021.pdf/Files/Department_of_Justice_Action_Plan_2021.pdf " Undertake research into the approaches to parental alienation taken by other jurisdictions including public consultations Q3(Autumn) Civil Justice – Policy Research and Data Analytics and you deleted both? They are not inappropriate. Plus Parental Alienation is mentioned all the time in Family Courts but is not publicy mentioned due to the "in camera law" that censors mention of these cases. The Judge lifted that rule in this case a first ever in Irish Law for Parental Alienation. What is inappropriate please? ArllawIs that OBJECTIVE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polandersondonegal (talk • contribs) 13:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Polanderson, please review this document on talk pages, as it is helpful if you follow its protocols in order to maintain the flow of a talk page conversation.


 * You repeatedly ignore questions about your possible conflict of interest, which creates the impression that you in fact have a serious conflict of interest. If the inference that you have created is misleading, please clarify. Please review the conflict of interest guidelines, which have previously been shared with you.


 * The use of YouTube videos and original research has been discussed in a number of prior comments on this page. Issues of possible self-promotion aside, you need to make sure that content that you add to the article is actually supported by the reference that you add has also been noted in comments, and that issue is compounded when you remove existing, superior references from an article. As has previously been suggested, please review the guidelines about reliable sources, and the additional standards applicable to law-related content. Also, additions to an article based upon speculation about what may have happened in other confidential court proceedings is not appropriate. Arllaw (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * you have been repeatedly offered guidance about editing, repeatedly directed to Wikipedia policies, and repeatedly invited to discuss your proposed changes here on the talk page. As editors have reminded you on several occasions, Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. If you refer to the documents that have been provided to you, you will see that your edits should be supported by secondary and tertiary sources, not primary sources such as case law.


 * When you disregard Wikipedia policies and decline repeated invitations to discuss edits and ask questions about policies, you end up creating needless frustration for yourself and unnecessary clean-up work for other editors. Please take advantage of the talk page in relation to proposed future edits. Also, please clarify your conflict of interest. Thank you. Arllaw (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your latest edit for the following reasons:
 * you included some material sourced to |the legal aid board. The webpage does not mention Parental Alienation, and is an obvious attempt at original research.
 * you included some material sourced to a judgement at court . This is a primary source. Court decisions can be overturned. We need to use secondary sources on Wikipedia, as I have explained above.
 * you cited a material to a youtube video posted to an account called PARENTAL ALIENATION COUNCIL CAMPAIGN .  This kind of youtube sourcing is a very questionable source for an encyclopdia as discussed above. If it is an important pronouncement, then secondary sources such as newspapers and magazines will have picked it up.
 * you added material that is apparently unsourced. "have asked the government to recognise and address parental alienation and the roll of all 30 councils supporting the motions is soon be presented to the minister of Justice Helen McEntee by her party spokesperson on Equality and vice Chairperson Jennifer Carroll McNeill"
 * I realize that you are new here, Paul, so while we are willing to help to start with, at a certain point you need to integrate what we are trying to teach you. Please use high quality secondary sources, start responding and discussing your edits here on the talkpage and  stop edit warring. Slp1 (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Sip1 You do have to realise that the media legal & NGOs do not generally cover Parental Alienation as it is not in their best interests! Even though it is a massive child abuse and coercive control issue here as proven by the 30 Irish Councils with 100s of Councillors cross party male and female mostly unanimously voting to recognise and address Parental Alienation. Last year 16 TDs asked the Government about Parental Alienation and neither Questions or motions were covered by Mainstream Media? So what you are implying is that if media and the establishment do not mention or cover an issue or developments that they are not happening and cannot be entered here even though the present wiki article is giving a un informed view of reality? Polandersondonegal Polandersondonegal (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Re my changes - you included some material sourced to legal aid board. The webpage does not mention Parental Alienation, and is an obvious attempt at original research. There is many mentions of Parental Alienation on Courts.ie documented here https://www.courts.ie/search/results/publications/parental%20alienation
 * the point of including this in the article was that 2 Court psychologists agreed that Parental Alienation wasat play.
 * you cited a material to a youtube video posted to an account called PARENTAL ALIENATION COUNCIL CAMPAIGN [11]. This kind of youtube sourcing is a very questionable source for an encyclopdia as discussed above. If it is an important pronouncement, then secondary sources such as newspapers and magazines will have picked it up.
 * The Account is Kenn Joyce not as stated above as that is the name of the Video
 * The TD who pronounced it is a Government Party Member - Equality Spokesperson and Vice Chairperson of Fine Gael (and the Justice Committee) who are running Ireland in Coalition at present. So the Youtube Channel source has made this video up? Do you wish for me to ask the TD concerned to contact you about this?
 * you added material that is apparently unsourced. "have asked the government to recognise and address parental alienation and the roll of all 30 councils supporting the motions
 * This is included in the TD Jennifer Carroll McNeill youtube video as transcribed here "glad today to be able to accept the petition from 30 of our local authorities 30 of our of our council city and county councils"
 * This comment was off the record so you are correct there ..."is soon be presented to the minister of Justice Helen McEntee by her party spokesperson on Equality and vice Chairperson Jennifer Carroll McNeill" " Polandersondonegal (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul. Thanks for engaging here. The answer to the last question in your first paragraph (So what you are implying is that if media and the establishment do not mention or cover an issue or developments that they are not happening and cannot be entered here even though the present wiki article is giving a un informed view of reality? ) is “Yes”. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where we summarize material published by reliable independent sources. If no attention has been paid to a subject in such sources then WP will not cover it either.WP:V We do not allow editors to put together “facts” to make a new argument. WP:NOR. Although this may sound strange and annoying this is because otherwise the encyclopedia is at the mercy of editors who wish to push a particular point of view. Our articles need to be about what the best experts - published in sources with a reputation for fact checking- say about the topic. The door is not open to random editors to write what they want, to include points and conclusions that are not made in those reliable secondary sources. I am sure you can see the importance of this if you consider articles like Cold fusion or 9/11. It is also important here as it protects the article from being a overrun with edits and editing from editors who want to push a particular point of view.... here it could be either for and against the existence of Parental Alienation. Like it or not WP is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
 * Thank you for your explanations. I am not going to reply in detail because I think you first need to understand a bit better the policies and guidelines here. There are lots linked in this discussion. Once you read those you might understand better where Arlaw and I are coming from. And that we are not disagreeing with your edits from spite or because we are biased (as you have implied).  But I will say one thing! Yes, in my 15 years editing on WP I actually have seen someone try to use a highly edited YouTube video as a source for something they very badly wanted to include on WP! I am sure that is not a problem with your video, but how do we really know! That’s why our policies and rules exist. Slp1 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Enforcement of Contact
Every nation that has laws that allow for court-ordered child visitation has a mechanism for the review of possible violations of court orders, and for enforcement of court orders. The U.S. has a separate system for review and enforcement in each state.

The subject of which is the theory of parental alienation, not the general enforcement of child support orders. There may well be room for such an exposition in another article or in a new article, but to the extent that enforcement mechanisms are brought into this article I think that they should be directly relevant to the subject of the article, as with the information provided about Brazil and Mexico City, not laws of general applicability.

Also, it remains crucial that when an article or other material is cited as a reference, its use accurately represents the content of the article. I do not see any substantiation of the points made about Israel in the ISFL world conference book article. Some of the claims made appear to overstate the content in both of the referenced articles by Philip Marcus. Have I overlooked something? Arllaw (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Going through the issues with the addition, I find a broad failure of verification in relation to the International Society of Family Law article. To the extent that anybody disagrees, I would appreciate the provision of quotes or at least page references. Failing that, as it is already presented as redundant, I would suggest removing it as a reference based upon failed verification.
 * For the assertions within the article,
 * "The courts and social services are aware of the phenomenon of contact failure, which may occur for various reasons, including parental interference with contact between the child and the other parent and his family, which, when it happens for no reason connected with the welfare of the child, is a form of child psychological abuse. They are also aware that a parent may falsely allege physical, sexual or psychological abuse of the child by the other parent."
 * "The courts and social services are aware of the phenomenon of contact failure, which may occur for various reasons, including parental interference with contact between the child and the other parent and his family, which, when it happens for no reason connected with the welfare of the child, is a form of child psychological abuse. They are also aware that a parent may falsely allege physical, sexual or psychological abuse of the child by the other parent."


 * That passage raises both issues of failed verification and relevance. As previously indicated, all courts that issue orders governing child visitation are aware of issues of contact failure, and all have mechanisms to respond to contact failure. As previously stated, I do not see a benefit in including that sort of general content in this article.
 * The passage added to the article also contends, "They are also aware that a parent may falsely allege physical, sexual or psychological abuse of the child by the other parent." What I am instead finding is advocacy by the referenced author,
 * "Although child maltreatment always existed, it was only a few years ago that the need was recognized for educational programs and procedures to identify physical and sexual abuse of children; the time has come to apply the lessons learned from such efforts to the emotional maltreatment of children by PA."
 * "Although child maltreatment always existed, it was only a few years ago that the need was recognized for educational programs and procedures to identify physical and sexual abuse of children; the time has come to apply the lessons learned from such efforts to the emotional maltreatment of children by PA."


 * That advocacy, however justified, undermines the claim that the author is asserting that the courts and social services already agree with him. Similarly,
 * "This leads to the conclusion that court proceedings, where alienation or abuse or violence is alleged, must be swift and effective."


 * This passage from our article,
 * "In the light of the potential for serious damage to the child when parental alienation exists, and the need to identify it at the earliest possible stage if the child's reluctance to have contact or refusal of contact is caused by alienation or is justified..."


 * seems like the interposition of editor opinion. The material in the article that describes the general mechanism for enforcement of child contact orders neither emphasizes parental alienation as the leading issue. To the contrary, the article suggests that it has not been historically viewed differently from other causes of non-contact.
 * "...the courts are required to hold a first hearing in the presence of the parents within 14 days of the filing of an application alleging abuse of any kind, including interference with contact."


 * This assertion may be true, as may the subsequent claims about guardians ad litem and hearings before the same judge, but I don't see anything in either article about the timing of the process. Where can the substantiation be found? The closest material appears to be in reference to a Tel Aviv pilot scheme, generally applied to all cases that raise custody and contact issues,

"Regardless of the main petition which may be for custody, visitation, or other matters relating to a child, the judge fixes a hearing, usually within 14 days of the filing of the application for contact, which both parents must attend, and refers the case to the court social services unit for an initial assessment. If it appears necessary, the court may also appoint counsel for the child."


 * The article contradicts the assertion that Israel generally imposes such a time table, and argues that the traditional approach takes many months to complete. The article also describes the Central District initiative, which follows a different time table from either the (slow) traditional approach or the Tel Aviv model. Outside of these pilot models, the author describes a slow process:
 * "The “traditional” way of handling such proceedings was no different from any other civil case: the filing of a statement of claim, and then of a defense within 30 or 45 days of service of proceedings on the defendant.... After that, the court will fix a pre-trial hearing, where any procedural application will be heard; a report may be requested of the local authority social services, which may take many months to arrive.... It is only then that a trial is fixed, which may be several more months in the future."


 * Unless reliable sources are provided to establish both relevance and accuracy, I suggest removing assertions about general remedies based upon lack of relevance and the remaining contentions based upon verification failure.
 * I am approaching these changes as good faith changes, but at the same time I will reiterate a point that I have made in the past: When editors add poorly sourced content or content that is not supported by the referenced sources, it creates a lot of work for other editors who have to come in, try to clean up any errors and inaccuracies, and justify reversions. It is far better that changes be proposed here on the talk page, where problems can be identified in advance, than their being made live with the resultant imposition (intended or not) on other editors to again clean up the article. Bold reversions raise issues of their own, but I would rather have a cluttered talk page than an inaccurate article. Arllaw (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am approaching these changes as good faith changes, but at the same time I will reiterate a point that I have made in the past: When editors add poorly sourced content or content that is not supported by the referenced sources, it creates a lot of work for other editors who have to come in, try to clean up any errors and inaccuracies, and justify reversions. It is far better that changes be proposed here on the talk page, where problems can be identified in advance, than their being made live with the resultant imposition (intended or not) on other editors to again clean up the article. Bold reversions raise issues of their own, but I would rather have a cluttered talk page than an inaccurate article. Arllaw (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This discussion started three days ago, and I added extensive detail yesterday in the hope of generating a response or discussion. That may be unnecessary if the silence results from agreement, but if there is disagreement or if there is something in the referenced materials that I overlooked it would be helpful to promptly share your views or information. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A particularly problematic aspect of the use of parental alienation concepts
Hi, I am concerned about how an addition to this article that I made was twisted around in a manner that takes away from being an objective encyclopedia article and turns it into a platform for advancing an opinion. On June 7th, I added the following comment to the end of the legal section:

Joan Meier's research on this potential issue claims to confirm that this is a prevalent problem in US courts, but other research disputes her research techniques and conclusions. This followed the paragraph that states:

A particularly problematic aspect of the use of parental alienation concepts in child custody decisions is the possible association of allegations of alienating behavior by the preferred parent with allegations of domestic violence by the nonpreferred parent. The intention of my edition was twofold. First, it provided the most updated research to this claim. Second, it provided updated information that there exists research that not only disagrees with Meier's conclusions, but also disputes the validity of her research model. This is an accurate depiction of each research without taking sides in the issue.

My sources were accepted in the latest change, but moved to the end of the USA section. They were also changed to read as follows:

''An examination of parental alienation U.S. custody decisions, based upon a review of appellate cases, found that courts are significantly more skeptical of child physical and sexual abuse allegations made by mothers as compared to similar claims made by fathers, rendering parental alienation a powerful defense for fathers accused of abuse but not for mothers. A subsequent, smaller study disputed that conclusion.''

This change of location and wording subtly adds a bias to the article in several ways. First, the aforementioned paragraph that I originally added the comment to refereed to A particularly problematic aspect. This itself is a biased comment that should be removed. It presents this as an undisputed fact whereas it is in fact a controversial statement. This article constantly labels claims of those who promote parental alienation theory as "controversial" whereas claims of its critics are stated as facts with adjectives such as "problematic" to increase the impact on the reader. My comments put that paragraph into a more balanced perspective. I did not reword the original paragraph even though it needs revision to make it more unbiased. Instead, I added one sentence to the end which both enhanced the paragraph's claim with a strong reference and also provided a strong reference source that this claim is also controversial. The change of location left the original paragraph in its original biased form that presents a controversial statement as fact.

The changes that were made to my added sentence are misleading and also add bias to the article. First, an examination of parental alienation U.S. custody decisions, based upon a review of appellate cases, found that courts are significantly more skeptical of child physical and sexual abuse allegations made by mothers as compared to similar claims made by fathers, rendering parental alienation a powerful defense for fathers accused of abuse but not for mothers suggests that this is a definitive fact as opposed to the results of one study. Second, A subsequent, smaller study disputed that conclusion is misleading. Why was the words "smaller study" added? This suggests an inferiority to the first study. The uninformed reader will not be aware that this "smaller study" had a huge amount of cases and was published in a prestigious peer reviewed journal. Also, this study not only disagreed with Meier's conclusions, but challenged her whole research as flawed in design. It is irrelevant if a Wiki writer personally supports one study over the other, the point is that an accurate description of the topic should be presented to the public without subtly manipulating the reader's opinion.

Therefore, I respectfully request that my original text be returned as I wrote it and in the location that I wrote it. I realize that a lot of work has gone into this article and the content reflects considerable research. However, I humbly suggest that it be reviewed to change the many subtle biases that it projects on the topic in order to present a truly unbiased overview of this complex topic. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Devoted Parent (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The edits are all explained in the notes. Representation of the studies is accurate. Arllaw (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, the notes explain nothing. Please quote in the talk page what explanation you are referring to. Likewise, an explanation of your position would be appreciated as opposed to a terse Representation of the studies is accurate. While it is true that one study was smaller, this is not relevant to this article since it in no ways affects the study's significance nor does it make it inferior to the other study. Why then did you put "smaller study" in? What is significant is that the second study didn't only dispute a conclusion, but found significant research errors and methodical flaws. Again, these is not the forum for voting on which study is more accurate, but you report it the opposite of what is actually true. You build up one study and subtly diminish the other's value. You have not responded to this and the readers and writers of this article deserve an explanation. Devoted Parent (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Walls of text do not make for constructive discussion. Quite the opposite. If you actually do not understand an edit or note, try asking a clear and concise question. That is the best way to facilitate discussion and to get an explanation.


 * If you do not care for the fact that the second study was significantly smaller, it nonetheless remains a fact. It is my personal opinion that any study that tries to extrapolate this type of information from appellate cases is predicated upon a significant misapprehension of how appellate cases are decided, how representative they are of trial court cases, and what information can reasonably be derived from them. But that's my opinion, not a fact, so it's not in the article. Arllaw (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

If you carefully look at your link to walls of text, my comments do not fit the description. They were to the point. Stop throwing around wiki terms flippantly and address the issues. You are a stickler when anyone else deviates an iota from protocol, yet you claim free reign for yourself. The size of the study, albeit it true, is not relevant from a statical research view nor for the topic of this article. If it were a one time slip, so be it; but it is just one of many subtle comments that are intneded to sway the tone of the article. This is not in line with wiki guidelines. Let's hear some other people speak up on the topicDevoted Parent (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If you want to participate in constructive discussion, I suggest that you read the guidance provided. I get your perspective. I remain uninterested in arguing with you. If you want to improve the article, find reliable sources that support the content that you want to add, and edit the article. Arllaw (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Israel section
The article references an article from the Jerusalem post. The wiki article mentions some courts are receptive to efforts to attempt to reunify children who have been estranged or alienated from a parent, although concerns remain that there is little empirical evidence to support the concept of parental alienation. This is a paraphrase of the Jerusalem Post article. The implications of this paraphrase is that there are critics within the Israeli system to these courtroom measures to address parental alienation. In fact, this is not what the article says.

The article actually has little to do with Israel other than to mention how some courts how taking a stance to address parental alienation. Most of the article is just a discussion about parental alienation in general. The article states that Despite the ideas of parental alienation becoming more accepted, there are critics of the concept who argue there is little empirical evidence to support the idea of parental alienation and many are using the parental alienation as a defense against allegations of abuse of their children. This was not said in context to Israel but in the world at large. The way this article is paraphrased in Wiki implies that while some Israeli courts are addressing parental alienation issues, it is still a controversial topic in Israel.

The purpose of the "legal section" in the wiki article is to show how different countries are handling parental alienation in the legal arena. The Jerusalem Post article was quoted out of context and has nothing to do with the legal status of parental alienation in Israel.

In truth, this is another glaring example of what I mentioned in my last post about how this article takes constant opportunities to shed doubt on the validity of parental alienation theory by misquoting sources and making comments that are not appropriate to the point being discussed. I did not yet change the Israel section; rather, I am bringing my comments to the talk forum to prevent another tug of war in the editing forum. I encourage other editors to voice their opinion. If no-one can justify the Israel section the way it is now written, then it should be changed to reflect the reality. Indeed, this whole articles needs to be reviewed with a fine toothed comb to remove all such subtle biases and present a balanced presentation. If present editors are not willing to allow this to happen, the article should be submitted for review. Thanks for your consideration of this matter.Devoted Parent (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you believe that parental alienation as conceived within this article is generally accepted within Israeli courts, I suggest that you find a reliable source that supports your position and add it to the article. Nobody is going to object to the addition or substitution of a reliable source that is both on topic and better fulfills WP:RSLAW standards. Arllaw (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Arllaw, you consistently evade the issue. I never claimed that it is or isn't accepted generally accepted in Israeli courts. All I said is that the statement there are critics of the concept who argue there is little empirical evidence to support the idea of parental alienation and many are using the parental alienation as a defense against allegations of abuse of their children was not said in the article about Israeli courts. It is taken out of context in the Wiki article to imply that it is. This is misleading. It is not I that needs to bring a source, you need to document that this statement is true about Israeli courts. Devoted Parent (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not evaded any issues. Personal attacks are not helpful.


 * It seems reasonable to infer that you hold personal beliefs that are in conflict with the content of this article, but Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. You may reasonably infer the following: I am not interested in arguing with you, and I do not believe that debating every sentence of the article is a constructive use of time.


 * You may find it helpful to review some of the introductory materials on how to contribute to Wikipedia articles, and how to participate in effective talk page discussions. Arllaw (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was asked by an expert on Parental Alienation to insert a piece in the Israel area about Parental Alienation and it was taken out although it was referenced etc. Similar actions are happening to the Ireland section. I presume this gatekeeping exercise is an exercise to downplay the fact that Parental Alienation is a real concept and that this is being recognised throughout the world in courts and by governments. The censorship the interview by the present minister of justice on a public radio station about Parental Alienation is one of many examples of this strategy. Please tell me how this interview is not relevant to PA in Ireland and to the Government Justice Plan 2021 that incorporates international research and public consultation on Parental Alienation. The interview in question can be found on youtube "The Irish Minister of Justice Helen McEntee talks about Parental Alienation to Declan ECFM March 5th" Polandersondonegal (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Your expert should consider creating an account and contributing to the article, rather than acting through a proxy. Either way, you or your expert, edits need to meet Wikipedia's standards, and "a person I claim to be an expert wanted me to add it" doesn't meet the standard of reliable sourcing.


 * I suggest that you review the prior discussions in which editors have explained to you the purpose of Wikipedia and why an editor's strong personal disagreement with the content of an article is not a basis for changing its content. Arllaw (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Louisiana
In relation to the following claim, "The state of Louisiana states that child abuse “means any one of the following acts which seriously endanger the physical, mental, or emotional health and safety of the child: (a) The infliction, attempted infliction, or, as a result of inadequate supervision, the allowance of the infliction or attempted infliction of physical or mental injury upon the child by a parent or any other person.” The Department of Child and Family Services agreed that parental alienation is included in this definition and is therefore a reportable abuse when it inflicts mental injury on the child."

I can find no verification of this very broad claim, and I don't have access to the book, and the claim is vague -- when did this occur, in what context, and in what form was this agreement issued? Also, as the term "parental alienation" can be used in many different ways, it's important to verify that the DCFS used a definition consistent with this article. To the extent that there is support for this claim in the cited book, please present the actual reference from the footnote or any other citation given. Also, please note that the DCFS has no authority to interpret legislation, so while it will be interesting if they have taken the claimed position, that is not something that affects or changes the text of legislation or is binding on courts or prosecutors' offices, so while discussion of this sort of issue has a place in the article it's not legislative in nature. Arllaw (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
In relation to legal developments in Puerto Rico, "In 2020, Puerto Rico enacted one of the most advanced parent alienation laws in the world. Articles 7 and 9 of Law 223-2011, known as the "Law Protecting the Rights of Minors in the Custody Award Process," were amended to provide a full description of parental alienation theory. Among its components is a clause which views alienating behavior as a reason for custody change and/or reducing custody time. Another clause holds an alienating parent responsible to pay for therapy that is needed to treat the effects alienation."

This very short passage engages in inappropriate editorialization ("enacted one of the most advanced parent alienation laws in the world"; see WP:NPOV), is inaccurate (e.g., "were amended to provide a full description of parental alienation theory"; circular if referring to the definition within the statute, inaccurate if it means that it presents a unified concept of "parental alienation" as contemplated by this article) and is supported only by a reference to the law and to a non-authoritative blog post that falls short of general and subject-specific reliability standards. If this is arguably "one of the most advanced parent alienation laws in the world", then there will be reliable sources with which to support the content. There should be legal media coverage of the law, some professional commentary or analysis, perhaps a law review article, etc.

Also, please take care not to break the article's formatting and structure when adding content. If you need help, ask. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ireland - I updated and factually corrected the Ireland Except with 3 Citations and they were deleted? deleted
Why?
 * Read the editor notes. I see from your talk page that somebody offered to mentor you. You should consider following up on that. Arllaw (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The language,
 * "In 2021 the Irish Department of Justice tendered out plans to undertake research into the approaches to parental alienation taken by other jurisdictions . In Autumn the Irish Government will undertake public consultation on Parental Alienation as outlined in action 76 of the previously mentioned Justice Action Plan."


 * Is duplicative.


 * The single source cited for both sentences states,
 * "76. Undertake research into the approaches to parental alienation taken by other jurisdictions including public consultations"


 * That is what the first sentence states, "In 2021 the Irish Department of Justice tendered out plans to undertake research into the approaches to parental alienation taken by other jurisdictions". The second sentence is redundant except for the claim that the plan is to be implemented in Autumn, which is not supported by the referenced source (verification failure) and has thus been removed. Arllaw (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of false claims
Some recent edits falsely claim that an source cited within the article was not peer reviewed. The article was published in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, which is peer reviewed. It appears that these edits were made without investigation and with the intent of trying to discredit the author and the article, neither of which are an appropriate basis to change an article. It is important that changes to this article (and, for that matter, any Wikipedia article) be factually accurate. It is not appropriate to make false claims about references or to make personal attacks on their authors in order to try to discredit article content that is at odds with your personal beliefs and agenda. Arllaw (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In specific relation to peer review, the reliable sources article reasonably asserts, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science". A very large number of publications within the field of law, including elite publications, follow a different process called law review -- hence the concept of a "law review article".


 * It is possible for an article to be both law reviewed and peer reviewed. However, the fact that an article that addresses a legal topic is published in a journal that follows the law review process, not the peer review process, is not evidence that the article is somehow deficient -- law review remains the norm for most elite law journals. Similarly, the fact that an article that has undergone peer review but not law review does not mean that it should be flagged, e.g., as a "non-law-reviewed" article. Also, neither law review nor peer review are perfect processes and they're performed much better within some publications or by some publishers as compared to others. As the reliable sources article explains, "A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs." Arllaw (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

moved reference list
I inadvertently split the reference list in two and inserted part in the middle of the article. I can't figure out to restore it. Sorry for the faux pas. Could someone please restore it. Thanks.Devoted Parent (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) Use added in the middle of your edit, that's why the references appeared there.
 * (2) Your edit was a list of bills which were introduced in various state legislatures. There are 50 states, and many, many bills are introduced each legislative session. Most introduced bills never get acted upon, which is why they are not notable. This is especially the case when they are referenced by way of primary sources, and not by news accounts about the bills. If a bill is passed by a legislature and signed by the governor then it is notable.  It is even probably notable if it is passed and then vetoed.  It could be notable if there's some public controversy about it which gets covered int he press -- but your additions were all non-notable, introduced and not acted upon.  For this reason I have reverted your edit entirely, which also solved the referencing mistake.
 * (3) Please read WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources and WP:Primary sources for more information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If any editors are having difficulty following the points made, please engage in talk page discussion on these issues. It is not constructive to ignore the outlined policies and make changes in defiance of talk page discussion. Arllaw (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

United States laws in West Virginia and Rhode Island
This morning, I added relevant information about recently passed laws in West Virginia and Rhode Island. They were neutral in nature and merely quoted parts of the laws directly from the text of the bills. These additions were subsequently removed from the article without explanation. The laws are referenced and linked to the actual bills text. Why were they removed? The only thing I can think of is the the WV bill doesn't actually mention the words "parental alienation," but it clearly describes alienating behavior and this was the intent of the law. One might argue that the RI bill was a resolution and not a "law" per se, but it is clearly a governmental action by a state government that warrants mention in the US section just as court practices are mentioned in the section even though they are not laws. Please explain why these comments were removed.Devoted Parent (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The passage at issue:


 * "West Virginia passed HB2363 in 2021. This bill places limitations on awarding custody to someone who has overtly or covertly, persistently violated, interfered with, impaired, or impeded the rights of a parent or a child with respect to the exercise of shared authority, residence, visitation, or other contact with the child." Rhode Island passed S0854, a resolution that proclaims April 25th as Parental Alienation Awareness Day and urges all Rhode Islanders to help stop the abuse of innocent children caught in the crossfire of this destructive behavior from the people they love."


 * A strong, ongoing effort is being made to help you understand Wikipedia policy, and the policies and reasons for these edits have been explained to you. You posted conclusory claims based upon your original research and supported only by primary sources about West Virginia, even after being guided as to why that is not appropriate by Beyond My Ken in your "moved reference list" topic. You also posted a reference to a resolution, which is not legislation.


 * The fact that states have statutes that govern child custody decisions is a given -- every state has laws that govern child custody. That's not a basis upon which to allege, based upon nothing but your own personal belief, that they somehow constitute laws pertaining to "parental alienation" as contemplated by this article.


 * Your belief that resolutions are on par with laws is not correct. Resolutions are symbolic, not legislative, can be passed by a single house of a legislature, are not subject to any further veto or review, and have absolutely no relevance in any legal case or controversy. They may be passed on a wide range of topics that are not the subject of legislation, often as a nod to special interest groups or constituents.


 * Please note that while we welcome you to initiate talk page discussions of your edits, it is helpful for you to both read the prior discussions surrounding your edits (including the discussions that you initiate), and that you respond to inquiries about your edits as made by other editors. When you post questionable content to an article and ignore requests to explain or substantiate that content, you run the risk of causing other editors to question whether you are editing in good faith. It is also respectful of other editors' time and effort to read what they have said to you and to respond to it if you have questions, rather than engaging in repetitive discussion of points previously covered. Arllaw (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Efforts to address problematic changes to the article seem to fall into two distinct patterns: If the changes are painstakingly explained on this talk page, the explanation is ignored. No attempt is made to defend or justify the problematic changes. If the changes are explained in the editor notes but not explained in further detail on this talk page, a detailed explanation is demanded -- but then similarly ignored without acknowedgement or response.


 * Providing explanations of Wikipedia policy and elaborations of why specific edits and changes are inappropriate is a time-consuming process. If an explanation makes the problem with an edit so self-evident that no response is even offered, then the explanation should be unnecessary. In order to ensure that other editors' time is not wasted it makes sense to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and with the subject matter before making the changes. That saves everybody's time. Arllaw (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Please Use the Talk Page
Repeated efforts have been made to try to reach consensus for change here on the talk page, and also to encourage discussion of potentially contentious edits or of Wikipedia policy before problematic changes are made to the article. While talk page discussions here have not necessarily been effective at reaching consensus with those who favor more contentious changes to the article, a frustrating experience on the talk page is nonetheless superior to edit warring. The recent back-and-forth implicates the three-revert rule. It is also not appropriate to editorialize to try to inflate or deflate the significance of a study, or to post what are reasonably interpreted as defamatory comments about a study's author in order to try to discredit her work. These issues can be discussed here in more detail, if necessary. Arllaw (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * So what is wrong with adding in information about the main activism NGO made up of professional members from all spectrums of this issue? Especially when three anti PA organisations are mentioned in it? It needs balance "the main international organisation that proposes that the concept of parental alienation is addressed legally, clinically and socially is the Parental Alienation Study Group. It is an international, not-for-profit corporation. PASG has 800 members – mostly mental health and legal professionals – from 62 countries. PASG is an organization open to anyone who reports an interest in the topic of parental alienation—personally, professionally, or both. Many of its members have wrote books or papers on parental alienation. The PASG website contains many resources on parental alienation including a bibliography and much accredited and peer researched information that promotes and proves this concept, that is contentious to some." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polandersondonegal (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Content added to Wikipedia must meet standards of notability, and relevance and additions must be supported by reliable sources. Even if you believe that some event, information or organization should be getting more attention than it has earned, that's not a basis for adding it to Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is where an organization is described after it achieves notability or relevance, not a means for it to try to reach that point, and not as a means of promotion or advocacy. For organizations,
 * "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."


 * That means significant independent coverage, from reliable, secondary sources.


 * I see that you have asked no follow-up questions on editorialization, inline external links and potentially defamatory content, so can I reasonably infer that we're on the same page on those subjects? Arllaw (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems unreasonable to me to delete all information about PASG. It seems that there is no clear reason for the repeated deletion of information about PASG. Deletion is argued based on previous discussions. That makes it very difficult to have a discussion. You can refer to so many discussions on these types of topics that confusion will be the only result. --Joep Zander (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete somebody else's comments from an article talk page. See WP:TPO.
 * sorry I was absolutely not aware doing that. Somehow my editing crossed yours. --Joep Zander (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But it must have made a mistake in choosing the right option after warning for editing conflict. sorry. --Joep Zander (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If an organization is not notable, then it should not be included in Wikipedia. If it is notable, then its notability can be established through significant, independent coverage of the organization in reliable, secondary sources. If you believe that an organization meets the standard for inclusion, then you will provide the threshold level of reliable sources needed to justify its inclusion and to support any claims made about the organization. It is that simple. Arllaw (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Is it a reliable source for you if I reefer to an official Dutch governmental report in which 2 PASG members had an important role? I'm sure there are comparable references in other countryś --Joep Zander (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , No, we would need an independent source that provides substantial information about the group. Something like a book or a newspaper article where PASG is the main topic of the article. Just quoting them (or even worse, embedding a link to their own web site) or citing documents their members have contributed to is not sufficient. MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * some of your recent edits suggest that you will benefit from further explanation of Wikipedia's requirements for notability and reliable sourcing, as well as neutral point of view. Please use this page to ask questions so that editors can help you, as it would be beneficial to end this pattern of changes and reversions. Thank you. Arllaw (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok where is the reliability and notability of ? Meiers research that has been debunked? If it was objective why name 3 anti PA groups that are not as professional or international as PASG? Also why not mention that PA is worldwide and in every country showmn in google - Deliberate ommission ommission of facts is misinformation is it not? Polandersondonegal (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of reliable sources, are you asking for help understanding why something, such as a peer reviewed journal article, can be a reliable source, even if an editor strongly disagrees with its conclusions? Or are you asking for help understanding why your disagreement with an article used as a reference does not justify biased editing of its description, false claims about the article, or attempts to defame its author?


 * We have already explained how notability works. It doesn't matter if you as an editor believe that an organization that does not meet notability standards is better or more deserving of inclusion than organizations that meet those standards. An editor's personal wish to promote the organization is not the measure for inclusion. Arllaw (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * In relation to Google searches, as MrOllie explained in a note when removing the Google search result, "See WP:RS, we cannot use google searches as sources for anything, especially not to insert synthesis." Arllaw (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

posted as an edit to the article, "How can it be updated when a person who opposes the reality of the situation here is the persons in control of Wiki? On a number of occassions my edits have been ignored without reason or comment This is a form of censorship Ireland's family law courts are "in camera" that means that victims of parental alienation cannot talk about what the Judge said about Parental Alienation even if they have mentioned or agreed it has happened. So the statement made in the item is incorrect "in 2020, for the first time in a child access case a judge described a parent's actions as "parental alienation" it was the first time publicly but their are 100s of occassions in camera where section reports and judges have mentioned whether there is or not parental alienation in a case! The ommission of facts about Parental Alienation like that it is an issue in politics...."

Comments and questions such as this one belong on the talk page. We have had extensive discussion of the content of the Ireland section, as well as what is and is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. If those explanations remain unclear, the talk page remains the place for further discussion, not the article itself. Please also review WP:GOODFAITH. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Their has been no discussion just censorship - the present article is incorrect and lacks facts and omits the current situation in Ireland regqarding parental alienation - You do not live here and obviosuly do not understand the in camera rule means that there has been numerous mentions of parental alienation in Irish & UK courts. The Irish Government Minister of Justice answers on Parental Alienation and so much more have not been included either. This is censorship by ommission. So how can I get an bjective un biased observer to chair a fair discussion? As you are not un biased or objective @Arllaw Polandersondonegal (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. You can't cite a few primary sources as an excuse to inject your opinions into the article, see WP:SYN. Also, Wikipedia functions on consensus. You need to get agreement for your changes on this talk page - you cannot simply edit war by making the same changes over the objections of multiple editors. - MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * An editor's belief that something may have been discussed in proceedings that are closed to the public does not even rise to the level of original research, but instead relies upon speculation. Even if an editor has been a party to in camera proceedings, that editor's personal knowledge does not constitute acceptable (reliable) sourcing for a Wikipedia article. Searching a database constitutes original research. Posting a link to a database search while making sweeping generalizations about what the result ostensibly represents again falls back on speculation. Also, the Republic of Ireland is not part of the U.K. Arllaw (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

, please review our many discussions on the issues of editor conduct, content standards and etiquette. We have discussed all of the following issues in greater detail in the past, sometimes on multiple occasions. Please review this article about editor advocacy.

A court opinion is a primary source, a type of source that should be used sparingly and objectively, and your interpretation of a court decision constitutes original research. Wikipedia is built principally on secondary and tertiary sources, and is not a platform for publishing original research Your selection and spotlighting of an objectively obscure court opinion also raises issues of its notability and the specter of non-neutral editing. Your personal beliefs (speculation) about what may be happening in closed court proceedings is not something that is sourced at all, let alone reliably, and the inclusion of weasel words such as "it is believed" does not cure that problem.

If you believe that you have updated information beyond that which can be supported with reliable references, you need to find and add references to support the new information. It is not appropriate to make changes that leave the content of the article at odds with cited sources. It is also important that sources added to this article be reliable, and self-published content from advocacy websites is not reliable. Please also recall past discussions of the use of video clips, another primary source, as references. Further, as you host the video on your own YouTube account, your linking your own content through an advocacy site where it is embedded raises issues of conflict of interest. Arllaw (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * ECHR is a court Judgement from the European Court of Human Rights that sets out FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
 * 1. Declares the application admissible;
 * 2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
 * 3. Holds
 * (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts:
 * (i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to the first applicant and EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to each of the remaining applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
 * (ii) EUR 150 (one hundred and fifty euros), to the first applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, in respect of costs and expenses;
 * (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
 * 4. Invites the authorities to examine the applicants’ situation speedily and take the relevant action without further delay bearing in mind the findings in this judgment;
 * 5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
 * Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 March 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court https://laweuro.com/?p=14231 Polandersondonegal (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you read the comment you are replying to here? This court judgement is a primary source, as Arllaw just explained. MrOllie (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

are you following these discussions and considering what people have suggested to you? Are you considering the feedback provided on your talk page, including reminders about consensus, the problem of disruptive editing, and suggestions of how you might find a mentor to help you learn to be a constructive Wikipedia editor? I would urge you to please follow the suggestions that you have received, and to ask for any clarification you need about what is and is not appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article before you post material that ends up being reverted. Surely the pattern of addition and reversion is not something that you desire, so let's find a way to end it. Arllaw (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not disruptive editing but removal of factual information is CENSORSHIP. There is so so much wrong with the Parental Alienation Article I do not know where to start - is there a mediator on here I can objectively sort this mess / censorship out with please ! Polandersondonegal (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Factual information is removed from Wikipedia every day, because it is improperly sourced, improperly weighted, or just because a consensus of editors has decided it isn't worth including. This isn't 'CENSORSHIP', it is the normal editing process. You keep pasting the same sort of stuff into the article over and over without engaging with what you are being told about Wikipedia's standards on writing neutrally and properly using sources. If you continue to ignore Wikipedia's policies, your edits will not win over other Wikipedia editors. That means a consensus in favor of inclusion will not develop. Without a consensus, changes are not going to remain in the article. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Activism
Please explain why the fact that RI proclaimed Parental Alienation Awareness Day was removed. The article mentions Nevada and Georgia, why shouldn't a proclamation of a state senate that was signed by the Governor be included? Devoted Parent (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , We would need some indication that someone has taken note of this - a newspaper article, perhaps. State senates proclaim awareness days for all sorts of things, most of which are not noticed or remarked on by anyone. MrOllie (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This part of the article is totally un reprsentative of the situation and current situation about parental alienation activism world wide. It actually includes a reference to an unknown organisation no one has heard of yet ignores PASG an international expert organisation made up of psychiatrists, psychologists, lawyers, barristers, social workers, professorsm, authors etc Parental Alienation Study Group, Inc. (PASG), is an international, not-for-profit corporation. PASG has 800 members – mostly mental health and legal professionals – from 62 countries. I think wiki readers would like to know about them dont you? Polandersondonegal (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The reference to parental alienation day in Australia and New Zealand is supported by a reference to an article that makes the incidental statement, "The official Parental Alienation Awareness Day is 12th October". If this is an official parental alienation date, there should be an official source that can be referenced, as well as support for this being the official date of either or both of New Zealand and Australia. Arllaw (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell there is no official recognition of a "parental alienation day" in either New Zealand or Australia, and if there is an unofficial day the designation of that day and any events fail to inspire media coverage. I suggest that those who follow these pages and want to include more information about activism in the article help us out by finding reliable sources that describe such a day and its events, as the brief mention appended to the article presently being used as a source is not really sufficient to establish that such a day has in fact been recognized, who recognizes it, or whether that recognition is noteworthy. Arllaw (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point it appears that there is no official or noteworthy recognition or observation of "parental alienation day" in New Zealand or Australia. I again welcome any who are following (or criticizing) this article and its content to help out by identifying reliable sources. Arllaw (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

parental alienation syndrome section
There are details in the parental alienation syndrome section that need to be improved and there are also factual errors that need to be corrected. First, the third paragraph ends with “Despite lobbying by proponents, the proposal was rejected in December 2012”. “Despite lobbying by proponents” is both an editorial comment and poetic language and needs to be removed. The only relevant point is that it was not included in the DSM.

The fourth paragraph states: With the exclusion of PAS from the DSM-V, some advocates for the recognition of parental alienation as a diagnosable condition have argued that elements of parental alienation are covered in the DSM-5 under the concept of "Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention", specifically, "Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress." This is factually misleading. The very article that is quoted in footnote 76 states that it was authored by two editors of the DSM (M.Z.W. and W.E.N.) who “developed the chapter on “Other Conditions,” our comments here are consistent with the structure, content, and intentions of the DSM-5”. They further explain that: “When the DSM-5 was in development, there was a proposal to include parental alienation disorder as a new diagnosis. In response, members of the DSM-5 Task Force never said that they doubted the reality or the importance of parental alienation. However, they concluded that parental alienation did not meet the standard definition of a mental disorder, that is, “the requirement that a disorder exists as an internal condition residing within an individual” (Letterfrom D.A. Regier, January 24, 2012). Task Force members said that parental alienation should be considered an example of a relational problem because it involves a disturbance in the child’s relationship with one or both parents”.

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

It is clear from their statements that the DSM did not reject PAS nor was it excluded from the DSM. Rather, for the reasons mentioned they agreed that it is included under the CAPRD heading. Therefore, it was not the efforts of proponents of PAS (after the DSM decision to not mention PAS) to try to get PAS under CAPRD; rather this is precisely what the authors of the DSM intended.

In consideration of the above, I suggest the following changes to paragraph three and four:

In 2012, in anticipation of the release of the DSM-5, the fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, an argument was made for the inclusion of PAS in the DSM-5 as a diagnosis related to parental alienation.[74] The argument was based upon the position that parental alienation and a variety of other descriptions of behaviors represent the underlying concept of parental alienation disorder.[37] The proposal was rejected in December 2012.[75] Authors of the DSM the chapter on “Other Conditions” explained that the members of the DSM-5 Task Force never said that they doubted the reality or the importance of parental alienation. However, they concluded that parental alienation did not meet the standard definition of a mental disorder, that is, the requirement that a disorder exists as an internal condition residing within an individual.(76) Task Force members said that parental alienation should be considered an example of a relational problem because it involves a disturbance in the child’s relationship with one or both parents.(76) The Relational Processes Work Group recommended that it would be better not to include parental alienation as a specific relational problem but instead to use the appropriate broader category, that is, CAPRD, parent–child relational problem (PCRP), and/or child psychological abuse.(76) However, there are those who still argue that relational issues are not mental disorders or diagnoses, but are instead considered to be problems that may be relevant for diagnosis or treatment of a diagnosable disorder. While parent-child estrangement can serve as an example of a relational problem such as "Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress",[77] the observation of a relational issue is not a diagnosis.[78] Please share your thoughts on these edits and how we can improve this section. Thanks for your collaboration.Devoted Parent (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like your only objection to the first paragraph is its statement that advocates of PAS lobbied for its inclusion in the DSM-5. That is an accurate description of the effort by proponents of PAS, who worked very hard to try to convince the APA to accept their position, and the extent of that effort is evident within your proposed revisions for the subsequent paragraph. If you have another term that reflects that history, perhaps you can propose it as an alternative. Would you prefer, for example, "strenuous efforts"?
 * We have had extensive talk page discussions as a result of efforts of PAS advocates to push the idea that PAS was included in the DSM-5. That claim is adequately covered in the article, as written. We don't need to muddy up the article by adding nebulous claims about what various task force members supposedly believed in relation to PAS or other failed proposals for inclusion. We have had past discussions of this type of proposal, which you can find in the talk page archive.
 * We also don't need to introduce weasel words to try to soften the outcome, because the beliefs of advocates of one form or another of PAS don't change the content of the DSM-5. It's not a "there are those who still argue" thing to say that the "other conditions" section includes no diagnosable mental disorders -- that's explicit within the DSM-5 itself (page 715, in the introduction to the "Other Conditions" chapter, "The conditions and problems listed in this chapter are not mental disorders.") Arllaw (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We also don't need to introduce weasel words to try to soften the outcome, because the beliefs of advocates of one form or another of PAS don't change the content of the DSM-5. It's not a "there are those who still argue" thing to say that the "other conditions" section includes no diagnosable mental disorders -- that's explicit within the DSM-5 itself (page 715, in the introduction to the "Other Conditions" chapter, "The conditions and problems listed in this chapter are not mental disorders.") Arllaw (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We also don't need to introduce weasel words to try to soften the outcome, because the beliefs of advocates of one form or another of PAS don't change the content of the DSM-5. It's not a "there are those who still argue" thing to say that the "other conditions" section includes no diagnosable mental disorders -- that's explicit within the DSM-5 itself (page 715, in the introduction to the "Other Conditions" chapter, "The conditions and problems listed in this chapter are not mental disorders.") Arllaw (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The objection to lobbying comment is not because of its validity; rather, it is an editorial comment that gives the impression that PA is such a weak theory that it could not get included in the DSM in spite of intense lobbying efforts.

I do not understand the "nebulous claims" comment. The article in footnote 76 was written by the authors of the Other Conditions section of the DSM. They are explaining the rationale of the section and why it would include PA. This is not what they "supposedly believe", they are talking. How can you claim otherwise? If you will contend that I am misunderstanding the article, then please enlighten me about how you understand it. Furthermore, it is necessary to understand some things about the DSM. The items listed in the chapter on Other Conditions are not "mental disorders," but are considered "mental conditions." That is official DSM terminology, if you read the introduction to that chapter carefully. That's why PA is not a mental disorder, but is a type of mental condition. Everything in the Other Conditions chapter can be diagnosed. It is not necessary to be a "mental disorder" to be diagnosed. Certainly, child maltreatment and intimate partner violence can be diagnosed, and they are in that chapter. In fact, it is not necessary to be in DSM or ICD for something to be a diagnosis. DSM and ICD do not "own" the word "diagnosis." Various organizations publish their own system of diagnoses. E.g., the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. Family therapy organizations. Psychoanalysts. And the USA National Institute of Mental Health. There are common terms -- not in DSM -- that are frequently diagnosed. The best known is psychopathy, a common diagnosis not in DSM. The items in the Other Conditions chapter can be a primary diagnosis for a patient or as a supplement to a regular diagnosis. In consideration of the above, I again submit that the editors collaborate to rewrite this section along the lines of my suggestion in order to accurately portray what really happened with the DSM.Devoted Parent (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please use proper formatting when adding your comments to the talk page so that you don't scramble the discussion and make it appear that posts made before yours are responses to what you have written.
 * You don't like the word "lobbied" even though you have not demonstrated its use to be inaccurate, because you think it carries a negative connotation. Your personal dislike for a word does not transform its use into "editorializing".
 * We have previously discussed and reached consensus on the debates that led up to the exclusion of P.A. from the DSM-5, and have extensively discussed the incorrect claim that P.A. is diagnosable under the DSM-5 under a code that the DSM-5 explicitly states is not diagnostic. You are repeating claims that have already been discussed, and have not demonstrated why past consensus should be revisited. The question of whether non-diagnostic terms are used apart from the DSM-5 is irrelevant to the question of what is diagnosable under the DSM-5. Your claim that "The items in the Other Conditions chapter can be a primary diagnosis for a patient..." is false and, as already documented, explicitly contradicted within the DSM-5.
 * For purposes of clarity, the comment below this was written before your insertion, not as a response to you (or to this comment). Arllaw (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We have previously discussed and reached consensus on the debates that led up to the exclusion of P.A. from the DSM-5, and have extensively discussed the incorrect claim that P.A. is diagnosable under the DSM-5 under a code that the DSM-5 explicitly states is not diagnostic. You are repeating claims that have already been discussed, and have not demonstrated why past consensus should be revisited. The question of whether non-diagnostic terms are used apart from the DSM-5 is irrelevant to the question of what is diagnosable under the DSM-5. Your claim that "The items in the Other Conditions chapter can be a primary diagnosis for a patient..." is false and, as already documented, explicitly contradicted within the DSM-5.
 * For purposes of clarity, the comment below this was written before your insertion, not as a response to you (or to this comment). Arllaw (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For purposes of clarity, the comment below this was written before your insertion, not as a response to you (or to this comment). Arllaw (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I would further addd that a sub category is provided mentioning that Parental Alienation as a whole was added into the ICD11 but withdrawn after pressure from feminist groups opposed to the concept. But that there are still coded within the ICD11 that are parts of the concept of parental alienation:- Existing ICD11 Codes (as of 2020) that are elements of Parental Alienation Existing ICD11 Codes (as of 2020) :- QE82.2 Personal history of psychological abuse - child verbal abuse - child emotional abuse QE52.0 Caregiver-child relationship problem - Problems associated with upbringing -
 * Problems associated with absence, loss or death of others QE51 Problem associated with interactions with spouse or partner QE52.1 Loss of love relationship in childhood. Problems associated with harmful or traumatic events QE80-QE8Z Problems associated with the justice system & finances QE82.2 Personal history of psychological abuse MB28.4 Hostility QE91 Parental overprotection 6D10.Z Personality disorder, severity unspecified. I will find the source of this important information shortly Polandersondonegal (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The ICD11 lists Traditional Chinese Medicine as well. The fact that something appears in the ICD (or in this case, was considered and rejected) does not indicate that it is actually supported by mainstream science. - MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Discussion of the ICD11, and whether some conditions it describes have some similarity to one theory or another of PAS, has no bearing on discussion of the history of the DSM-5, or of what is and is not included in the DSM-5. We have had past discussions of the index term issue of the ICD11, and of its removal. I don't think that we need either a talk page discussion or changes to the article that could come across as efforts to vilify European feminists as supposedly unreasonable opponents of PAS-type theories. Arllaw (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not vilify feminists as it is fact look it up and you will see. Non clinical feminist pressure removed PA from ICD11 but the codes given make up what it consists of Polandersondonegal (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Look it up and you will see" is not a substantiation of a claim. Whatever "may be out there", it remains the case that finger-pointing at feminists is not an appropriate addition to the article, nor is it relevant to this talk page. Arllaw (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Did I say anywhere that PA is science? Domestic Violence or Coercive control are not science either? However it is real abuse like others mentioned and all those codes as suggested fit into what it is; so wiki would be informing Wiki readers of what pa consists of. Polandersondonegal (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are trying to address here, but a big part of the issue has consistently been that proponents of P.A.-type theories want to push theories of P.A. that are not accepted within the psychological community at large or well-supported by research. Wikipedia is not a forum to advance fringe theories. See also WP:RS and WP:RSMED.
 * If you take issue with what has been included in other articles, I suggest taking it up on the talk pages for those articles. Suffice to say, the presence of unsound theories in one article or another stands as a basis to improve those articles, not to lower Wikipedia's standards. Arllaw (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that Parental Alienation is not real and that the cinical, legal, and scientific evidence on PA has accumulated for over 35 years. There have been over 1,000 peer-reviewed articles, chapters, and books published on the topic, and the empirical research on the topic has expanded greatly, leading to what has been considered a “blossoming” of the scientific field. And you are also implying that all research including the latest Irish government international research to it is a waste of time? Does this not show that you are an opponent and gatekeeper on an issue in Wikipedia and hence obstructing readers from knowing the full story of it? Polandersondonegal (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We're saying that proponents still haven't convinced the psychological community, and Wikipedia follows the scientific community on issues like this one. There are lots of fields that get lots of funding, research, and governmental support (Homeopathy is a good example), but none of that matters on Wikipedia if the relevant scientific community still isn't convinced. You should be expending your efforts with them, not here. - MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We're saying that proponents still haven't convinced the psychological community, and Wikipedia follows the scientific community on issues like this one. There are lots of fields that get lots of funding, research, and governmental support (Homeopathy is a good example), but none of that matters on Wikipedia if the relevant scientific community still isn't convinced. You should be expending your efforts with them, not here. - MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I am taken aback by the "fringe theory" comment by Arllaw. Please consider the following: Leading mental health and legal organizations have acknowledged the reality of PA through their publications, national & international meetings, and educational programs for their members. For example: –The ABA published a book by S. Clawar, Children Held Hostage (1st ed. 1991; 2nd ed. 2013), an exhaustive study of 1,000 families in which the children were brainwashed to dislike and reject their parents. –The American Psychological Association published Elizabeth M. Ellis's Divorce Wars: Interventions with Families in Conflict (2000) which discusses in detail assessment and treatment of PA. –The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry published ​Practice Parameters for Child Custody Evaluators (1997) which was considered an "AACAP Official Action." That document refers explicitly to "parental alienation" and explains the phenomenon. In addition, Clinical, legal, and scientific evidence on PA has accumulated for over 35 years. There have been over 1,200 scholarly papers published on the topic, and the empirical research on the topic has expanded greatly over the last few years, leading to what has been considered a “blossoming” of the scientific field. Furthermore, PA was found to be material, probative, relevant, and admissible in court cases across all 50 U.S. states. Regardless of Arllaw's personal point of view about PA, PA is well established and accepted in the scientific and legal communities and cannot be swept under the rug as a fringe theory. On the contrary, to adopt such a position is actually adopting a fringe theory. Over and over again in these discussions factual based questions are not responded to or are pushed off by "word wall" and other claims to avoid answering the questions. That is not scholarly nor intellectually honest. Arllaw's belief that PA is a fringe theory is extremely troubling since he views all discussion on this topic from this perspective. As a result, he takes the liberty to downplay any information that confirms the validity of PA and to ignore pertinent edits. I request that Arllaw and others make the effort to maintain the neutrality of this article and not let their own opinions bias the presentation.Devoted Parent (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I was responding specifically to the statement by Polandersondonegal, "Did I say anywhere that PA is science?" If you want to argue the scientific merits of P.A. with him, you should address your comments to him. You have come into this discussion with a very clear agenda, whereas I do not. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from mischaracterizing my effort to uphold Wikipedia's standards and policies as bias or dishonesty. See No personal attacks. Arllaw (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * sO YOU DO NOT HAVE AN AGENDA? REALLY - YES MY AGENDA IS THE TRUTH AND FACTS BUT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING THEM TO BE PUT ON THE ARTICLE AND ARE THUS MISINFORMING WIKI READERS AND THE PUBLIC? where is the EHRC judgement on malta gone? Where is the rference to PASG gone? Where is the fact that PA is being campaigned on and legislated on in countries? SORRY you are one of the people that do not believe Parental Alienation is REAL and you delete the facts about it.
 * Regarding science maybe you can enter the following academeical references and balance it with counter argument?
 * Clinical, legal, and scientific evidence on PA has accumulated for over 35 years. There have been over 1,000 peer-reviewed articles, chapters, and books published on the topic, and the empirical research on the topic has expanded greatly, leading to what has been considered a “blossoming” of the scientific field. Harman, Bernet, & Harman, 2019; Lorandos & Bernet, 2020; Lorandos, 2020 Polandersondonegal (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please recall, Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Your post above and prior talk page contributions, as well as your editor notes, suggest that you are very angry that Wikipedia is not available as a platform to advance your beliefs and agenda. Your past insertion of your own research and conclusions into the article undermines your claim that your beliefs are supportable by WP:RS and WP:RSMED references. If you want to propose properly supported changes, nothing is stopping you from doing so.
 * Certainly, you are entitled to your feelings, but you also need to be respectful of other editors and to refrain from personal attacks. The failure to do so will not result in the lowering or abandonment of Wikipedia's standards for inclusion and is destructive to consensus-building. Arllaw (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you realise there is an estimated 10% of all suicides in Ireland connected to Parental Alienatation? Here is a quote from a grandmother - My son killed himself. He no longer has a voice, to tell his little boy the truth. Don't let the evil win, our children and Grandchildren are only babies for a short while, we love them, they will know and love us in the end." This is what you are not helping to stop this is reality - where can I get an objective unbiased mediator on here to look at your editing to date? Polandersondonegal (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to be mindful that you are obstructing the truth and reality - why should I have respect for anyone who is stopping and acting as a gatekeeper to stop the situation being known about? Why -is ECHR rulings (higher than national government rulings) on Pa deleted? Why is what is happening about PA in countries like Malta and Gibralter deliberately deleted? Why is cinical, legal, and scientific evidence on PA has accumulated for over 35 years. There have been over 1,000 peer-reviewed articles, chapters, and books published on the topic, and the empirical research on the topic has expanded greatly, leading to what has been considered a “blossoming” of the scientific field. not included and so so much more? Polandersondonegal (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, not truth - MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are a Gatekeeper against Parental Alienation - How can I get an objectie person to mediate our conflict please? Polandersondonegal (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You may have more luck if you try to reach consensus, rather than engaging in what seems fairly characterized as provocative, drive-by edits that by now you know don't meet Wikipedia standards, followed by a litany of complaints and accusations against other editors when they clean up the article. Arllaw (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Polandersondonegal, to answer your question about somebody to help "mediate", you can try one of the methods described here WP:DR. In particular, a request for comment WP:RFC might be a way to go. Honestly I don't think it will be worth your while, because your edits are reverted because they go against multiple policies that have been pointed to you over and over again e.g. WP:RS;WP:RSMED; WP:V; WP:RGW and outside objective editors will tell you exactly the same thing.
 * But consider this a final warning too. If you again edit this or other article in the way you have been, ignoring again WP's policies and guidelines that have been carefully and patiently explained to you, I will ask for administrative action against you.Slp1 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So where is the consensus when Facts about Parental Alienation are being omitted in this article? is this not a fact? https://laweuro.com/?p=14231 So where is Malta in the article? Is this not a fact https://www.gbc.gi/news/statement-minister-justice-and-equality-samantha-sacramento-parental-alienation so where is Gibralter in the article - the line "for the first time in a child access case" which I corrected on numerous cases is misleadingv as any one in the family courts will admit that parental alienation comes up numerous times 1000s even - this was the first time that the in camera rule was lifted to publicly show that pa exists roisin o'shea in a government initiative stated that "With Ministerial consent, the two researchers observed 360 cases in the family law courts over 14 days between March 2017 and April 2019. In cases where access to children was an issue, they identified parental alienation arising in 24 per cent of those disputes and parental estrangement in 13 per cent." https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/parenting/parents-are-being-eradicated-from-the-lives-of-their-children-for-no-good-reason-1.3947575 this was deleted - Yesterday I put in an excerpt from Jennifer Mueller, JD Doctor of Law, Indiana University about PA https://www.wikihow.com/Author/Jennifer-Mueller-JD DELETED!!! So where is the compromise where is the facts? To any outsider this Wikipedia article seems factual but it is out of date and misleading and missing out what is happening throughout the wolrd on this awful form of child and parent abuse. So what do I do? Polandersondonegal (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood Wikipedia on a few things. First, we can only compromise within our rules. Think of it this way. In Ireland you no doubt have some rules for driving. What side of the road you drive on, how fast you can go, who gets right of way at a junction. Here in Canada we have different rules. If I come to Ireland then I have to obey the Irish driving laws. I can’t say “But this is how we drive in Canada”. I can’t say “But this is a better way and I want to show you how”. I can’t say “ where is the compromise?“. Similarly here at Wikipedia. We have editing rules. These rules have been developed over the years because experience has taught us that building an encyclopedia works best this way, with these rules. It doesn’t matter how unfair you think they are, they are not up for compromise. You can try to change the rules but that won’t happen here at an article talkpage. Every time your edits have been reverted, you have been given an explanation of what rule they break either here on the talk page or in the edit summaries.  Please review those and you’ll get your answers.
 * One other thing seems to be causing confusion. You understandably want to get the word out about “this awful form of child and parent abuse”. But Wikipedia is not the place to do that. We have specific rules to prevent that happening because it has proved so disruptive over the years. See WP:RGW  You may be disappointed and may not agree with this, it is just the way that it is. If you want to inform the world here about parental alienation on Wikipedia, you have to follow our rules about editing, including the content you can add. The good news is that these same rules apply to an editor who strongly wants to promote the idea that PA does not exist. As to your final question, “So what do I do?”, it really is your choice. Either follow the rules, or if you can’t or won’t follow them, create your own website and put whatever information you want on it for the world to see.Slp1 (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok Rules yes are needed however the Editor is not abiding by them? So maybe you should be asking him or her? So please ask the Editor why the so many countries that have or are developing legislation on PA are excluded? Why a seminal ruling about PA by the European Court of Human Rights has been excluded? Why the statement about the Irish judgement is incorrect? Why an insignificant NGO is quoted about PA "APSAC" when a professional body PASG with over 800 members mosty involved professionals are ommited? Why the numbers of academic papers and court reports naming and incorporating parental alienation and false parental alienation are ommitted? These are facts not opinions and can be all cited? So are you implying that Wikipedia is not factual but dependent upon the main editor's viewpoint? (what qualifications does she/he have on Parental Alienaiton?) Polandersondonegal (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been explained again and again. Please read the many replies that have been made to your posts higher up the page and at Talk:Parental alienation/Archive 8, but I, for one, will not be repeating myself. MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This highly significant judgement by the European Court of human Rights which is superior to national legislative judgements in Europe and the UK was deleted! In actual fact there is not a metion of PA in Malta in the article
 * https://laweuro.com/?p=14231
 * Thank you Polandersondonegal (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * MrOllie, after reading your definition of Parental Alienation and the comments here, one thing is obvious: You are not an alienated parent. It's hard to imagine how anyone who has never experienced something can claim to understand it. Like listening to someone who has never had sex explaining what it's like based on the data they've researched. Your claim to be unbiased is absurd. The first sentence gives you away. And don't claim to not have an agenda. Look at the condescending tone of your responses. You are out to prove yourself right. Thudpuckers (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * MrOllie, after reading your definition of Parental Alienation and the comments here, one thing is obvious: You are not an alienated parent. It's hard to imagine how anyone who has never experienced something can claim to understand it. Like listening to someone who has never had sex explaining what it's like based on the data they've researched. Your claim to be unbiased is absurd. The first sentence gives you away. And don't claim to not have an agenda. Look at the condescending tone of your responses. You are out to prove yourself right. Thudpuckers (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The reasons why your edits have been reverted have been explained to you over and over again, and at this point it is your job to go back over the responses to learn what you need to learn. And/or you could ask work through the tutorial material here, particularly the parts about verifiability and  reliable sources. I will also add that you need to understand about copyright infringement WP:CV but I will give more information about this on your talkpage.Slp1 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok So how do I insert passage on Parental Alienation in Northern Ireland
 * Where it the Minister of the Department of Health has answered that "Any scenario where a parent is alienated from their child carries a risk of post-traumatic stress and suicidal ideation" this will be available soon Polandersondonegal (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok Gibralter has legislated on Parental Alienation and it is here https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/legislations/children-act-2009-2332/download when I previously added this info into the article it was deleted? What am I supposed to do more? Polandersondonegal (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to find reliable sources, meeting Wikipedia's standards, that address legislation or other news events and show them to be relevant to the subject matter of this article. See WP:RSMED, WP:RSLAW, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE. Arllaw (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would add that they need to be reliable secondary sources.Slp1 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why cant legislators primary sources be used? So is the PASG website https://pasg.info/ alternatively https://www.vanderbilt.edu/ websites ok to use as secondary websites? Polandersondonegal (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you reading any of the policies that are being linked? You keep asking questions that have been addressed in links that have just been posted for you. MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So are you implying that government sources are not reliable? Are these sources unreliable? https://www.gbc.gi/news/statement-minister-justice-and-equality-samantha-sacramento-parental-alienation + https://laweuro.com/?p=14231 + http://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/questions/searchresults.aspx?&qf=1&asb=0&tbm=0&anb=9&abp=0&sp=1&qfv=2&asbv=0&tbmv=1&anbv=82&abpv=0&spv=24&ss=eSlQTojJwIL6rybjfpE0SQ==&per=1&fd=&td=&pm=0&asbt=All%20Members&anbt=the%20Minister%20of%20Health&abpt=All%20Parties&spt=2021-2022 Polandersondonegal (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your replies don't appear to have any relation to what you are replying to. MrOllie (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Above is unanswered - I hope you take down my latest edit as it is already in Wikipedia and will show the hipocrisy and agenda of who admins this page Polandersondonegal (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did. You still have not taken any of the policy problems that have been pointed out to you again and again into account. MrOllie (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did. You still have not taken any of the policy problems that have been pointed out to you again and again into account. MrOllie (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)